Did Jesus exist?

[robvalue]

Here's my summary, as I see it. My opinion.

There are 4 levels of Jesus.

Level 1: A person who the narrative could have been based on.
Level 2: A mixture of several particular people who the narrative was based on.
Level 3: A single, particular person who the narrative was solely based on.
Level 4: A single, particular person who the narrative accurately describes.

Was there a level 4 Jesus?

No. I only expect Christians to disagree.

Was there a level 1 Jesus?

Yes. Hundreds, if not thousands. I expect just about anyone would agree. If you want to point to one of these guys, and name him "Historical Jesus", you are welcome to do so. I personally don't find that very impressive.

Was there a level 2/3 Jesus?

In my opinion, the evidence is not strong enough to say that there was a level 3 Jesus. I'm not saying there wasn't, just that I don't yet see a valid conclusion from the evidence. Even if the gospels authors intended the tale to be about exactly one historical figure, there is no evidence they were eye witnesses. So they couldn't possibly know if they were actually basing it on exactly one person. We are relying therefor on hearsay stories inbetween not picking up any elements of any other historical figures. Putting this together with the authors' blatant disregard for accuracy, willingness to believe nonsense and to even add their own nonsense, we're left with muddy water at best. And that's assuming the whole thing isn't actually meant to be fiction in the first place.

I give level 2 Jesus 40-50% chance, and level 3 Jesus 10% chance.

Of course I don't expect anyone to agree. I think this is a matter of personal opinion and probability, given the huge lack of evidence available. But if someone was to tell me they are 90% confident there was a level 3 Jesus, I would find that conclusion suspect. Of course, any Christian is pretty much required to say there was, as part of the dogma. But I can't take that seriously.

Conclusion

Jesus is gay.

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean hell, why not...they could have had him covorting around with beautiful women...but instead they include the embarrassing detail of his pecker club. So that's probably gay historical jesus, right there, right? I wonder how that'd be received at a fundy seminar..........

creepiest aside ever;

"Of course jesus loved men Billy, he loves eeeeeveryone. In his righteous glory, however, he suppressed those urges contrary to the will of himself....like blowing judas...and that's why he never had sex! Now, who want's to sign a purity pledge....yaaaaaaaay" : golfclap :

[Pat Mustard]

Right. If we just believe any testimony is likely to be true at points where it appears to be embarrassing, without further evidence, we're in a very strange position.

I could go ahead and write some stuff now which appears to embarrass me. Will it be true in 2000 years, if little else from the era survives for comparison?

To me, we've got far more reasons to think these people made things up and weren't particularly interested in historical accuracy. But this is just my opinion. We are only dealing in probabilities.

Given the time Mark was probably firs written (at the time of the first Jewish revolt), and Jesus' action man portrayal therein, I wouldn't be too suprised if the crucifixion was an aggrandising event rather than an embarrassing one. The authors could have been saying 'look at our leader, he died for your freedom'. Many men have started their road to glory only after a violent death, after all.

[Minimalist]

I mean hell, why not...they could have had him covorting around with beautiful women

A little action with Mary Magdalene?

[GrandizerII]

Now...wait a minute......what about "It really happened".......?

"Really" is too confident. "Likely" is a more pleasing word to my ears ... or eyes ...

[robvalue]

I would have said this "embarrassment" angle could be one factor to consider when weighing up a close call, maybe it adds a small amount of extra credibility to add onto other reasons to believe the part of the account is true. But as a sole reason, personally I find it extremely weak.

If I pick up a written account, of anything, my default position is that I have no opinion of it. I don't assume it happened, and I don't assume it didn't. That default doesn't change unless examination of the account, more importantly coupled with independent sources, produces something convincing. Here, I see nothing convincing. These are fictional stories, that much is clear after even a cursory glance. Trying to pull truth out of them without being able to externally verify it seems like an extreme bias towards wanting them to contain truth. And even if you establish that the hero was a real person, just believing any particular part happened as written and wasn't part of the author's imagination seems fanciful, if you can't verify it.

Correlation between the Synoptics is not an argument either since it's known they are literally based on each other. In fact, the differences make it clear how unreliable these people are and that storytelling is more important to them.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of this, but I've noticed in general a big emotional attachment to HJ. Responses can very quickly devolve into insults and character assassination, basically trying to shut people up if they dare to disagree. This suggests much more than a historical interest. I don't fully understand where this comes from.

[athrock]

I suspect that if there was a Paul, he made up alot of stories about "Paul" as well.

Paul claimed to have been all things to all men.  He was a master BS'er.

A bit of context for clarification of what Paul meant:

1 Corinthians 9
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

He's simply saying that he lived as a slave, as one in prison, as one who was weak, as a Jew, as a Gentile, etc. in order to not have any barriers between him and his audience.

[athrock]

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

Yes.

[athrock]

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.

We should all pray for him. Oh...wait...

We should all send warm thoughts his way.

[athrock]

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 may be considered an example of the criterion of embarrassment, Cecelia. 

1 Corinthians 1:22-24

22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.