Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Spanky · 05-22-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

What do you think the evidence is?

Chris, I am very, very curious to know also what evidence you see/have found that leads you to an historical Jesus?
This is not a challenge. Just a curiosity.
Because I read here often I find you very intriguing and am at a loss to why you are inclined to what you are.
I am especially curious to your inclinations because you come across as so sure that Jesus existed (as if the evidence was irrefutable).

As far as the OP is concerned, I feel that the writer is persuasive and to the point. It is a summation of pretty much everything I know and have learned (just written much better than I could)!

Johnny Skeptic · 05-22-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salamander

Of course there is no definitive evidence of a specific Jesus of Nazareth who preached and was crucified by Romans for supposedly making a Royal Claim to be King of the Jews.

What does one accept as evidence? Most historical figures are based on their accounts by contemporaries. The best hearsay evidence is that which is recorded by the man/woman's own people, and recorded by other people including enemies who have nothing to gain. The existence of Julius Caesar is quite reliable in that he left writings. His death led to a Roman Civil War with battles recorded. Julius was known by the Gauls, the Greeks, and the Egyptians.

The same applies to Octavian (Augustus), Nero, Constantine, and Theodosius. Cyrus and Xerxes of Persia were well documented by Persian and Greek historians and even in the Book of Daniel in the Bible.

Jesus has a weaker case in that he left no writings. His only accounts claiming to know him were the Gospels which were by those who wanted to believe in him. Logically one can never prove Jesus didn't exist. But the Roman historians only mention that there were people who believed in Jesus. However, the Romans meticulously recorded the execution of rebel leaders, insurrectionists, rival Emperors, rebellious native kings, or over-ambitious generals. They spread the news of such executions to serve as warnings to would be rebels or royal claimants. Examples were made of Vercingetorix of the Gauls, Boadica of the Icenii, Antonius and Cleopatra, Pompeii, and Queen Zenobia of Syria.

One should question why the Romans did not make Jesus into another "dead rebel" example. Yet they fail to even mention it in official records. All of this makes the existence of a human Jesus at the very best "controversial."

The divinity mythology is clearly myth, it seems to have been copied from perhaps a dozen older virgin born god-men redeemers who died and resurrected. It is interesting that those who made Jesus into a god were not the Jews who were around him, but pagan Romans and Greeks who not surprisingly used the traditional god-man redeemer story applied to Jesus.

I like your post. Regarding "All of this makes the existence of a human Jesus at the very best "controversial," didn't you mean "least" instead of "best"?

Matthew 4:24-25 say "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan."

Fundamentalist and some moderate Christians would have us believe that the Romans did not care enough about events like that to record them.

If Jesus actually healed lots of people, why did he do it? If he did it because he cared about them, why did he only heal a very small fraction of the sick people in the world? If he did it in order to demonstrate his power, why did he restrict demonstrating his power to a very small geographic region in the world? If you rose from the dead, and wanted people to know that you rose from the dead, you would not limit your appearances to just a few people in one small geographic region in the world. There do not seem to be sensible motives for many of the things that Jesus did, which suggest that he did not do many of the things that the New Testament attributes to him.

Today, millions of Christians disagree regarding what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

Why do fundamentalist and some moderate Christians make such a big deal out of the Resurrection? If Elvis Presley rose from the dead, they certainly would not worship him just because he rose from the dead.

spamandham · 05-22-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

What do you think the evidence is?

In this particular case, it would include all 1st century sources, manuscripts, archaeological artifacts, etc., as well as prior similar materials that can be shown to be relevant. It would also include 2nd century or later similar artifacts to an exponentially diminishing degree.

Feel free to add to the list if you think something was left out.

Minimalist · 05-22-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Jesus has a weaker case in that he left no writings.

The case is weak because no one living and writing in the early to mid-first century ever seems to have heard of him.

We are left with a pile of self-serving religious documents which could easily have been tampered with throughout the years.

Philo of Alexandria wrote the Embassy to Gaius (Caligula), c. 40 AD, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prick Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed supposedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action.

Yet....nary a word. Clearly, the story had not been invented in 40 AD.

3DJay · 05-22-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

"There is no contemporary Christian testimony to exlude." ~ Me
"Paul?" ~ You

1. You, obviously, don't know what you're talking about, because Paul admits to not even meeting a living Jesus, and witness anything historical about him, which he could give testimony about.

2. I gave you the date of the earliest manuscripts of Paul's supposed writings, and you put forth that he was quoted earlier. Since you are trying to put forth that he was a contemporary source, I'm assuming you think there's some contemporary quote of Paul's, somewhere. If not, what was your point in bringing him up?

