Did Jesus exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, because apparently they remove the supernatural as historical....though one wonders how they decide between what is left....what is fictive and what is factual....since they've just acknowledged that the authors had a habit of making shit up.

Maybe they think that people don't invent mundane details?

[Mudhammam]

No one?  We're talking about jesus, and whats been presented to me in this thread.  Aren;t we?

Yes, but as everyone knows, we have much more attestation to the life of Jesus - in terms of early records written by multiple, independent sources - than any other citizen, rich or poor, public official, emperor, etc., so... My point was simply that such a ridiculous conclusion follows from your logic, unless you arbitrarily play by different rules when discussing different people.

Is your best inference -also- the criterion of embarrassment?  Your best in that case, is still invalid.  I'm fine with taking historical information from these texts, someone needs to tell me which ones and why, though.  The historical jesus bit has so far been one part fallacious argument and nine parts amateur insults.

That's not history, not even by a lower standard than my own.

That's certainly a good indicator of some possibly historical information, especially when it comes from two, three, even four separate sources. I'm more concerned with looking at the overall scenario - some Greek speaking Jews claim to be followers of a man from Galilee whom was, in their minds, the divinely sent Messiah, and moreover, their brand of religion centers around a kind of denial of the fact that he remained dead because he was, as they all confess, crucified (by the Romans). We can observe the embellishment of details as they began reading the Old Testament in the context of his life, such as his virgin birth or the resurrection or the second coming, despite the fact that they can't hide the identity of his earthly father, or that his actual parents had other children. The anecdote about John the Baptist is another good example of information we can glean via the criterion of embarrassment, but in the end, it's a matter of putting the pieces together to form, as I said, a coherent and realistic picture of events. And given the ones mythicists put forth - comparing the situation to Zeus and Osiris, which only an ignoramus could possibly do - it's understandable that they're insulted and laughed at both in and outside of academia.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, but as everyone knows, we have much more attestation to the life of Jesus - in terms of early records written by multiple, independent sources - than any other citizen, rich or poor, public official, emperor, etc., so... My point was simply that such a ridiculous conclusion follows from your logic, unless you arbitrarily play by different rules when discussing different people.

Not really, but you wouldn't know that, since you've never managed to either accept or accurately describe my position despite having me relate it to you many times in many threads.  In any case, you're talking about attestation now as though it implied something, but what...we do have an explanation for why jesus is so well attested, I doubt it has anything to do with what you hope to imply by that statement.

That's certainly a good indicator of some possibly historical information,

no..it isn't...it's a good indicator of the beliefs or motivations of the author.......it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity.

especially when it comes from two, three, even four separate sources.

You also get miracle stories from two three, even four separate sources. This also, though, is irrelevant, as we know that correlation was one of the metrics these narratives were chosen for inclusion upon. You are counting the hits - intentionally arrived at out of a wider pool, and ignoring the misses as though they related to some otherwise unknown historicity rather than what we do know of how the stories came to be included....and how the character of jesus was decided upon -regardless- of it's historicity.

I'm more concerned with looking at the overall scenario - some Greek speaking Jews claim to be followers of a man from Galilee whom was, in their minds, the divinely sent Messiah, and moreover, their brand of religion centers around a kind of denial of the fact he remained dead because he was, as they all confess, crucified (by the Romans). We can observe the embellishment of details as they began reading the Old Testament in the context of his life, such as his virgin birth or the resurrection or the second coming, despite the fact that they can't hide the identity of his earthly father, or that his actual parents had other children. The anecdote about John the Baptist is another good example of information we can glean via the criterion of embarrassment, but in the end, it's a matter of putting the pieces together to form, as I said, a coherent and realistic picture of events. And given the ones mythicists put forth - comparing the situation to Zeus and Osiris, which only an ignoramus could possibly do - it's understandable that they're insulted and laughed at both in and outside of academia.

That's not actually what happened.  Some greek speaking jews claimed to be followers...of the followers...of a man from galilee...about whom a great many fantastic stories have been written, including, ofc, that he was a god.  

If he came to atone he had to be offered up somehow, you think that the crucifixion speaks to historicity but I think it speaks to theology.  Those details you see as historical are, to me, still filler content in a work of fiction - because no one has given me any reason to take the story as anything other than what it is, a story. You're putting those pieces together -assuming- there were events about which to be realistic in the first place.  You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate.  

