I suppose I just don't see much of a difference between a book written by Hubbard, about a Xenu - and a book written by "unknown" about a Jesus. They both serve the same purpose, in the same way, and we can examine either in exactly the same manner. The Xenu story definitely doesn't explain to us "how" scientology got started - and even after 2k years and plenty of rewrites it still won't have that ability. Neither, in my opinion, does the christ narrative. Entirely separate questions. Consider, for example, that christianity is paul's invention, not christ's, and paul never met jesus - doesn't even seem to have known much about him in the way of stories. That being the case, it's easy to argue that even the character of jesus is irrelevant to the history of christianity. After all, he's all things to all men - and simultaneously nothing. These are just a few of the reasons that I feel an insistence on a historical jesus evaporates in the face of inquiry. It isn't in evidence, and it isn't required (and I doubt that it would really be that informative if it were either).

(July 9, 2014 at 7:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: I suppose I just don't see much of a difference between a book written by Hubbard, about a Xenu - and a book written by "unknown" about a Jesus. They both serve the same purpose, in the same way, and we can examine either in exactly the same manner. The Xenu story definitely doesn't explain to us "how" scientology got started - and even after 2k years and plenty of rewrites it still won't have that ability. Neither, in my opinion, does the christ narrative.

According to Wikipedia, the Xenu story is, or at least was, part of Scientology doctrine. The facts about how Scientology was founded are well documented. All we know about Jesus are the stories that Christianity ended up with but nobody knows how they got started.

(July 9, 2014 at 7:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: Consider, for example, that christianity is paul's invention, not christ's, and paul never met jesus - doesn't even seem to have known much about him in the way of stories.

Maybe Paul was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

(July 9, 2014 at 7:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: That being the case, it's easy to argue that even the character of jesus is irrelevant to the history of christianity.

If Jesus really was based on somebody who is now unknown the man's character might have been very relevant to the origins of Christianity. This isn't the same thing at all as being relevant to Christian doctrine, of course.

(July 9, 2014 at 7:00 am)Rhythm Wrote: After all, he's all things to all men - and simultaneously nothing. These are just a few of the reasons that I feel an insistence on a historical jesus evaporates in the face of inquiry. It isn't in evidence, and it isn't required (and I doubt that it would really be that informative if it were either).

It's interesting seeing what Judaism has to say about Jesus. He's seen as a failed or false messiah but I've yet to find arguments about a real man who ended up as the mythological Jesus never existing. There were a lot of messiah wannabes under the Roman occupation so it seems that Jews have no problems in regarding Jesus as just one of them.

Who Was Jesus? The Jewish View of Jesus

Quote:Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.

After the death of Jesus, his followers - at the time a small sect of former Jews known as the Nazarenes - claimed he was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish texts and that he would soon return to fulfill the acts required of the Messiah. The majority of contemporary Jews rejected this belief and Judaism as a whole continues to do so today. Eventually, Jesus became the focal point of a small Jewish religious movement that would evolve into the Christian faith.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs.

Jesus of Nazareth was one of many Jews throughout history who attempted to directly or indirectly lay claim to being the Messiah. Given the difficult social climate under Roman occupation and persecution during the era in which Jesus lived, it is not hard to understand why so many Jews longed for a time of peace and freedom. The most famous of Jewish false messiahs in ancient times was Simon bar Kochba, who led the initially successful but ultimately disastrous revolt against the Romans in 132 C.E., which led to the near annihilation of Judaism in the Holy Land at the hands of the Romans. Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah and was even anointed by the prominent Rabbi Akiva, but after bar Kochba died in the revolt the Jews of his time rejected him as another false messiah since he did not fulfill the requirements of the true Messiah.

This is so mundane it's quite plausible although there's still no proof that it's true.

(July 7, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think a more interesting question to ask is why should anybody care?

Sums up my new position: The Jesus Moot Theory.

The position of the Jesus "Historists" is that The Historical Jesus ™ certainly existed without a rational doubt and all the scholars say so. Well, all the serious scholars say so. And anyone who doesn't say so isn't a serious scholar, so there you go. In any event, he was some guy named Yeshua who was some kind of religious leader or something and, ya know, he preached some stuff or something and some of his real story might or might not have inspired some of the stuff in the Gospels but it's hard to say. But that's not important. What's important is this guy CERTAINLY existed. And we're pretty sure his name was Yeshua. STOOOOPID MYTHERZZZZ!!!

If there's anything else to the Historist position, aside from 30 minute screeds of ad hominems, appeals to ridicule and appeals to authority, please let me know. But I'm done with fighting their run-around; they've worn me down. All I want to know is this:

What, if anything, can we know about The Historical Jesus, aside from he certainly existed.

