Rational BAC

Or was there?

The subject of this post has been repeated so often and never contradicted, that it seems to have been accepted by both theists and non-theists.

Since I like to question everything I'm going to question this one.

I know that there are a lot of good historians on this forum who should be easily able to answer some simple questions.

What are the criteria for being a historical figure?

Why are Julius Caesar, Ptolemy, Alexander the Great, etc. etc. considered historical figures? (I assume they are anyway).

Why is Jesus Christ not considered to be a historical figure?

Give me some good answers and this should be a very short thread.

Toto

Why Alexander the Great is more likely to be a historical figure than Jesus.

Alexander vs Jesus again

Koyaanisqatsi

So short, in fact, that Toto ended it in one.

Asha'man

Because there is no historical evidence that Jesus actually existed. There is plenty of evidence that the story of Jesus existed, and evidence that followers of the story existed, but no evidence for the man himself.

Most people point to the existence of the story and say that it is evidence enough. But I can point to the Lord of the Rings and it doesn't prove that Frodo existed.

If a reasonable explanation can be found for the existence of the story without the existence of the man, then the story essentially carries little weight as evidence. Such an explanation has been proposed, but many people still question whether or not it is reasonable.

Doctor X

As much as I would find proof that "no man existed behind the curtain" and that this is all some hoax upon humanity rather interesting, it would require acceptance of a conspiracy slightly less-likely than Star Fleet Command's involvement with the JFK assassination.

I am not sure anyone is making that a widely accepted conclusion. Nevertheless, the problem is that he has a brother. Paul writes of him--he does not get along with his group. The author of Lk-Acts also writes of him and tries to "smooth" the disagreement betwix Paul and the Jerusalem group.

Why would two independent authors make up a brother?

If one want to argue that the author of Lk-Acts merely responds to Paul's letter--decades after--fine, then one has to explain why Paul would make up meeting a brother--particularly a contentious one in which he really does not seem to "win." One would think Paul's audience had heard about him as well.

If a brother, probably existence.

Notice that that indirect proof says absolutely diddly-over-squat about who he was, what he said, what he believed, or anything else. That, of course, is unnecessary for a religious movement for, as one mentor put it:

--J.D.

Rational BAC

Thanks for the earlier threads on this subject. Obviously I have a lot of reading to do. --------

But, for now, just for the heck of it---Try this hypothetical.----------


Let us say that some Egyptian tomb is recently discovered. Inside are found a wealth of written material. (which for the most part are in agreement) about some long forgotten Pharoah. There are details about his life, his ideas and his death and all are proven to be written within a few generations after his death.-------so are either first person accounts or accounts from a fairly short oral tradition.

Now would this hypothetical Pharoah. --- (doesn't really have to be a Pharoah---any big shot from ancient times).----be considered a historical personnage or not by historians?

Are we making the historical test for Jesus to be grossly higher than we would for some secular Joe Blow from ancient history?

Or try it this way. If Jesus was a completely secular figure and the same amount and kind of written material existed describing his life---------would he be considered a historical figure? Or not? And why?

Celsus

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Claims about Alexander the Great ruling most of the known Western world is an extraordinary claim, and accordingly, has had some extraordinary evidence to back it up (he's known in Indian legends for example). Jesus a mystic/prophet/sage figure would be a mundane claim, and the current evidence (following, etc.) should be enough to believe his historicity. Jesus the Son of the Living God is an extraordinary claim and requires more than a few scraps of paper from the second century to be believed. Of course, since the Gospels have a fairly theologically developed picture of Jesus, and so many reconstructions have taken place trying to find the "historical Jesus," it's easy for a layman like me to throw up his hands and say: well there may or may not be a HJ, and frankly, I don't care, because there is no possible way we can say anything about him with any confidence this far removed in history.

Joel

Tristan Scott

Which is why it would be most likely that nothing was written about Jesus during his lifetime. During his lifetime, it is claimed that he was known by only a relative few people in the "backwater" area known as Gallilee. His ministry is said to have lasted only a few years. It would be surprising if anything had been written about him during his lifetime.

If anything had been written, it would most likely not have survived if it did not support the Magical Jesus.

Arken

Uh...Because... brothers are something that many people have and coming up with his having one isn't like suggesting he had a twin with the head of an antelope.

Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Spock both had brothers. More than one author has written about both brothers as well. Guess they probably exist too, eh?

MortalWombat

Paul never refers to James as the brother of Jesus, but the brother of the Lord (adelphon tou kuriou). Which some have pointed out might mean James is part of a brotherhood of religious figures who refer to themselves as brothers of the Lord. Compare with 1 Corinthians 9:5, where Paul says "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord (adelphoi tou kuriou)?"