Existence of Jesus

[DD_8630]

All I'm thinking is that perhaps its more probable that the 'miraculous' absurd Supernatural Lord Jesus Christ of the bible is BASED on a real person than the whole thing was made up out of nothing.

Why? Is there any evidence that Jesus actually lived (in a divine capacity or otherwise)?

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

Probably

Also a question: There is tons of evidence for evolution - but if someone believed in it and didn't know a thing about it - they just took someones word for it when they were told it was true without knowing if there's any evidence of it - now is that belief based on evidence or faith?

If they knew what it was, but they only had someone's word that it actually occurred... well, it depends on who that someone is. An authority on biology, or someone who is otherwise trustworthy, would count as tentative evidence. That is, if you have reason to trust them, then their word counts as evidence (albeit of the weakest sort). Even an iota of objective data would be enough to shatter that trust.

But, in the absence of anything else, we are 'allowed' to defer to their expertise.

The belief in evolution in this case is based on evidence because there IS evidence - even though the hypothetical person doesn't know about it.

But then also the hypothetical person is just taking the word for it without knowing OF any evidence - just like belief in faith. Even though of course there IS evidence. He/she just doesn't know about it and believes anyway.

So is that belief in evidence or faith? I'd still say its evidence even if its just being 'trusted' rather than actually knowing about the evidence.

Because the evidence is still there.

Hmm, that's not quite the same. Because, after all, why should the hypothetical person believe that there is evidence? If a theist came up to you said they had evidence for God, would you immediately bow to your knee and sing praises? No: you'd ask for this evidence.

The thing is, you and I are both quite experience with theistic arguments, so we have reason not to trust them: rigorous analysis has consistently shown them to be false, so we shouldn't believe future ones either (without analysing it as well, of course).

That's why religion is so powerful: religious leaders have traditionally been the leaders of the entire community, so they are seen as the wise authority on al matters. After all, they're right in everything else

Trusting in the unknown is not the same as faith - because IF there is evidence - then its belief in evidence.

Agreed: trust is evidence by proxy.

And for example - there is no current evidence of God OR aliens - but aliens are far far far more likely than God.

In fact because of course the universe is so utterly massive - some scientists think that its much more likely that aliens exist somewhere than not - than us being the only life.

DESPITE the fact there's no (known) evidence of aliens at all.

Ah, but is that not itself evidence from statistical analysis? The entire field of thermodynamics rests upon probability theory, after all.

So there may be no known evidence that THE Jesus was based on someone - yet I think its perhaps more likely than not.

If the evidence is in fact out there somewhere - even if its never to be found - then that belief on mine is based on evidence, right?

Ah, no: there may be artefacts out there that, once found, constitute evidence for your beliefs. But just as you have no evidence for the existence of Jesus, neither do you have evidence for the existence of that evidence!

Evidence only becomes evidence when we have it. Otherwise, it's just hidden artefacts and data.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well yes - that's when its called evidence.

But WHEN evidence is found - it was there all along its just no one knew of it so it was correctly assumed (burden of proof, etc) that there wasn't any evidence until further notice.

Once the evidence was found - then it had actually been there along right? Or am I getting confused?

E.G: Fossils that had been there all along but weren't considered evidence because no one even knew they had existed. Once they were found - they had been there as evidence all along but noone knew of that evidence so it was considered that there wasn't any (talking about these hypothetical fossils I mean).

You're great to discuss with.

I just think that it is perhaps, on average, more statistically probable for someone such as Jesus to have been based on someone to have been just completely made up from scratch. Maybe not.

The thing is though IF Jesus was based on a real person - was that real person even called Jesus? Or was it a similar name? Or a COMPLETELY different name? In that case would that person even count as or be similar enough to Jesus to even count as 'the real Jesus'?

I mean where do you draw the line? How similar would someone that the Jesus character was based on have to be to Jesus - the be considered the so called 'real original Jesus'. In other words the person that Jesus was based on that's similar enough to be the real Jesus that the supernaturally absurd Jesus of the bible was based on?

And if he had a very similar name to Jesus (because he was based on 'The Jesus') of the bible - would that count? How similar would he have to be? I mean would he have to be EXACTLY the same just without all the supernatural nonsense? That would be much much more unlikely than someone that's merely similar enough I think.

It gets all rather confusing and specific and where do you draw the line - in that case - I think. Perhaps gets more semantic. I dunno.

Thoughts?

Oh and P.S:

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

Probably

Almost certainly

[DD_8630]

Well yes - that's when its called evidence.

But WHEN evidence is found - it was there all along its just no one knew of it so it was correctly assumed (burden of proof, etc) that there wasn't any evidence until further notice.

Once the evidence was found - then it had actually been there along right? Or am I getting confused?

Not necessarily. If I'm running an experiment in the lab, the evidence I collect wasn't there before I ran the experiment: it only comes into existence when I cause the desired phenomena to occur (e.g., creating surface plasmons). The data I acquire does not exist beforehand, so we really can't say that "the evidence was always there".