If all they've got is "some guy", then as skeptics we shouldn't waste any time on this and focus on the miracle working godman alleged to exist in the Gospel stories.

---

(July 8, 2014 at 5:01 am)Confused Ape Wrote: One or more of his supporters could have thought they'd seen him after his death (a very common hallucination) and the story grew with the telling. Then it somehow spread to the Gentiles who added their own mythological details.

Any Christian who argues that such a belief couldn't have arisen unless it was true (the "would they die for a lie" argument) should be directed to read about the many "Elvis sightings" that were circulated after his death. And we live in a much less superstitious time. True, Elvis fans would be unlikely to go to their deaths for their beliefs that he still lives, but then Elvis wasn't promising his followers a glorious afterlife. Any Christian who argues that religious fanatics wouldn't die for the promise of an afterlife need only be reminded of 9/11.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:28 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: If all they've got is "some guy", then as skeptics we shouldn't waste any time on this and focus on the miracle working godman alleged to exist in the Gospel stories.

Why shouldn't people who are interested in the remote possibility that someone existed talk about it if they want to? Nobody's forced to join in every forum discussion here or even read through topics that don't interest them.

(July 7, 2014 at 9:19 pm)Blackout Wrote: Solely considering the historical perspective and reliable inductive evidence, did Jesus Christ exist? Under what circumstances? What's the safest conclusion we can reach?

No one name Jesus Existed at that supposed time - the letter "J" did not exist in ANY language - and in proper English we do not translate proper names.

Certainly a human that fulfilled all of the claims of the religion about the christ DID NOT LIVE. THere is simply no basis for the supernatural claims of religion.

Based on the actual evidence we have - the christ is nothng more than a highly exaggerated fictional character from a book of religous MYTH and LEGEND. He is similar to James Bond.

Certainly it is possible that a human being was the BASIS for the otherwise fictional character - just as there are real Secret Agents that formed the basis for James Bond. However - that information has never been established and they have had 2000 years to do so. THe fact is - there is NOT a single document that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name. He is not mentioned in the Dead sea scrolls which date from that time - he is not mentioned by any Jewish or Roman Historian who actually lived at that time. For a person who supposedly spoke to MULTITUDES - there is simply no first level evidence of his existence at all.

Then - you can dissect the story and find LOTS of things that do not add up.
Example - the Romans only crucified Traitors, Pirates, and enemies of the state - and they NEVER gave back the bodies for burial - to prevent them from becoming martyrs. The bible does not show the christ being any of those. They did not crucify thieves - they sent them to the lions - so the story of the thief is nonsense.

The bible is clear that Mary was pregnant before marriage - AND that Joseph had no relations with Mary until after the birth. A man born out of wedlock would not be considered as a teacher - and would have been shunned by the jews. He certainly would not have been allowed into a jewish temple to teach. And the christ was a heretic to the Jewish religion - and would have been stoned to death long before the supposed crucifixion.

I could mention dozens of problems that indicate that the story of the christ was "created" as fiction by humans

(July 9, 2014 at 9:43 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Why shouldn't people who are interested in the remote possibility that someone existed talk about it if they want to? Nobody's forced to join in every forum discussion here or even read through topics that don't interest them.

I'm not going to stop anyone from discussing anything. I'm just saying that if we can't know anything about this guy or untangle fact from fiction in the Gospels, than the point is moot.

And all this sets aside the issue that once you strip out all the supernatural from the Gospel biography, you've gutted 90% of the story.

If you were to tell the story of a mortal, human Superman (let's say a Clark Kent who was raised as an orphan and became a great reporter and, in his capacity as a reporter, exposed crime and corruption) than the story you would tell would bare little resemblance to the classic DC comic story. It would be a new story about a different person. The story of Superman IS about the super powers.

If you were to tell the story of a mortal Jesus, it would similarly bare little resemblance to the story in the Gospels. The story of Jesus IS about the miracles and the divinity.

---

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: Certainly it is possible that a human being was the BASIS for the otherwise fictional character - just as there are real Secret Agents that formed the basis for James Bond.

Some believe the story of James Bond was based on the real secret agent, Sydney Reilly. Of course, much of Sydney Reilly is likely folklore as well.

We have the benefit of knowing the author of James Bond and living in relatively recent history. And even here we can't untangle fact from fiction on The Historical James Bond. Good luck with anyone who seeks to accomplish this for someone who lived 2000 years ago.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: No one name Jesus Existed at that supposed time - the letter "J" did not exist in ANY language - and in proper English we do not translate proper names.