You could glean just as much "history" this way as you could from reading stories about the miracle worker...and it would be equally "historical". That other historical events or personages are equally difficult to establish or, if you will, just as weak...does not make historical jesus any stronger or more well established. The reason that appeals to hypocrisy, like the one you lead with, don't work...is that they don't have anything to do with the claim. Even a hypocrite can be right.

[Wrikudoro]

Very lack of evidence. So I vote absolutely not

[Mudhammam]

Not really, but you wouldn't know that, since you've never managed to either accept or accurately describe my position despite having me relate it to you many times in many threads.  In any case, you're talking about attestation now as though it implied something, but what...we do have an explanation for why jesus is so well attested, I doubt it has anything to do with what you hope to imply by that statement.

You've stated your position many times. Some people (in the church, which apparently really did exist) made up some people (the authors, who may or may not have really existed), who made up some people (Jesus and his disciples), which then persuaded people (because the fictional authors were somehow credible authorities). You also once suggested that we read the New Testament like a modern work of fiction. I forgot the specific title you named but...Yeah, it was all pretty stupid. I don't know if your explanation is any different now... I'd sure hope so.

no..it isn't...it's a good indicator of the beliefs of the author.......it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity.

That's always the case... whether we're reading Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cicero... your statement that "it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity" is absurd... no it's asinine. Do you understand that basically all of history is told from individual perspectives? 

You also get miracle stories from two three, even four separate sources.  This also, though, is irrelevant, as we know that correlation was one of the metrics these narratives were chosen for inclusion upon.  You are counting the hits - intentionally arrived at out of a wider pool, and ignoring the misses.

Wrong... again. It's not irrelevant. He had a reputation as a miracle worker, and the stories about his alleged healings spread unto the point of embellishment that we see in the written accounts. More importantly, and contrary to your beliefs, in introducing these anecdotes we see that nobody - the multiple, separate sources that you concede we do in fact possess (which is already pretty good for anyone from the first century, especially a Jewish rabbi) - doubted whether or not he actually existed.

That's not actually what happened.  Some greek speaking jews claimed to be followers...of the followers...of a man from galilee...about whom a great many fantastic stories have been written, including, ofc, that he was a god.  

If he came to atone he had to be offered up somehow, you think that the crucifixion speaks to historicity but I think it speaks to theology.  Those details you see as historical are, to me, still filler content in a work of fiction - because no one has given me any reason to take the story as anything other than what it is, a story.  You're putting those pieces together -assuming- there were events about which to be realistic in the first place.  You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate...this is also completely irrational.  You could glean just as much "history" this way as you could from reading stories about the miracle worker...and it would be equally "historical".

Please tell me where it is that you find Jews prior to the figure of Jesus awaiting a crucified Messiah. And unless you have anything to put forth that disputes the claim underlying all of these works - that Jesus was a real person - it is in fact you who is assuming what you need to demonstrate. The evidence is clearly on my side.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've stated your position many times. Some people (in the church, which apparently really did exist) made up some people (the authors, who may or may not have really existed), who made up some people (Jesus and his disciples), which then persuaded people (because the fictional authors were somehow credible authorities). You also once suggested that we read the New Testament like a modern work of fiction. I forgot the specific title you named but...Yeah, it was all pretty stupid. I don't know if your explanation is any different now... I'd sure hope so.

Way to poison the well and present yet -another- bale of straw in place of my position.  At least you got the last bit nearly right.  I think that the NT should be approached like -all- works of fiction, ancient and modern.  Because it's clearly a work of fiction...even if it's historical fiction...........

That's always the case... whether we're reading Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cicero... your statement that "it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity" is absurd... no it's asinine. Do you understand that basically all of history is told from individual perspectives? 

I know, I know, it's absurd, it's assanine....hell my statement fucked it's cousin and finished off in the goat too - I mean really go for it if you're gonna go for it.  It's also true.  There is no point at which the level of belief or commitment of an author to their work turns into -it really happened-.  There just isn't.  If you can't acknowledge this we can't have a rational discussion.

Wrong... again. It's not irrelevant. He had a reputation as a miracle worker, and the stories about his alleged healings spread unto the point of embellishment that we see in the written accounts. More importantly, and contrary to your beliefs, in introducing these anecdotes we see that nobody - the multiple, separate sources that you concede we do in fact possess (which is already pretty good for anyone from the first century, especially a Jewish rabbi) - doubted whether or not he actually existed.

