Rational BAC

All we are trying to refute here is the common notion that there was NO historical Jesus.

It turns out to be a false notion. Jesus was just as much a historical figure from the evidence as any secular figure. The only difference being that Jesus is given a higher level of proof ---and unfairly so.

So forgetting all the theology stuff and the tremendous influence of Christianity over the centuries. -----------let us get real here. Jesus was just as much a historical figure as any historical figure in history--considering the small impact he had at the time He lived. Or at best let us all admit that the subject is not a slam dunk on either side and is debateable.

And we can go from there.

I get so tired of hearing that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed from atheists. He existed just as much historically as did Caesar or Alexander. Hell ---all that stuff happened a long time ago. Nobody knows much for sure about anything at all.

Cut Jesus some slack.

Toto

Why do you think that is a "common" notion? The idea that Jesus was a myth is usually raised here by Christians trying to refute it. Most atheists think there was probably some guy behind the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. (There's even a group called Atheists for Jesus.)

The subject just seems to touch a nerve with Christians.

Peter Kirby

In a former edition of Lowder's response to McDowell, there is a statement, "Many nonbelievers are highly sympathetic to, or actually subscribe to, the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist" with this footnote:

For example, see Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984); Calvin Blanchard, ed., The Complete Works of Thomas Paine (Chicago: Belford, Clark & Company, 1885, p. 234); Marshall Gauvin, Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (N.p.: n.p., n.d.); Chapman Cohen, Did Jesus Christ Exist? (N.p.: n.p., 1937); Arthur Drews, Die Christusmythe, 3d ed. (1909; reprint, Jena: Diedrichs, 1924), English trans., The Christ Myth (London: Unwin, 1910); M.M. Mangasarian, The Truth About Jesus: Is He a Myth? (Chicago: Independent Religious Society, 1909); John E Remsburg, The Christ (New York: The Truth Seeker Company, 1909); Edward Greenly, The Historical Reality of Jesus (1927, reprinted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, ed. Gordon Stein [Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980]); Bertand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927, reprinted in Bertrand Russell on God and Religion, Buffalo: NY, Prometheus, 1986, p. 66); Herbert Cutner, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth: An Examination of the Evidence (New York: Truth Seeker, 1950); G.A. Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians (London: Pemberton, 1971), The Historical Evidence for Jesus (New York: Prometheus, 1982), Did Jesus Exist? (New York: Prometheus, 1975), and The Jesus Legend (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1996); R. Augstein, Jesus Son of Man (trans. H. Young, New York: Urizen, 1977); Gordon Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980), Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1986); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991); Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992); Frank R. Zindler, "Did Jesus Exist?" (American Atheist, January 1987) and "How Jesus Got a Life" (American Atheist, June 1992); Farrell Till, "The Historicity of Jesus" The Skeptical Review (1995, Number Four); Dennis McKinsey, Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1995); and Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle: Part One: A Conspiracy of Silence" (Humanist in Canada, Autumn 1995, pp. 20-24), "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Two: Who was Christ Jesus?" (Humanist in Canada, Winter 1995/96, pp. 10-14, 31), "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Three: The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth" (Humanist in Canada, Spring 1996, pp. 24-30, 38), and "The Jesus Puzzle: Postscript" (Humanist in Canada, Summer 1996, pp. 20-23, 38).

Of course, these are all writers; I don't know how this translates in terms of the lay skeptic.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

Of course, unlike Caesar, he never wrote anything.

I have to agree with Toto that this seems a bit set up. I am only aware of the virulently anti-religious who want to deny that "anyone" existed at the beginning.

On the contrary, it seems to me that people who do not believe in religion, at least here, have an opinion one way or the other, but not an extreme opinion. They seem to concede readily that the evidence "for" or "against" is rather thin one way or the other.

Rather, I see an attempt to lend historical legitimacy to figure based on questions concerning legitimate historical figures. That really does not advance anything.

--J.D.

godfry n. glad

I don't think you can do that. But I'd like to see you try. And that notion is not a common notion. I'd say it's rather uncommon, as even most atheists accept that there was probably some historical non-entity underlying the mythos of the Christ as portrayed in the gospels.

Considering the claims, I'm not surprised that a "higher level of proof" is being demanded. So I assume that you accept Krishna as a bone fide historical personage? Or do you hold the claims about him to a "higher level of proof"?

Yet this "history" of a person is embedded in a patchwork of internally contradictory documents that make all sorts of unbelievable claims. Claims rather like those made for Krishna and the Buddha. Once you discount the sources and consider their objective, then you need to consider that the figure to which they refer may be a mythological construct.

