The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Minimalist]

Have just started reading There Was No Jesus, There Is No God  by Rafael Lataster...a former evangelical who saw the light.   He has jumped into the HJ-MJ debate by adding a 3d category.  The BJ.  (No...not what you'd think....enjoyable as that would be.)  The BJ is the Biblical Jesus...the jesus that dumbfucks like G-C and Drippy maintain is real.  As he says in this article the BJ is easily dismissed.  The HJ is the product of various scholars who look at the gospels and think there just HAD to be a real person and the MJ is the realization that "jesus" is no more necessary to the myth than a historical Osiris was to his.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery...t-hold-up/

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.

Again, as he gets to his discussion of the evidence, I'll add on to this thread.

[Longhorn]

I like the purdy rainbow icon in the thread title

[robvalue]

I asked the same question to another reputable source:

[Minimalist]

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.

Wiki

Which leads quickly to Lataster's discussion of primary sources for the godboy.  It is short and sweet.

The primary sources

 

This is easy; there are none. I know I have mentioned this a few times now, but this is crucial, and we clearly should not forget it. Primary sources are contemporary, eyewitness sources of evidence. Primary sources could be artefacts (there are no confirmed physical pieces of evidence for a Historical Jesus, let alone the Biblical Jesus) or documents from the hand of the person in question, or from an eyewitness, and which is contemporary to the event in question. There are no primary sources when it comes to Jesus. All the evidence used to establish Jesus’ existence is at best from secondary sources, which will become evident as the sources are individually examined. These pieces of evidence are documents, from non-eyewitnesses, written long after the events of Jesus’ life, and which only exist in copies dating even further from Jesus’ life.  We simply do not have access to any primary sources when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth; this fact alone serves to eliminate any certainty about Jesus, whether we are considering the supernatural aspects, or even the more mundane aspects such as his historical existence.

Chapter 2

[robvalue]

It is amazing to me how this fact does not bother Christians. It would certainly bother me if I was one.

The most important man who ever lived, and we're relying on gossip from years later to learn about him? And for the ressurection, when you take out the forged extra ending, we're relying on a hearsay account of another hearsay account (a guy simply stating Jesus is alive while providing no evidence). I wouldn't accept that standard of evidence about the price of a newspaper, let alone an unprecedented supernatural event.

After sampling apologist's books, I'm aware of the kind of ridiculous lengths people will go to justify to themselves that this is all actually evidence of any value.

[Pizza]

It is amazing to me how this fact does not bother Christians. It would certainly bother me if I was one.

The most important man who ever lived, and we're relying on gossip from years later to learn about him? And for the ressurection, when you take out the forged extra ending, we're relying on a hearsay account of another hearsay account (a guy simply stating Jesus is alive while providing no evidence). I wouldn't accept that standard of evidence about the price of a newspaper, let alone an unprecedented supernatural event.

After sampling apologist's books, I'm aware of the kind of ridiculous lengths people will go to justify to themselves that this is all actually evidence of any value.

The really bizarre argument is "the NT got some historical detail right, then it's right about everything, therefore Jesus rose from the dead!!"

[robvalue]

That is a desperate argument, yes. How hard is it to get some historical details right? They knew what town they lived in? Wow! What genius.

It would be the equivalent of me writing down a few cities and the name of our prime minister. Big deal! If I then start writing about magic dragons and silver mind bullets, will it all be true in 2000 years time?

Bah humbug.

[Brakeman]

Min & Rob,

I'm sorry but you two are not lettered professors in ancient stupidity and couldn't possible read and view the evidence or lack thereof.

Don't you know that The majority of people that get paid to study leprechauns full time claim to have evidence of leprechauns?

[Kingpin]

Is it solely because of the supernatural claims made (his miracles and resurrection) that people dismiss his existence in history? We have no contemporary writings on Cleopatra, only greco-roman scholars and historians, yet I don't think anyone will claim she didn't exist. There are non-biblical historians who mention him or his followers and even attest to him being crucified under Pilate's rule. The gospel writings are written between 20-40 years after his death. That would be no different then someone who was close with Martin Luther King Jr and decided today to write all about their times and life with him before his death. I don't see how you find this ridiculous. There are very few historians that say he never existed. They acknowledge he existed and dead by crucifixion under Pilate's rule. Enemies of the Christians acknowledged his existence and even showed their disdain for Christians and what they thought of them.

Lucian a second century Romano-Syrian satirist and a pagan who lived during the second century also wrote in his book "Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pere that “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them…”

Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius, who was another Roman historian and lived from AD 75 to AD 160 similarly mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus. Pliny the Younger (AD 61- AD 115) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in which he confirmed the crucifixion of Jesus. Other pagan writers who acknowledged the crucifixion of Jesus are Numenius, Galerius, Phlegon and Celsus. These pagan writers did not believe in the sacrificial and redeeming death of Jesus on the cross. Indeed, some of them even laughed at this earth-shattering incident, but in writing and making fun of Christianity they have contributed to a preservation of historical records that provide ample testimony that Jesus was indeed a historical person, was crucified and died

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Is it solely because of the supernatural claims made (his miracles and resurrection) that people dismiss his existence in history?  We have no contemporary writings on Cleopatra, only greco-roman scholars and historians, yet I don't think anyone will claim she didn't exist.  There are non-biblical historians who mention him or his followers and even attest to him being crucified under Pilate's rule.  The gospel writings are written between 20-40 years after his death.  That would be no different then someone who was close with Martin Luther King Jr and decided today to write all about their times and life with him before his death.  I don't see how you find this ridiculous.  There are very few historians that say he never existed.  They acknowledge he existed and dead by crucifixion under Pilate's rule.  Enemies of the Christians acknowledged his existence and even showed their disdain for Christians and what they thought of them.

Lucian a second century Romano-Syrian satirist and a pagan who lived during the second century also wrote in his book "Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pere that “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them…”

Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius, who was another Roman historian and lived from AD 75 to AD 160 similarly mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus. Pliny the Younger (AD 61- AD 115) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in which he confirmed the crucifixion of Jesus. Other pagan writers who acknowledged the crucifixion of Jesus are Numenius, Galerius, Phlegon and Celsus. These pagan writers did not believe in the sacrificial and redeeming death of Jesus on the cross. Indeed, some of them even laughed at this earth-shattering incident, but in writing and making fun of Christianity they have contributed to a preservation of historical records that provide ample testimony that Jesus was indeed a historical person, was crucified and died

They are still writings, decades after the alleged events, and even if they were contemporaneous with this jesus figure, that wouldn’t prove anything about the stories in the gospels.

People writing about events decades after they happened, and then having more people compile their opinions on top of other people’s opinions that weren’t there in the first place, is not intelligent evidence to go off of, especially with a figure who has such extraordinary claims attached to his reputation.

Those people weren’t there, that’s no where near good enough evidence to go all-in on, and to just accept the christian faith. People still do this stuff today, that’s why christianity still exists, along with other religions. They keep passing stories down from generation to generation, and barely any of them care to think about whether they think it’s true or not, that’s what these people back then, likely did. Even, if there was enough proof that this man was crucified, what would that prove about his miracles or that he was the son of god?