If we restrict ourselves to archaeology, then yes, the evidence is almost always pre-existing artefacts. But that in itself is irrelevant: though the artefacts may exist, we don't know that they exist until we find them.

E.G: Fossils that had been there all along but weren't considered evidence because no one even knew they had existed. Once they were found - they had been there as evidence all along but noone knew of that evidence so it was considered that there wasn't any (talking about these hypothetical fossils I mean).

You're great to discuss with.

Love you too babe.

I just think that it is perhaps, on average, more statistically probable for someone such as Jesus to have been based on someone to have been just completely made up from scratch. Maybe not.

But why? If there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and since there are so many fictional characters in ancient documents, surely it is more likely that he didn't exist?

Basically, I'm wondering why you think it is more probable that he did exist. Is that not a claim which requires support?

The thing is though IF Jesus was based on a real person - was that real person even called Jesus? Or was it a similar name? Or a COMPLETELY different name? In that case would that person even count as or be similar enough to Jesus to even count as 'the real Jesus'?

Well, the original text called him by a name that would be transliterated into 'Yeshua' or something similar. But ultimately, we all know who we're talking about: the founder of Christianity, the speaker on whom those Biblical words are based.

Either he existed or he didn't :p

I mean where do you draw the line? How similar would someone that the Jesus character was based on have to be to Jesus - the be considered the so called 'real original Jesus'. In other words the person that Jesus was based on that's similar enough to be the real Jesus that the supernaturally absurd Jesus of the bible was based on?

And if he had a very similar name to Jesus (because he was based on 'The Jesus') of the bible - would that count? How similar would he have to be? I mean would he have to be EXACTLY the same just without all the supernatural nonsense? That would be much much more unlikely than someone that's merely similar enough I think.

I think that there is reason enough to conclude two major alternatives: either there was one real man, on whom the Biblical character of 'Jesus' was based off, or said character is a complete, anachronous fabrication.

There are other alternatives, of course, but I think they are too unlikely to consider.

Probably

Almost certainly

Yes.
No.
Maybe...
Can you repeat the question?

:p

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I guess I'm thinking that perhaps ideas altogether are statistically more likely to be based on something than be made up from scratch!

So perhaps the Jesus of the bible is therefore more likely to be based on someone who really existed?

And don't you think the 'main character' would seem 'more real' (apart from the miracles LOL!) if he/she was actually based on someone?

I dunno I just think its more probable that Jesus was based on someone than made up altogether.

Sure there's no evidence that he was based on someone. But there's also no evidence he was just made up COMPLETELY from scratch either. It could be either.

And is made up from scratch necessarily the automatic default position because it seems more parsimonious or something?

I think perhaps its more probable he was based on someone. Someone at least vaguely similar perhaps.

I think perhaps big exaggeration is more likely than total lie. I dunno why.

Hey that rhymes

EvF

---

Probably

Almost certainly

Yes.
No.
Maybe...
Can you repeat the question?

:p

Ok;

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

Either he existed or he didn't :p

Indeed. What I mean is how similar would the 'character' based on Jesus. The 'real' Jesus; have to be in order for it to count as Jesus?

If he was nothing like Jesus. Or it was even a girl - then that obviously doesn't count.

But if he's very similar then that may count. Especially if strikingly similar but without the miracles.

Although the point you make about the founding of Christianity is a very good one (I mean of course lol), because if the guy Jesus was based on actually had very many differences than Jesus. In fact if he was nothing like Jesus - yet he founded Christianity - perhaps that may count still because he founded Christianity - and that's who Jesus was based on (or could be based on).

What if it was a girl? Wasn't even a man? Yet founded Christianity. Jesus could have been based on someone female and changed to male.

I do doubt that somehow. I think simply because men were so much more dominant back then.

In fact if Jesus was made up totally then Christianity could have been 'started' (where do you draw the line, what's the start?) by a whole bunch of people.

You're great to discuss with.

Love you too babe.

Well I'm not a pig and I don't live in the city. But thanks anyway lol.

[Kyuuketsuki]

In fact if Jesus was made up totally then Christianity could have been 'started' (where do you draw the line, what's the start?) by a whole bunch of people.

Which was more or less what was proposed by author's like Earl Doherty & Freke & Gandy ... I reviewed the latter's book, "The Jesus Mysteries" here:

http://faith.is-a-geek.net/freethought/b...teries.htm

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Very interesting. I guess I thought if he was made up (completely) perhaps he was made up by several people; - just as the bible was written by several people.

Wasn't the bible written by about 50 people or something?

But then it was of course rewritten and changed many times over after that so a lot more people contributed to it than 50!

But about 50 originally or something?

EvF

[DD_8630]

Well I guess I'm thinking that perhaps ideas altogether are statistically more likely to be based on something than be made up from scratch!