Yeah...right... You're cutting Krishna some slack, right?

Farrell Till

Uh, just who were these "eyewitnesses" who "recorded" that Jesus rose from the dead?

Where was the death and resurrection of Jesus "prophecised" [sic] 1000 years before he was born?

In another thread, I issued a challenge for any Bible believers in this forum to prove a single verifiable case of biblical prophecy fulfillment. Now that I have the name of someone who believes in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, I challenge Magus55 to affirm the following proposition.

Resolved: The death and resurrection of Jesus was prophesied a thousand years before he was born.

Doctor X

J.F.:

Takes him aside. . . .

Of course, one of the virtues of prophecy is that you can write it after the event and then claim it was prophecy--one reason for dating Mk after the destruction of the Temple. Unfortunately, some will point to events like that as prophecy. Or . . . they will twist the words enough to make it predict whatever they want . . . sit back and conclude "SEE?! If you were not blind you would believe!"

Returns to the forum. . . .

However, I, too, would like to see the resurrection prophecy.

--J.D.

Iasion

Greetings Rational BAC et al,

Its not common at all - but it IS becoming increasingly common as more and more information is available for people to make their own minds up.


This is merely your opinion, based on Christian traditions,
but
its is NOT supported by any evidence.

You claim there is as much EVIDENCE for Jesus, as, "any secular figure".

How about JFK?
Is there as much evidence for Jesus as JFK?

Clearly not.
Your claim is false apologetics.


Another empty claim, backed up by no evidence.


Pardon? We DO admit it is debateable,
we ARE debating it.


Wrong.
For Caesar (and Alexander) we have :

* his parents names, his birthdate etc.
* statues showing his likeness
* coins showing his face
* writings by Caesar himself
* multiple contemporary eyewitnesses accounts
* archeological evidence of his actions
* evidence from other countries of his actions
* for Caesar - children and wives we know by name

For Jesus we have :
* some vague comments by alleged contemporaries
* conflicting stories which arose several decades or more after the alleged events
* some suspect comments from non contemporaries

contrasted with:
* NO mention by Justus of Tiberias
* NO mention by Philo
* NO mention by ANY first century writer


Sounds like argument from personal lack of understanding.
In fact we know a GREAT DEAL about Caesar and Alexander - if you think it is on a par with Jesus, you are sadly mistaken.


Have you read the Transformations of Lucius (AKA The Golden Ass of Apuleius)?

This document dates from the same period as the Gospels, and tells a story full of miraculous happenings set in known places and cultures.

If you believe in Jesus, then you must believe that Lucius turned in to an ass - the evidence is of the same class.

Iasion

missus_gumby

I would agree that the perception of a mythical jesus is not all that common. But it may be starting to gain ground.

How about this: as a member of the great unwashed, unemployed masses I have breakfast with a small group of similarly lucky friends every Tuesday morning at a pub near where I live. During today's outing, we were discussing the mythical jebus thing over our sausages and black pudding in a small alcove. In fact, one of my friends had a flyer about a new book called 'Cross to Bear' by Chris Spiller, and was reading it out loud, to which I replied, "that sounds just like the Jesus Mysteries". As we continued discussing the subject, a gentleman popped his head around the corner from the next alcove and said, "I hope you don't mind, but that sounds like interesting stuff, do you mind if I borrow the flyer, nip across the road and photocopy it?". We replied that it would be OK.

When he came back with his photocopy we asked what was his interest in the subject, to which he replied that he too found the jesus thing a bit iffy, but had never heard that there were people who thought like him. He asked if we knew of any other material he could study, and I suggested Doherty, and Gandy and Freke. And off he went, presumably very happy.

One more 'jebus myther' added to the throng, courtesy of Missus Gumby!

BTW, no, I didn't have a pint with my breakfast, just orange juice and coffee.

Martin

godfry n. glad

Yeah... I've noticed that, too.

I hypothesize that that reaction is because it is an anathema, due to its being in direct conflict with Christian creedal affirmations.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...

Don't most Christian affirmations (Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Athanasian Creed,...whatever) have the requirement that the believer believe, on faith, that Jesus lived as a human and died at the order of Pontius Pilate?

Doesn't that kinda presume the answer to the question? The question they never asked, but which we're considering here in this thread?

Doesn't that make doubt about Jesus' historicity tantamount to heresy? Hey....It is heresy, isn't it?

I also believe this creedal commitment to be the source of most NT scholars' a priori acceptance of Jesus' historicity.


godfry n. glad