The Historicity Of Jesus: Does It Matter?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've seen several threads here regarding the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historic personage, an amalgam of mythic figures, or something in the middle. Personally, I'm of the opinion that there was no historic figure comparable to the Jesus described in the synoptic Gospels, but I don't think the issue is all that important.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the historic Jesus as described is more or less accurate - an itinerant rabbi who was born in Bethlehem to a carpenter and his wife, preached for a few years, attracted a sizeable following, got into a kerfuffle with the local authorities and was killed for his trouble. Leaving aside for now the question of Jesus' supernatural abilities, would the existence of such a person have any effect on the views of non-believers? I really don't think so.

On the other side of the coin, we can suppose that the Jesus of the Gospels was a completely a-historic figure, but this is no bar to believers accepting him as a savior or the son of God. In fact, Paul seems blissfully unaware of Jesus as an actual flesh-and-blood, and I don't think anyone doubts the religious sincerity of this particular lunatic.

I strongly suspect that Christians (and others) have a need to believe in Jesus as an historic figure in order to help give some kind of provenance to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the story: if Jesus didn't exist in a flesh-and-blood sense, then there wasn't anyone to walk on water or heal lepers or cater the wedding and so forth. They need a miracle worker to believe in miracles and Christianity simply doesn't hold up with out miracles.

But if proof of an actual Jesus as described in the synoptics were to be revealed tomorrow, I can't see it weakening my atheism even a little bit.

Boru

[Foxaèr]

In history class, I do not recall Jesus ever being discussed as a part of any lecture. Not in humanities class, either.

If the history books are wise enough to exclude him, then obviously there is no clear historical consensus regarding Jesus' existence as a historical figure.

[Raeven]

No, I don't recall Jesus being discussed in any history class I ever attended, either. But then, that was so long ago that evolution was still taught in schools.

True story.

In answer to your question, Boru, no. It would not matter in any way to me. I claim no scholarly insight into the question because as a life-long atheist, it never mattered to me and I never studied it in depth. However, I have always mused that there was likely an historical basis for him, owing to all the fuss he created; that his 'miracles' were simply overwrought, fantastical tales, imbued with mystical qualities by a scientifically-ignorant populace. I mean, if Joseph Smith could manage it in so-called "modern" times, it must've been a snap for Jesus.

[Doubting Thomas]

If someone actually found evidence for a guy named Jesus or Yeshua who existed back then and vaguely followed the gospel stories in the bible, then fine. It still doesn't mean that he was the son of any god any more than the idiots running around today claiming to be the second coming of Jesus are.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/man-claims-he...magdalene/

We know this guy exists. Anyone want to make the claim as to his divinity?

[Raven]

I have to agree with you, Boru. It truly is not important whether a first century Jewish radical named Yeshua was actually an historic figure or not. I'd still be an unbeliever if tomorrow they could prove without any doubt whatever that he did indeed walk this earth back then.

But, can you imagine the hue and cry we'd get from the believers?! That is surely something I'd never want to have to put up with. My wife still prays that I'll come to my senses as it is. Were that to happen I shudder to think of the personal consequences......

That would certainly get more than one 24hr news cycle. We'd never hear the end of it, so it's a good thing that this is one question that will never be settled one way or the other.

[max-greece]

A lot would depend on what they found as proof. If it was his tomb with a body in it that would cause Christianity a serious problem.

Personally I have always worked on the assumption that there is someone underneath the myth but I am open on the subject. Whether he did or not nothing changes for me.

[Bob Kelso]

Frankly I couldn't care less if Jesus was a real man or not, because that's all he was. A man.

If he was real, not something I've ever heard in a history class mind you, then he was just another whackjob claiming to be a god in human form. Man that sounds familiar....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfO...detailpage

[MindForgedManacle]

I'm pretty sure I basically made this thread yesterday in the Philosophy section. :p

Basically, what I said was that even if all ancient sources agreed about Jesus in every detail (and they don't), it is irrelevant as far as the existence of God is concerned. Firstly, it cannot tell whether such reports actually correspond to what actually happened. Assuming this is true would force Christians into contortions with regards to other religions as well.

Secondly, there is an insuperable disconnect between philosophical arguments and religious historical arguments. There's no way to traverse between the philosophical arguments and the historical arguments because you could not - even in principle - demonstrate that there is some kind of supreme being and that any particular human or religious claim of being a representative of said being true.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm pretty sure I basically made this thread yesterday in the Philosophy section.

Whups. I cite inattention and high levels of painkillers for missing your posts.

Sincere apos.

Boru

[MindForgedManacle]

Dude, no need. I just found it a funny coincidence. You are no obligated to read all my posts... but if you don't I might call you a bitch. Or not. :p