The Jesus Moot Theory

[CapnAwesome]

I guess the options that I can think of are:

1. Jesus is totally a myth.
2. Some guy was around 2000 years ago, did some preaching and had some followers, but was pretty unremarkable.
3. Someone, possibly called Jesus, who did some preaching and attempted say to heal people. Some of the stories are true to some extent, with a lot of embelishment.
4. Everything in the bible about Jesus is true.
5. Somewhere else between 1 and 4.

Does anyone who is well read on this know what is thought to be the most likely? Also from what I understand there were active historians in the area at the right time who completely failed to notice all this going on. Is this true?

I think probably 3 or somewhere between 2 or 3. Does it really matter? All the supernatural accounts are clearly false, god is a myth and Jesus is dead just like everyone else. The problems with Christianity are so incredibly vast that it's totally irrelevant whether or not there is some historical person that Jesus is based on. I don't really understand why some people get so held up on it.

[Jackalope]

I don't really understand why some people get so held up on it.

If I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do with there being approximately 2 billion Christians trying to cram their bullshit down the rest of our necks.

[DeistPaladin]

I guess the options that I can think of are:

1. Jesus is totally a myth.
2. Some guy was around 2000 years ago, did some preaching and had some followers, but was pretty unremarkable.
3. Someone, possibly called Jesus, who did some preaching and attempted say to heal people. Some of the stories are true to some extent, with a lot of embelishment.
4. Everything in the bible about Jesus is true.
5. Somewhere else between 1 and 4.

Does anyone who is well read on this know what is thought to be the most likely? Also from what I understand there were active historians in the area at the right time who completely failed to notice all this going on. Is this true?

I'd say between 1 and 2. I can't prove 1 since I can't prove a negative. I can only prove the dearth of non-Christian testimony shows that he was, at best, an unremarkable also-ran, only later deified by future generations and the real story buried hopelessly under myths.

And yes, it is true. Philo would have been a great historian to have noticed Jesus. He wrote extensively about Jewish theology, including the Logos (or "Word") which likely was one of the early versions of the same Logos mentioned in the intro of the Gospel of John ("In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was made flesh"). Jesus, if he were anything like the Gospel character, should have fascinated Philo. Of course, a historist will quickly cry "argument from silence". This is the hazard of trying to argue for a negative.

The Jewish leaders themselves didn't seem to notice Christianity until later centuries. The only mention a "Yeshua" has is a 4th century entry into The Talmud. This Yeshua was tried for 40 days. Not a similar story and there's no reference as to when it happened.

Odd that the Jews didn't seem to notice the religious upheaval that Jesus caused until later centuries but again, the historist will cry "argument from silence".

Seutonius mentions a "Chrestus" in Rome stirring up the Jews in Rome during the reign of Claudius (circa 50 CE). "Chrestus" means "the good one", not "the anointed one". Also, wrong time and wrong place. Historists sometimes argue that "Chrestus" was a misspelling and the time and place are references to Jesus' influence. Seems like grasping at straws to me but here I am arguing for a negative again.

Josephus speaks quite a bit about the ministry of John the Baptist. He had a huge following at the time. Odd thing, no mention of JtB putting himself down and telling everyone he was just a forerunner. Funny that, huh? What's that? Oh, right, "argument from silence".

Josephus does mention a "Yeshua" in his "Jamesian reference". However, Christians and historists don't quote the whole passage that specifies it's "Jesus Bar Damneus", or Jesus Son-of-Damneus, not Jesus-son-of-Joseph.

The most powerful piece of evidence, and see my back-handed compliment for what it is, are the 2nd century Annals of Tacitus. In this oblique and late passage, Tacitus wrote something along the lines of,

"Christians get their name from 'Christos', who was crucified by one of our Procurators, Pilate".

I'm paraphrasing since I may not be remembering the exact quote but I do remember the only two details are:

1. "Christos" and
2. "crucified by Pilate"

Now, odd thing, Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator, a term only used in later times for Roman governors. Historists and Christians will quickly snap "oh picky, picky, picky" at this point.

Also, the passage is so oblique, there is the possibility that Tacitus was only passing along what he'd heard from the Christians. After all, Pilate crucified a lot of Jewish leaders so it may have been a mundane enough claim to not warrant any fact checking. But historists and Christians will retort that I can't prove that assertion, that it's merely plausible.

So there you have it. The total arsenal of non-Christian testimony is:

• A reference to Chrestus in Rome by Seutonius
  
• A refernece to Jesus Son of Damneus by Josephus
  
• A 2nd Century Oblique Reference by Tacitus
  
• A 4th Century Jewish Reference to "a" Yeshua
  

...and you can see my argument for The Jesus Moot.

[DeistPaladin]

Does it really matter? All the supernatural accounts are clearly false, god is a myth and Jesus is dead just like everyone else. The problems with Christianity are so incredibly vast that it's totally irrelevant whether or not there is some historical person that Jesus is based on. I don't really understand why some people get so held up on it.

Bingo.

Now Christians will jump from "Jesus existed in history" to various spurious arguments like...

"Would they have died for a lie?"
Charismatic cult leader. Religious persecution. Lots of cultists dying or killing themselves. Nothing that requires a supernatural explanation. Next?

"Liar, Lunatic or Lord?"
Liar? Does that make him "a demon", unable to utter some platitudes about "love thy neighbor"? Seen the movie "The Road to El Dorado"?





Miguel is a rogue worshiped by natives as a god. At first, he plays along to rip off the natives but his conscience kicks in and he connects with the people and tries to create a more gentle religion in place of the austere one before it. The priests conspire to kill him. Sound familiar? Is Miguel a "demon"?

Even if Jesus was a sociopath, it still proves nothing. Sociopaths are perfectly capable of being charming and saying sweet platitudes.

Lunatic? Again, does it have to be "giggling to himself in a straight jacket" kind of lunacy? Lots of cult leaders are crazy. Does that prohibit them from getting followers? Or uttering occasional words of wisdom?

And read the Gospels. Jesus did have his bad moments where he could be either nasty or crazy.

[JuliaL]

I've no doubt that Jesus was real and Jesus IS real. Heck I've seen him in the movies.


What I want to know is why the all powerful creator of the universe didn't slip a DVD in with those Essene scrolls. Seems pretty clear He doesn't want to be found (trying to beat Richard III). For that matter, I'd accept an 8 track.

Clearly He doesn't want to be found so I'm not going to piss Him off by looking for him.

[FreeTony]

Thanks for that, an interesting reply.

It's not really enough evidence for me to give up my Sunday mornings and 10% of my salary!

[CapnAwesome]

I think there is a little need for a Devil's advocate in this thread. Now I'm an agnostic when it comes to the existence of Jesus. I find the question to be rather irrelevant, especially as an Atheist. I don't care if Jesus is based on a historical figure. Whether or not 2 billion Christians believe in it is not a good reason to believe or not believe in Jesus. Also I think that merely the lack of primary sources to not be particularly compelling. Ghengis Khan similarly lacks primary sources. I can't think of a single credible historian who doubts the existence of Ghenghis Khan. There are a shocking number of historical figures who lack primary source evidence. If that is the main argument, it's not a very good one. I say this as a Historian and not as an Atheist. I think people with only a glancing understanding of history don't understand how little was written about in an ancient world where the vast majority of everyone was illiterate.