Peace

Soul Invictus · 05-22-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I think the conclusion is basically true, even though what he says at this link has been pretty muched rehashed ad infinitum, and does little to disprove a historical Jesus.

Wait a minute. I didn't know that a historical person was proved to begin with. I read a couple of these threads, so I may be incorrect, but I usually read comments to the effect as to if there is "concrete" or "definitive" evidence to validate the existence of a historical personage named Jesus. I never understood the significance of stressing whether evidence was concrete or definitive not - The way I see it is that things submitted as evidence qualify as good or valid evidence, or bad and unconvincing (i.e. not) evidence. So good evidence ends the discussion; bad evidence makes your claim unworthy of validation. Am I thinking of this obtusely?

Quote:

I think what he may be overlooking, is that most people - even nonchristians - are starting with the assumption Jesus was a historical person (although most non-Christians and even some Christians reject the magical aspects).

This means nothing. I see argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad populum all over this.

Quote:

So it isn't enough to say "there is no credible evidence he existed", since most people would be expecting positive evidence he didn't exist.

Which leads to a flawed conclusion.

spamandham · 05-22-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Wait a minute. I didn't know that a historical person was proved to begin with.

I agree. But that's the position most people are starting from nonetheless. My guess is that Mr. Walker's target audience is laymen, rather than scholars, so he needs to appeal to them if he wants to be effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

This means nothing. I see argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad populum all over this.

In a formal debate, or among skeptics, that's true, but that isn't what his website is. This thread seems to be addressing his site, and his site seems to be an attempt to sway believers. They are not going to care if there is no credible evidence in favor of HJ, unless they have been shown positive evidence of the nonexistene of HJ first. Most people consider historical tradition to be it's own evidence. It isn't of course, but that bias has to be overcome.

Soul Invictus · 05-22-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I agree. But that's the position most people are starting from nonetheless. My guess is that Mr. Walker's target audience is laymen, rather than scholars, so he needs to appeal to them if he wants to be effective.

Gotcha. I thought your comments were personal assertions. My bad. Preaching to the choir.

Quote:

In a formal debate, or among skeptics, that's true, but that isn't what his website is. This thread seems to be addressing his site, and his site seems to be an attempt to sway believers. They are not going to care if there is no credible evidence in favor of HJ, unless they have been shown positive evidence of the nonexistene of HJ first. Most people consider historical tradition to be it's own evidence. It isn't of course, but that bias has to be overcome.

I understand what you're saying but WTF? :banghead:

How. Is. This. Done?

spamandham · 05-22-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

I understand what you're saying but WTF? :banghead:

How. Is. This. Done?

For what it's worth, I started trying to do that (at a very high level), here

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...6&postcount=14

I think there IS actual evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels was a fictional character - a literary device used to tell symbolic stories. Since it's rare (although not completely unheard of) for the main character of a fictional story to be someone who actually lived, this acts as positive evidence that the author of Mark knew Jesus was not a real person.

Granted, this argument probably wouldn't work on a strong believer, because they see the striking similarities between the OT and the Gospels as proof of fulfilled prophecy, rather than evidence of an intentionally contrived fictional story.

If Jesus really was not historical, it seems like we have a good chance of finding positive evidences of that beyond just 'there is no credible evidence'.

Chris Weimer · 05-22-2007, 09:39 PM

You do speak English, right?

con·tem·po·rar·y (kən-tĕm'pə-rĕr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.
2. Of about the same age.
3. Current; modern: contemporary trends in design.

n., pl. -ies.

1. One of the same time or age: Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.
2. A person of the present age.

[Medieval Latin contemporārius : Latin com-, com- + Latin tempus, tempor-, time + Latin -ārius, -ary.]

Jeez, please tell me where Paul had to have met Jesus in order for them to be contemporaries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

"There is no contemporary Christian testimony to exlude." ~ Me
"Paul?" ~ You

1. You, obviously, don't know what you're talking about, because Paul admits to not even meeting a living Jesus, and witness anything historical about him, which he could give testimony about.

Yes, obviously I don't know what I'm talking about, because obviously Paul says nothing of Jesus or anyone that Jesus met.

Quote:

2. I gave you the date of the earliest manuscripts of Paul's supposed writings, and you put forth that he was quoted earlier. Since you are trying to put forth that he was a contemporary source, I'm assuming you think there's some contemporary quote of Paul's, somewhere. If not, what was your point in bringing him up?

Yep, you confirmed my suspicions. You don't know what you're talking about. Are you aware of the dates of any manuscripts? Which ones are contemporaneous with their authors? What's the earliest Catullus manuscript?

Why do the dates of the earliest manuscripts matter? What are you implying?

Obviously, you have no clue.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.