Who had a reputation as a miracle worker?  Historical jesus or the character of jesus in the NT narrative (and all discarded narratives)?  You think that at some point people not doubting their beliefs translates into -it really happened-?  We have creationists who don't doubt their beliefs -today-..here, on these boards.  Go apply that knockdown argument to them.  

Please tell me where it is that you find Jews prior to the figure of Jesus awaiting a crucified Messiah. And unless you have anything to put forth that disputes the claim underlying all of these works - that Jesus was a real person - it is in fact you who is assuming what you need to demonstrate. The evidence is clearly on my side.

Why would I dispute the claim? Im asking for the evidence, and failing that, some valid means of inference to get from the claim to the conclusion.  I can read the claim just as easily as you can.

Are you really going to end this response with "The bible says so, so the evidence is on my side".......? We're clearly not having the same discussion.

Lets say we've winnowed down the story to a pool of candidate historical jesi..after we get rid of all the "obvious fantasy", how do we decide from that remaining mundane pool which are the true historical details, and which are the narrative details? That's the trouble all the historical jesi have -always- faced. We acknowledge from the outset that at least some of it is myth and legend -this is fiction-, and we don't have valid means to determine true from narrative detail among what is left. Fiction isn't limited to the ghostly details of a ghost story....and that people believe in some or all of the details of such a story is no argument or evidence of their accuracy. Meanwhile mythical and legendary jesus is remarkably easy to demonstrate..it's right there on the page..no shitty inference required....whatever vague notion of a historical jesus you have is irrelevant to it. There's just no need.

...but apparently that's assanine, absurd, fucked its cousin and a goat....hey, take it from here for me would you?

[Pat Mustard]

I believe a man named Jesus lived and started the Christian religion and preached to a bunch of people and accumulated followers. Historically speaking, we have enough evidence to assume that this was the case. 

Honestly, no we don't. The only single scrap of evidence we have for a historical Jesus is the bible, which is so corrupted as to be no evidence.

Based on historical evidence the originator of jesusism is Saul of Tarsus.

[robvalue]

The thing that concerns me the most about HJ is that it has atheists using the exact same arguments theists do. That won't do
The atheist just stops one non-sequitur short of announcing this HJ to be superyesh.

[Mudhammam]

Way to poison the well and present yet -another- bale of straw in place of my position.  At least you got the last bit nearly right.  I think that the NT should be approached like -all- works of fiction, ancient and modern.  Because it's clearly a work of fiction...even if it's historical fiction...........

That is too simplistic for me. The New Testament is a collection of diverse texts, representing different views and genres. To say it's "clearly a work of fiction" is starting from a position that is both naive and on many points demonstrably rubbish. It's a larger assumption than I could comfortably make, even from the outset, but moreover, it's false. A great many aspects within these writings, such as names, titles, and locations, can be corroborated by extrabiblical and archaeological sources, which adds to their credibility when mentioning the sorts of important and useful mundane facts that you seem to only disregard, out of an unfortunately misplaced and irrational prejudice, when it concerns anything having to do with their central purpose: their religion. The entire concept of a historical novel didn't exist in the first century, so reading the texts from that vantage point, even though they might contain fictional elements, is flawed.

There is no point at which the level of belief or commitment of an author to their work turns into -it really happened-.  There just isn't.  If you can't acknowledge this we can't have a rational discussion.

A rational discussion doesn't involve a wholesale dismissal of every word because an author is writing to expound or propagate their beliefs, whether political, social, or religious. When we have multiple authors whose writings include a number of statements which can be verified as accurate - take the role of Pontius Pilate as he concerns the province of Judea as a single example - and not one, not ONE source makes as much as even a hint towards your thesis; not one small iota of documentary evidence supports the mythicist argument; but, on the contrary, we have many reasons to believe no sane person, especially - of all people - religious Jews, would create a new cult concerning a Jewish Messiah whom was to be worshipped as a god AND was humiliated by crucifixion - of all penalties - if they had complete determination of the narrative; this is one of many facts that you can't actually deal with in any serious way. Given this, among other considerations, it's quite easy to say that one is completely unjustified in calling your view credible, rational, probable, etc., and it is very much difficult for even moderately informed people to treat your pseudoscepticism with any more respect than would be deserving of, say, the resurrection hypothesis put forward by fundamentalist Christians.