That one is easily explained in a long section which only needs a couple of quotes to illustrate what happened - Jesus Name Etymology

Quote:The word Jesus used in the New Testament comes from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also used as Joshua or Yesua.[1][2] The name is thus related to the Hebrew consonantal verb root verb y-š-ʕ (to rescue or deliver) and the Hebrew noun yešuaʕ (deliverance).

Modern English Jesus derives from Early Middle English Iesu (attested from the 12th century). The name participated in the Great Vowel Shift in late Middle English (15th century). The letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th century, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century, so that early 17th century works such as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) continued to print the name with an I.[13]

From the Latin, the English language takes the forms "Jesus" (from the nominative form), and "Jesu" (from the vocative and oblique forms). "Jesus" is the predominantly used form, while "Jesu" lingers in some more archaic texts.

I found an interesting page where the name Jesus is pronounced in a number of different languages. Not all languages use the English 'j' sound.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: Certainly a human that fulfilled all of the claims of the religion about the christ DID NOT LIVE. THere is simply no basis for the supernatural claims of religion.

Agreed. The Biblical Jesus is very different to the mundane Jewish view concerning him.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: Certainly it is possible that a human being was the BASIS for the otherwise fictional character - just as there are real Secret Agents that formed the basis for James Bond.

Failed messiahs would certainly have inspired the idea of Jesus.

Simon Of Peraea

Quote:Simon of Peraea or Simon son of Joseph was a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans in 4 BC.[1] He has been identified as the messiah of Gabriel's Revelation. He is mentioned by Flavius Josephus.[2]

He was mentioned because he's supposed to have -

Quote:"... burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king's houses in several places of the country, utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey. He would have done greater things, but care was taken to repress him immediately. [The commander of Herod's infantry] Gratus joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon. And after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that had come from Peraea (a disordered body of men, fighting rather in a bold than in a skillful manner) were destroyed. Although Simon had saved himself by flying away through a certain valley, Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head."

Athronges

Quote:Athronges (likely derived from ethrog, "citron") was a leader of the Jews during the insurrection under Herod Archelaus. He was a shepherd, in common with his four brothers. However, his humble occupation did not work against him: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David had also been shepherds.[1] After proclaiming himself the messiah, Athronges led the rebellion against Archelaus and the Romans.[2] After a protracted struggle Athronges and his brothers were defeated.[3]

Josephus wrote of him:

Athronges is also supposed to have fought the Romans.

It's likely that Josephus exaggerated the extent of the mayhem in his accounts but I can't think of any logical reason why Christians would want to fake passages about these two men.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: However - that information has never been established and they have had 2000 years to do so. THe fact is - there is NOT a single document that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name. He is not mentioned in the Dead sea scrolls which date from that time - he is not mentioned by any Jewish or Roman Historian who actually lived at that time. For a person who supposedly spoke to MULTITUDES - there is simply no first level evidence of his existence at all.

The Jesus of the Bible never did anything exciting like setting fire to buildings and killing Romans. Any real failed messiah who did nothing exciting from an historian's point of view wouldn't have made it into an account. Christians had to fake their own mentions in Josephus's history and they said what suited their religion.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:51 am)ThomM Wrote: I could mention dozens of problems that indicate that the story of the christ was "created" as fiction by humans

The Jesus of the Bible is definitely fiction. It's interesting reading Jewish views on why the Christian stories about him are a load of old rubbish.

Interesting discussion but as H. L. Mencken noted:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

All the apologetic attempts to find a "historical" jesus miss the point that unless he did what Mencken says it doesn't matter in the least. Xtians do not worship the man - they worship the magic tricks. And without the tricks "jesus" is a nobody.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:43 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Why shouldn't people who are interested in the remote possibility that someone existed talk about it if they want to? Nobody's forced to join in every forum discussion here or even read through topics that don't interest them.

Having re-read your post, I realize how I wasn't clear.

I'm not forbidding any discussion. I mean to say as a TACTIC, it's not productive. Our focus, as a matter of the most effective debate tactic, should be on the miracle working godman.

With a little mental slight of hand, the apologist can shift the burden of proof onto the myther, forcing us to prove a negative, and we waste a lot of time and energy on whether or not the Annals of Tacitus meets the burden of proof.

My apologies for not being clear.

(July 9, 2014 at 11:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: Interesting discussion but as H. L. Mencken noted:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

All the apologetic attempts to find a "historical" jesus miss the point that unless he did what Mencken says it doesn't matter in the least. Xtians do not worship the man - they worship the magic tricks. And without the tricks "jesus" is a nobody.

Actually - the "rising" is not main point of the savior.

The basis for the religion is that he "saved" us all.

From what - has never been determined since most of the things that were detriments to society back then still exist - war - poverty - famine - disease - and religious zealot who make all sorts of claims that never actually happen.