Did Jesus exist?

[Mudhammam]

Aegon, your first mistake is assuming that Min is able to engage in rational discussion. I'm sure at least once in your lifetime you've seen those obnoxious Bible thumpers who stand on street corners, holding a microphone so as to talk louder than everyone with the goal that no one can penetrate their utterly dense and idiotic thoughts (They usually succeed at that too). Well, Min is sort of like an online atheist version - a male Chanty Binx. Among the few we have here, you'll observe that he's by far the worst.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's about a disagreement over what constitutes evidence. People who don't study history demand better evidence, but the problem is 95 percent of ancient historians see what evidence we have for Jesus as good evidence.

 
If the evidence on offer is only acceptable by reference to an absurdly low standard.......then again I have to suggest that we aren't having a discussion of any historical jesus.  Sounds like further fan fiction.  

And it's not because they're Christians looking to prove Christianity as true. Ancient historians can be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, but their training still tells them what to look for and how to find it in order to better paint a picture of the world's past.

It's probably more than a little bit naive to assume that 2k years of christian cultural hegemony isn't a factor in those disciplines with low standards of evidence.   History was, until very recently, bible and spade asshatterry.  Higher standards of evidence, and better methods of investigation leaning heavily on hard sciences have been a godsend to the discipline.  As has our ability (which had to be created and then protected by law) to discuss the narrative as a work of fiction.

I see little more, so far, in this conversation than people asking me to side with the bible and spade over hard science, appreciation and understanding of devotional literature and fiction, or even reason...as we'll see below.   

Jesus being a real person DOES NOT mean he performed miracles. Jesus being a real person DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY give the whole "God" thing any better of an argument. The fact that a Jewish man who believed himself to be the Messiah preached to a town of people and then got executed IN NO WAY "proves" Christianity, and I just don't understand why some people are so quick to ignore historians' judgments on the matter. Him existing =! him being the son of God and all that jazz. 

Jesus the miracle worker isn't even a consideration in a historical jesus.  I don't take issue with historical jesus because I don't believe in mythical or legendary jesus, or because I worry that a historical jesus makes christianity true.  I take issue with the historical jesus because the evidence -conforming to a lower standard in the first place- appears to be,..alot of people believe in a historical jesus. When I ask what evidence this conclusion is based upon other than bare tradition, I'm pointed to a book written about the mythical or legendary jesus. That's unhelpful. I'm pointed to passages which describe the beliefs of devotees of the mythical or legendary jesus. That's unhelpful. I'm presented with poor inference, that's unhelpful.

Again, it's all just weird to me. It'd make MORE sense that people were duped into believing Christianity if there was an actual prophet figure to base it all on. 

The problem is that to argue this proposition you will invariably fall into fallacious arguments.  Not exactly a "standard of evidence" issue......and ultimately irrelevent to the question of a historical jesus. Do you also think that there was a historical Zues, Thor, or Quetzecoatl? Are they needed to explain their respective faith traditions? Do you think that people had to be duped into these traditions by a living conman? That would make more sense? More sense than what.....that people tell stories?

See how easy it is to create a religious cult around a living person, even in modern times: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk

Arguments like this one, see.  I'm not disputing the ease of starting a religion or cult.  Comments to that effect have no bearing on a historical jesus.  -If- there were a historical jesus then sure, we can imagine how easy it might have been to start a cult around him...but we have assumed, in that -if-, what we are being asked to demonstrate.  Again...not a standard of evidence issue. Imagining a cult figurehead gets you no closer to a historical jesus than reading about the miracle worker does.

[Minimalist]

Why are you so insistent on me being a Christian? For the fourth fucking time, I'm an atheist.

Really?  You fooled me.

So far all I get out of you is we should accept your position because you say so.

Sorry.   If Bart Ehrman can't get that kind of leeway, neither can you.  When I ask to see the evidence all I ever get is "the bible says x."  Nowhere near good enough.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

And if any of them fucking mattered today it would be a problem.

You see, you jesus shits keep insisting that we should follow the "teachings" of this guy who you cannot show even existed. 

If Clyde the Shitkicker in Ancient Assyria did not exist, so what?  You have brought this bullshit on yourself by insisting that fairy tales are real.

Try thinking about that for a while.

Why are you so insistent on me being a Christian? For the fourth fucking time, I'm an atheist. Like I said, this is your problem. An inability to separate Jesus the man and Jesus the myth. If one isn't real, the other one just can't possibly be real!

Don't worry, before you say it, I'll say it for you: "Can't separate the man and myth because they're the same fucking thing!" Ha ha! Good one, man! Got me there!

IDK Aegon, if "accepted as existing" is in fact the only support offered for either jesus or -any- other character...are we really discussing historicity at all? Are you even disagreeing with anything? I also think that "accepted as existing" is how this historicity claim was arrived at, as I've said, a bare appeal to tradition.

It's about a disagreement over what constitutes evidence. People who don't study history demand better evidence, but the problem is 95 percent of ancient historians see what evidence we have for Jesus as good evidence. And it's not because they're Christians looking to prove Christianity as true. Ancient historians can be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, but their training still tells them what to look for and how to find it in order to better paint a picture of the world's past. Jesus being a real person DOES NOT mean he performed miracles. Jesus being a real person DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY give the whole "God" thing any better of an argument. The fact that a Jewish man who believed himself to be the Messiah preached to a town of people and then got executed IN NO WAY "proves" Christianity, and I just don't understand why some people are so quick to ignore historians' judgments on the matter. Him existing =! him being the son of God and all that jazz. 

Again, it's all just weird to me. It'd make MORE sense that people were duped into believing Christianity if there was an actual prophet figure to base it all on. 

See how easy it is to create a religious cult around a living person, even in modern times: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk

Good video,  Thanks for sharing.