Who had a reputation as a miracle worker?  Historical jesus or the character of jesus in the NT narrative (and all discarded narratives)?  You think that at some point people not doubting their beliefs translates into -it really happened-?  We have creationists who don't doubt their beliefs -today-..here, on these boards.  Go apply that knockdown argument to them.  

An obvious red herring, as the views of creationists and how they arrive at them have nothing in common with the issue at hand - well, except that they, like yourself, are "skeptical" about the evidence we do possess and the consensus of the experts who have analysed it using the methods accepted by everyone else working in the field.

I have no reason to doubt the claims about Jesus being a flesh and blood human being, born under the law, as Paul writes, shamefully put to death as numerous second generation followers describe it, and the catalyst for a movement that all of subsequent Western history reflects. I do have reasons to doubt that the miracles, or the birth narratives, or post-mortem activities, occurred as they tell it. But none of that adds weight to the notion that nothing they wrote contains any historical veracity. That, quite obviously, is not the case. And neither would you have reason to doubt it if you could see the forest for trees.

Why would I dispute the claim?  Im asking for the evidence, and failing that, some valid means of inference to get from the claim to the conclusion.  I can read the claim just as easily as you can.

What other evidence could you possibly expect us to have?

Are you really going to end this response with "The bible says so, so the evidence is on my side".......?  We're clearly not having the same discussion.

Well, considering that we don't have a ton of writings from the ancient world, and the Bible was written in the ancient world, it might contain some useful information about, you know, the ancient world.

Lets say we've winnowed down the story to a pool of candidate historical jesi..after we get rid of all the "obvious fantasy", how do we decide from that remaining mundane pool which are the true historical details, and which are the narrative details?  

Why should we expect to have detailed historical information? We have scant information on the lives of countless average people who lived only a hundred years ago. I recently reviewed the lives of William Ockham and Duns Scotus, some of the greatest and most well-known philosophers of their day, in the 13th and 14th centuries, and we have very little details about them - next to nothing besides a few lists that happen to include their names. Fortunately, they wrote, and left works, and their followers give us a little more information about them decades upon decades later. But you'd expect an abundance of evidence, on top of that which already exists, for the leader of a small religious sect in the first century, whose friends were simple fishermen, and probably didn't write himself...? I mean, with all due respect, get real. 

That's the trouble all the historical jesi have -always- faced.  We acknowledge from the outset that at least some of it is myth and legend -this is fiction-, and we don't have valid means to determine true from narrative detail among what is left.  Fiction isn't limited to the ghostly details of a ghost story....and that people believe in some or all of the details of such a story is no argument or evidence of their accuracy.  Meanwhile mythical and legendary jesus is remarkably easy to demonstrate..it's right there on the page..no shitty inference required....whatever vague notion of a historical jesus you have is irrelevant to it.  There's just no need.

That's not "trouble" for most people who consider the historicity of the man Jesus, which is all that is being disputed here. The details are less important than the general portrait of the character, which is what they're aiming to paint anyhow... And the character that emerges is far too historical, and fits much better in the historical narrative of Christianity arising out of a Greek speaking, Jewish world, in the first-century, much better that is, than any other alternative narratives.

[The Grand Nudger]

That is too simplistic for me. The New Testament is a collection of diverse texts, representing different views and genres. To say it's "clearly a work of fiction" is starting from a position that is both naive and on many points demonstrably rubbish. It's a larger assumption than I could comfortably make, even from the outset, but moreover, it's false. A great many aspects within these writings, such as names, titles, and locations, can be corroborated by extrabiblical and archaeological sources, which adds to their credibility when mentioning the sorts of important and useful mundane facts that you seem to only disregard, out of an unfortunately misplaced and irrational prejudice, when it concerns anything having to do with their central purpose: their religion. The entire concept of a historical novel didn't exist in the first century, so reading the texts from that vantage point, even though they might contain fictional elements, is flawed.

Too simplistic?  It is clearly fiction..unless you think that jesus drove demons into pigs in actuality?  Let's get some clarification on this point...do you think that the NT narratives aren't fictional?  Fiction is diverse, and represents different views and genres.  Perhaps -you- have a simplistic view of fiction?

