Peter Kirby

It's not obvious to me. Does that mean it is not obvious to Vinnie?

For example, it is obvious to me that rational numbers are countably infinite. Someone else might need to follow the proof closely or might even disagree at first.

best,
Peter Kirby

Photocrat

It seems self-evident to me that, with the sources we have, multiple attestation, etc. that Jesus existed. Whether he actually did all the things attributed to him (e.g. miracles) is another matter, but in general one would think it obvious that there was at least such a person, as should be evident given that it took us almost two thousand years to come up with the speculation that there wasn't even a historical figure that was the basis for all these stories (however true or not).

To me, the hypothesis that there is no "historical Jesus" under it all raises more problems (e.g. Why, exactly, do the stories about a non-historical figure *agree* as much as they do? There are a hell of a lot more agreements than disagreements...) if there's no one to base it on and we have multiple, contemporanious source documents?

So, I'm saying it's self-evident because it was obvious enough to everyone for almost the last couple thousand years or so that no one even thought to speculate otherwise... I mean, you'd think that someone would've noted somewhere something like that, especially in the early years when they were fighting for acceptance...

Iasion

Greetings Photocrat et al,

Well, it may "seem" that way to you, but it doesn't seem that way to many others.

Thus, its not self-evident at all, merely your OPINION - i.e. your statement essentially amounts to "I believe Jesus existed".


But if there was a Jesus who didn't actually do what the stories said, then he was not the "real Jesus" was he? - how could someone who was NOT actually like the stories, be the "real Jesus" behind the stories?

You may be "one [who] would think it obvious", but I, and many others do not - thus it is not obvious, merely your opinion, your belief.


Poppycock!
Sceptics about the physical reality of Jesus existed from the earliest times :

1 John describes those who did not believe Jesus came in the flesh and implies such groups thought themselves mainstream Christians.

Trypho apparently expresses doubts about Jesus (his statements are elliptical, but may represent early-mid 2nd century Jewish doubts that Jesus ever existed).

Minucius Felix explicitly argued that Christians did NOT believe in an incarnation or the crucifixion.

Celsus explicitly attacked the Gospels as ficition based on myths (although he does assume Jesus actually existed).

Hegesippus reported 2nd century sects who do not believe in the incarnation or the resurrection.

Porphyry explicitly criticised the Gospels as ficition in the 3rd C.

Julian explicitly claimed Jesus was "invented" and "spurious" in 4th C.

Its true some of these doubters are arguing against the physicality of Jesus, or attacking the Gospels rather than the existence of Jesus.

Nonetheless, these doubts show that the Jesus stories were DOUBTED by MANY skeptics for VARIOUS reasons - the exact opposite of your claim that the stories were quickly seen as true and widely spread.


They agree because they are COPIED from each other - G.Mark was the first, but its not by an eyewitness, and not even by a local.


Pardon?
The bases of the Gospel myth is clearly seen in the mythology and religions of the times :
* OT (Isaiah etc.)
* Philo (Logos etc.)
* Pagan dying son-of-god myths (Osiris, Attis, Dionysos, Iasius)
* Homeric epic

There is almost NOTHING in the Gospels that is original.


Poppycock!
There is NO contemporaneous attestation what-so-ever, even in places where it might be expected :
* Justus of Tiberias
* Philo
* Seneca
* C. Musonius Rufus
* Plutarch
* Dio Chrysostom
* old Pliny
* Theon of Smyrna
* Lucius Apuleius
plus another 40 more authors, less relevant, from that period.


Furthermore,
all traditional OPINIONS of Gospel-dating aside,
the EVIDENCE for the Gospels dates to a CENTURY and more after the alleged events -

* First mention of Gospels - 120s (Papias, Aristides)
* First gospel - 140s (Marcion)
* First loose gospel quotes - 150s (Justin "memoir's")
* First evidence of Modern Four Gospels - 180s (Irenaeus)


Wrong,
like I said, from the earlirst times, many critics did specifically attack the reality of Jesus, a list of various doubters can be found here:Early Doubters

regards,
Iasion

Secular Pinoy

1 John describes those who did not believe Jesus came in the flesh and implies such groups thought themselves mainstream Christians.

Did they deny the existence of jesus, or were they just docetists, who merely say that Jesus did not have a human body? Just want to know.

joedad

What's your take on Minucius Felix?Doherty states that:Remember that Christian statecraft also embraced persecution. For most of the 2K years you reference, to lodge such a claim against an historical Jesus was to invite death. Authoritarian Christianity did not exactly tolerate dissent. In this sense, Jesus Mythers have been selected against.

And using your own criteria, that the idea of a Mythical Jesus survives to this day is itself a powerful argument for its credibility, an argument I am not making.

joe

Vinnie

Elements of the Christian view on Jesus were widely doubted but you cannot show that historicity of Jesus was. But this is a silly argument. Of course many people at the time doubted the Christian story. There would only be Christians if such were not the case. Judaism did not completely erase itself and absorb into Christianity. Who would argue otherwise?

Vinnie

Goliath

Peter Kirby,

Point taken. That's what happens when I post too hastily.

However, it follows that the existence of Jesus is not self-evident.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie

Just lik the age of the earth is far from obvious to yecs?

Vinnie

Goliath

Vinnie,

Apparently you didn't read my reply to Peter Kirby where I admitted that the existence of Jesus may be obvious to you, but not to me. Also, why are you trying to compare me to a xian? I am an atheist!

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vorkosigan

e.g. Why, exactly, do the stories about a non-historical figure *agree* as much as they do? There are a hell of a lot more agreements than disagreements...)

Because they are deliberately created fictions, and because there was a centralized body that appeared early that made sure that there was an agreed-upon body of material....and got rid of other versions.

Just look. We're 160 posts into this thread and not a single serious argument for the historicity of Jesus has appeared, just an insistence that we should take it as a given. The historicity of Jesus is an axiom, not something demonstratable from the documents at hand.

Maybe we should pull something off Tekton.org and discuss that.

Vorkosigan