So perhaps the Jesus of the bible is therefore more likely to be based on someone who really existed?

And don't you think the 'main character' would seem 'more real' (apart from the miracles LOL!) if he/she was actually based on someone?

Ah, but if you're going to discard the fantastical parts of Jesus life as false, why keep the mundane parts as true?

I dunno I just think its more probable that Jesus was based on someone than made up altogether.

Sure there's no evidence that he was based on someone. But there's also no evidence he was just made up COMPLETELY from scratch either. It could be either.

And is made up from scratch necessarily the automatic default position because it seems more parsimonious or something?

Exactly. Occam's Razor implies that, all things otherwise the same, the explanation which posits less entities is more likely to be true. In this case, we have one explanation (Jesus didn't exist) posits less entities than the other (Jesus existed).

Probably

Almost certainly

Yes.
No.
Maybe...
Can you repeat the question?

:p

Ok;

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

Heh, I was quoting the lyrics from Malcolm in the Middle :p

Either he existed or he didn't :p

Indeed. What I mean is how similar would the 'character' based on Jesus. The 'real' Jesus; have to be in order for it to count as Jesus?

If he was nothing like Jesus. Or it was even a girl - then that obviously doesn't count.

But if he's very similar then that may count. Especially if strikingly similar but without the miracles.

Although the point you make about the founding of Christianity is a very good one (I mean of course lol), because if the guy Jesus was based on actually had very many differences than Jesus. In fact if he was nothing like Jesus - yet he founded Christianity - perhaps that may count still because he founded Christianity - and that's who Jesus was based on (or could be based on).

What if it was a girl? Wasn't even a man? Yet founded Christianity. Jesus could have been based on someone female and changed to male.

I do doubt that somehow. I think simply because men were so much more dominant back then.

In fact if Jesus was made up totally then Christianity could have been 'started' (where do you draw the line, what's the start?) by a whole bunch of people.

I guess it comes down to what you consider 'Jesus' to be. An actual man by the name of Jesus who lived in the early first century, or the founder of Christianity (regardless of name, dates, etc), or the individual on whom the Biblical character of Jesus was based (regardless of whether he did the alleged things), etc.

[Edwardo Piet]

I know Occam's razor says when everything is otherwise the same then the least entities postulated is the most parsimonious.

But as it says everything otherwise the same - there are exceptions right?

Perhaps its more likely that a character is based on someone than just made up from scratch for instance?

Or closer to 50/50 at least.

Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was based on a 'real' Jesus rather than 100% made up.

Maybe its 60/40 that Jesus was made up 100%.

Maybe its 90% likely he was completely made up.

We cannot know - and we certainly cannot know exactly I mean! At least as of yet!!

But maybe its more parsimonious that he was based on someone? Y'know?

I mean I'm going by how I think an awful lot of characters are based on someone rather than totally made up. And I think the founder of Christianity would perhaps be MORE of a target of exaggeration and making a big deal of. Perhaps more likely than making the whole thing up 100%. I dunno.

So my question is - is it perhaps more likely in general that 'characters' are based especially in situations like this perhaps?

Is that just a stupid question? Am I just being stupid here?

Perhaps we should just say: "it is more parsimonious to assume that there was no Jesus at all than to assume the supernatural Jesus of the bible was based on someone that we could call the 'real' Jesus." ?

Is it necessarily more likely, statistically?

Have I said anything worthwhile here or am I MERELY confusing myself as opposed to just confusing myself while I'm trying to think this through ?

EvF

[chatpilot]

Thanks for the assist Kyu I also have read Earl Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle and have found it to be very instructive on this issue.I have a book entitled 'Sixteen Crucified Christs' and it illustrates how the Jesus myth was plagiarized from more ancient myths.The closest thing to the origin of Jesus would be the dead sea scrolls of the Gnostics.They speak of a messiah but never name him and even they are pre-christian in origin.

Regarding the scriptures the first thing to make note of is that there is not one original biblical document in existence,so everything we have are copies of copies.Not to mention the fact that not a single word was written about Jesus till about 50 years after his alleged death.Also,the authorship of most of the biblical books are in question.Not to mention the many contradictions in the scriptures regarding Jesus death and resurrection.If you took the time to read the books of Matthew,Mark,and Luke you will see how different the last days of Jesus were.If there was to be a founder of Christianity I would give that title to the author of John.That is the only book in the gospels that plays frequently on the divinity of Christ.

The Jesus of scripture is a myth as is the entire bible.Religion in all its forms is mans quest to understand himself and his place in the universe.The words of Christ in the bible are also dubious since we are taking the word of the author regarding what this fictional Jesus spoke since he himself if he ever existed did not bother to write anything down.

[Rockthatpiano06]

That's a good point- if there was a Jesus, why are there only secondary accounts of him? Somebody who was the messiah and did all of these things, and wanted his followers to live a certain way- why wouldn't he write anything down? That makes no sense!