Seems to be so, since you also think that there was no such thing as historical fiction at -any- point in human history.  We have always told stories.  I don;t know why you're babbling about novels, now....we're not discussing a novel, are we?  

A rational discussion doesn't involve a wholesale dismissal of every word because an author is writing to expound or propagate their beliefs, whether political, social, or religious. When we have multiple authors whose writings include a number of statements which can be verified as accurate - take the role of Pontius Pilate as he concerns the province of Judea as a single example - and not one, not ONE source makes as much as even a hint towards your thesis; not one small iota of documentary evidence supports the mythicist argument; but, on the contrary, we have many reasons to believe no sane person, especially - of all people - religious Jews, would create a new cult concerning a Jewish Messiah whom was to be worshipped as a god AND was humiliated by crucifixion - of all penalties - if they had complete determination of the narrative; this is one of many facts that you can't actually deal with in any serious way. Given this, among other considerations, it's quite easy to say that one is completely unjustified in calling your view credible, rational, probable, etc., and it is very much difficult for even moderately informed people to treat your pseudoscepticism with any more respect than would be deserving of, say, the resurrection hypothesis put forward by fundamentalist Christians.

I haven't dismissed every word, I've only dismissed your comments..and I've told you why.  You don't think that even a smidgeon of evidence supports the mythical position?  How about the fact that -in the narrative in question-, jesus is a god with magical powers....what do you think that is....."historical"..? Look, the absolute best you can aim for, with the jesus character, is legendary. Even a "historical jesus" is -still- a legendary jesus. Do you know how thin the veil between legendary and mythical is?

An obvious red herring, as the views of creationists and how they arrive at them have nothing in common with the issue at hand - well, except that they, like yourself, are "skeptical" about the evidence we do possess and the consensus of the experts who have analysed it using the methods accepted by everyone else working in the field.

They have alot in common.  Both are based on the same collections of text....and both float invalid claims and have difficulty producing evidence, but mostly they both content themselves with calling the other guy names.

I have no reason to doubt the claims about Jesus being a flesh and blood human being, born under the law, as Paul writes, shamefully put to death as numerous second generation followers describe it, and the catalyst for a movement that all of subsequent Western history reflects. I do have reasons to doubt that the miracles, or the birth narratives, or post-mortem activities, occurred as they tell it. But none of that adds weight to the notion that nothing they wrote contains any historical veracity. That, quite obviously, is not the case. And neither would you have reason to doubt it if you could see the forest for trees.

"I have n reason to doubt" is an excuse for your having failed to provide evidence or reason to accept.  

What other evidence could you possibly expect us to have?

That's not -my- problem, is it?  I would have taken a valid means of inference as well, you failed to deliver on both counts.

Well, considering that we don't have a ton of writings from the ancient world, and the Bible was written in the ancient world, it might contain some useful information about, you know, the ancient world.

OFC it does, but that;s not the question at hand, now is it?  You've failed to deliver historical jesus in evidence, and you've failed to deliver historical jesus in inference.

Why should we expect to have detailed historical information? We have scant information on the lives of countless average people who lived only a hundred years ago. I recently reviewed the lives of William Ockham and Duns Scotus, some of the greatest and most well-known philosophers of their day, in the 13th and 14th centuries, and we have very little details about them - next to nothing besides a few lists that happen to include their names. Fortunately, they wrote, and left works, and their followers give us a little more information about them decades upon decades later. But you'd expect an abundance of evidence, on top of that which already exists, for the leader of a small religious sect in the first century, whose friends were simple fishermen, and probably didn't write himself...? I mean, with all due respect, get real. 

Get real, you say, after willfully straw manning me with your first sentence..... again.  If you can't give me a historical detail about jesus, you don't have a historical jesus. QED.  

That's not "trouble" for most people who consider the historicity of the man Jesus, which is all that is being disputed here. The details are less important than the general portrait of the character, which is what they're aiming to paint anyhow... And the character that emerges is far too historical, and fits much better in the historical narrative of Christianity arising out of a Greek speaking, Jewish world, in the first-century, much better that is, than any other alternative narratives.

What man jesus?  The details are unimportant, way to excuse yourself.  If the details are unimportant, and you do not possess them, why have you been arguing with me at all?  You leaving the embarrassing details defense and falling back to the die for a lie defense now?  We already tried that, remember? The "general portrait of the character"..really..and you say we aren't talking about fiction.....................