[Cecelia]

Again, it's all just weird to me. It'd make MORE sense that people were duped into believing Christianity if there was an actual prophet figure to base it all on.

The problem with this line of thinking is:  There were plenty of people who believed in plenty of others who never existed.  What of Zeus and Apollo and Odin?  For that matter what of Moses and Abraham?  Most Scholars agree both of them were myths.  Why did the Hebrews believe in the stories of Moses and Abraham if they didn't exist?

People would often share their stories, and those stories would be compiled, and they'd be accepted as true. 

It's certainly possible there never was any Jesus who preached about the apocalypse, and then was hung on a cross and later worshiped.  There wouldn't be a lot of evidence for someone like that.  (Actually, if Jesus did exist, then he's probably the best argument against Christianity.  If such events occurred that he claimed, then they WOULD be written about by contemporary historians) 

It all comes down to some questions:  Why include the crucifixion in the gospels?  Now I'm no expert on the era, but from what I gather crucifixion would have been very shameful, and wouldn't have fit in with the idea of a Jewish Messiah.  And it wouldn't have fit better with anyone else.  Not just that, but why include Nazareth?  Some scholars seem to believe that some the writers of the Gospels (whoever they were) were trying to fit their ideas of a messiah to a specific man.    Which is why they included details that wouldn't have conformed to their ideas of the messiah. 

Jesus as the gospels tell the story doesn't exist.  A man named Jesus who was a doomsday preacher who was hung on a cross?  Maybe.  Scholars tend to accept his existence.  Though so little is known about his existence or lacktherof that I'm not sure it matters that much.  If he DID exist though, searching for details about him could reveal some things.  I doubt we could ever (failing acquisition of a blue telephone box that travels through time and space) really know for certain.

[Pat Mustard]

Again, it's all just weird to me. It'd make MORE sense that people were duped into believing Christianity if there was an actual prophet figure to base it all on.

The problem with this line of thinking is:  There were plenty of people who believed in plenty of others who never existed.  What of Zeus and Apollo and Odin?  For that matter what of Moses and Abraham?  Most Scholars agree both of them were myths.  Why did the Hebrews believe in the stories of Moses and Abraham if they didn't exist?

People would often share their stories, and those stories would be compiled, and they'd be accepted as true. 

It's certainly possible there never was any Jesus who preached about the apocalypse, and then was hung on a cross and later worshiped.  There wouldn't be a lot of evidence for someone like that.  (Actually, if Jesus did exist, then he's probably the best argument against Christianity.  If such events occurred that he claimed, then they WOULD be written about by contemporary historians) 

It all comes down to some questions:  Why include the crucifixion in the gospels?  Now I'm no expert on the era, but from what I gather crucifixion would have been very shameful, and wouldn't have fit in with the idea of a Jewish Messiah.  And it wouldn't have fit better with anyone else.  Not just that, but why include Nazareth?  Some scholars seem to believe that some the writers of the Gospels (whoever they were) were trying to fit their ideas of a messiah to a specific man.    Which is why they included details that wouldn't have conformed to their ideas of the messiah. 

Jesus as the gospels tell the story doesn't exist.  A man named Jesus who was a doomsday preacher who was hung on a cross?  Maybe.  Scholars tend to accept his existence.  Though so little is known about his existence or lacktherof that I'm not sure it matters that much.  If he DID exist though, searching for details about him could reveal some things.  I doubt we could ever (failing acquisition of a blue telephone box that travels through time and space) really know for certain.

The crucifixion doesn't even correspond to the system of law under which Jesus was supposedly punished. Crucifixion at that time was for those who committed treason under Roman law. Jesus committed no crimes under Roman law per the bible, and was tried as a heretic under Sanhedric law. In that case he wouldn't have been handed over to the Roman administration, and he would have been stoned (a la Monty Python) not crucified, as crucifixion wasn't a punishment under Sangedric law.

[robvalue]

The empty tomb is easily explainable. They never would have put him a tomb in the first place. They'd have thrown him in a ditch after they were done killing a god.

[Homeless Nutter]

Hmmm... Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the poll is missing the "I don't really give a sh*t" option.

Even if there was a Jesus and he was the son of a god and he did die for my sins - christianity is still dumb as f*ck.

[SofaKingHigh]

Hmmm... Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the poll is missing the "I don't really give a sh*t" option.

Even if there was a Jesus and he was the son of a god and he did die for my sins - christianity is still dumb as f*ck.

What he said.

[The Grand Nudger]

It all comes down to some questions:  Why include the crucifixion in the gospels?  Now I'm no expert on the era, but from what I gather crucifixion would have been very shameful, and wouldn't have fit in with the idea of a Jewish Messiah.  And it wouldn't have fit better with anyone else.  Not just that, but why include Nazareth?  Some scholars seem to believe that some the writers of the Gospels (whoever they were) were trying to fit their ideas of a messiah to a specific man.    Which is why they included details that wouldn't have conformed to their ideas of the messiah. 

This is the embarrassing details defense.  It seems important, informative.  The trouble is that it isn't.  It makes several fallacious appeals while begging the question. Not only -do- people include embarrassing details, we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing, and none of this means anything unless we assume that some portions of this narrative are historical in the first place...precisely what we are trying to determine.

Jesus as the gospels tell the story doesn't exist.  A man named Jesus who was a doomsday preacher who was hung on a cross?  Maybe.  Scholars tend to accept his existence.  Though so little is known about his existence or lacktherof that I'm not sure it matters that much.  If he DID exist though, searching for details about him could reveal some things.  I doubt we could ever (failing acquisition of a blue telephone box that travels through time and space) really know for certain.

Proponents of mj and lj don't have a problem with an -anyman- around which detail was built.  That's a historical anyman, though, John Doe...not Historical Jesus.