mountainman

This question may in one specific way be expressed to provide numerical output, as a measure of relative historicity, by following the method outlined by Richard Carrier, as a blueprint in calculating a meaure of the historicity of any specific event or person as compared to another similar event of person. We would need a large relational database of criteria to be established for all the authors of antiquity. We could then examine the various groups, one by one, starting with the Eusebian "christians" and then the "prenicene pagans", etc. The theory space so defined will evidence a massive non-linear boundary event centered on the "Council" of Nicaea.

For evidence stemming after this boundary event, a new dimension of authenticity will appear but it will also evidence the turbulence of opposing polemicists - pagan and christian - for the next few hundred years, and onwards to this present day.


Isn't this a good question though?
As if we can expect answers to appear without the questions.
Well done Clive. My hat is off to you!

Who was it (was it Albert?) who once said the answers are unimportant, since there will always be eventually someone who finds an answer to an asked question. The real important things are the questions to be asked.


This simply demonstrates that the notions and issues related to an examination of "christian origins" run deep in the human psyche, probably due to conditioning. I have found the same problem: namely, atheists are refusing to examine their own emotional baggage. (By this I mean what is supposed to be an objective analysis turns to emotional appeal -- which is not the field of historical research focussed on evidence).


Imperial involvement in christian origins has not yet been examined with the minuteness of care that the issue warrants. We are either dealing with an intinerant preacher who won the lottery in the religious stakes, or we are dealing with case of massive forgery and fraud by the first christian emperor. And I do not mean Philip the Arab.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Solitary Man

There is no question that Hitler existed. It has nothing to do with reverence, and everything to do with crackpot theorists proposing lunatic alternatives, like the second post in this thread, the "Mithras" theory.

Yellum Notnef

What the fuck does Hitler have to do with this? Why did you even go there? Was Hitler a fucking god?

Maybe some of the theories are bonkers, but the Jesus we've all been brought up to believe at least existed as a human, nevermind as a god, sounds just as bonkers.
I can't help but think if it were not for centuries of Christian tradition being forced on the western world Jesus' existence would not be so taken for granted.

No Robots

Don't you rather mean the opposite, that if it were not for centuries of Christian tradition being forced on the western world Jesus' existence would not be so taken for questionable? I mean, no one devotes time to proving Buddha never existed.

Christ has always been a thorn in the side to the ruling mob. The religious mob ingeniously co-opted him into their own shell-game. That worked until religion collapsed, unable to any longer convince people that it faithfully represented Christ and his teaching. Our new evolutionist ruling mob needs to get rid of him completely. After all, if the greatest of men has come and gone, there isn't much point to evolution, is there? Evolutionism requires that the historicity of Christ be denied. Mythicism is the pointy end of the evolutionist stick.

Yellum Notnef

Utter nonsense and straight out of Roger Pearse's twisted playbook.

Yeah, there was no Jesus simply because we don't like him.
I hope you take some time tonight to ponder just how stupid your comment was.

No Robots

:funny: You da man! :thumbs:

J-D

Here, there is no consensus.

And even if there is a consensus in the real academic world, you won't find out about it here, because there are people here so committed to their own positions that they will deny the existence of any such consensus if it conflicts with their own views.

Civil1z@tion

Jesus isn't the only mythological figure who probably existed. Another example is the German myth of Siegfried (oringinally called Sigurth) who goes out and kills a dragon (only Sigurth and Beowulf have killed dragons in Germanic myth) and takes his hoard of gold. In fact, while the mythical aspects of the tale are definitely false, Sigurth himself probably existed. In fact, he was probably a Frankish prince living around 400-410 AD. The reason this is thought is because his story continues with a Burgundian king named Gunnar, for whom their are Roman records of his existence, who kills Sigurth. The tale is probably talking about an incident where Franks had been mercenaries for Rome on the border of Gaul, a Roman general there revolted and had the Franks who were loyal to the Empire killed and brought in Burgundians to replace them. The gold is probably Roman gold given for services rendered.

Anyways, the point is that Jesus is not the only mythological figure who actually existed. It is of no consequence to an atheist whether Jesus existed or not because it does nothing to prove the existence of God. Jesus was a crank apocalyptic preacher, one of many in Roman Judea, who happened to have followers who were really good at PR.

karlmarx

Correction : not the only mythological figure who MIGHT have existed.

How do you know this?

Virtually anything we might know comes from the Gospels - and these appear to have been written in accordance to what had been prophesied in the OT, or written as parallels to stories in the OT.

Strip away the layers of legend and mythology - the mythical ancestry and birth, the time-worn "miracles", the earthquakes and darkened skies, etc, etc, and what are you left with that you could possibly pin on this allegedly historical figure? What can you possibly know of this person? If Paul himself, writing before the Gospels, seems to know next-to-nothing about this historical Jesus, what hope do WE have?

Jesus may have been a lesbian stand-up comedian for all we know - IF she existed at all.

spamandham

I have yet to come across any studies rigorously documenting what the consensus position is among those with appropriate credentials. Various claims about such a consensus seem to be ad hoc band wagon appeals.

If you find one, I'd be interested in it.