Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The numerous cults of Christians today are perfect examples to show that the start of a Christian cult does not require an historical Jesus Christ ONLY belief in the stories about a supernatural character.

No Christian today has seen Jesus of Nazareth but they believe the Bible stories that he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, that he and the Devil were together in Jerusalem, that he walked on water, transfigured in the presence of the resurrected Moses and Elijah, that he himself was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

Christians require belief -not history.

This is precisely what appears to have happened since at least the 2nd century. People fabricated a supernatural character and those who BELIEVED the stories were called Christians.

Aristides will say exactly that in his apology.

People who believe stories of Jesus, the son of God and a Virgin, were called Christians.

Aristides Apology

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

It is fully evident the start of a Christian cult does not require a human Jesus just belief in the supernatural.

 

[IanS]

It doesn't matter if King David was real or not the point is Christians and Jews BELIEVED he was real AND human. So "seed of David" = human.

People can see for themselves from such posts the standard of argument being trotted out here for a HJ. What we have above is the claim that Jesus was real because quote "Christinas believed he was real".

So if you believe something, that makes it real!! Well what an amazing new discovery!

 

[Brainache]

People can see for themselves from such posts the standard of argument being trotted out here for a HJ. What we have above is the claim that Jesus was real because quote "Christinas believed he was real".

So if you believe something, that makes it real!! Well what an amazing new discovery!

People reading along know very well that that was not the argument being put forth. They can see the dishonesty in your post.

Do you ever wonder why you have to rely on such shoddy tactics to defend your position?

 

[GDon]

On the question of biases affecting the conclusion around the HJ/MJ divide:

The consensus built up by Christian scholars within academia around dates, times, meaning, interpolations and provenances of texts is largely agreed to by secular and non-Christian scholarship within academia. And leading mythicists like Dr Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty generally agree with nearly all that, with obvious exceptions to readings of certain passages.

Where you are biased and right, obviously the bias is not too relevant in explaining why you are right.

The issue for the HJ/MJ debate is that: there is no case for a HJ within academia. No-one has proposed such a case as far as I know. Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is the closest thing to that, and it isn't part of formal academia. Dr Carrier's "On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason to doubt" is probably the closest thing we have on either side of the debate in the last hundred years. Before that, we had "The Historicity of Jesus: an Estimate of the Negative Argument" by Shirley Jackson Case in 1911 which examined mythicist ideas of that time.

Doherty used to say that "academia has circled the wagons against the mythicist theory because they were scared of the strength of the mythicist case". But the truth is that academia barely knows the mythicist theory exists. It simply isn't on its radar at the moment. The best known mythicist theory publicly is the astrotheology rubbish proposed by Acharya S and popularised by the Zeitgeist movie. And it's nonsense.

So there is no HJ case that has been made, but there should be. There have been at least three "Quests for the Historical Jesus", but they all started from the assumption that a HJ simply existed. I think the assumption is based on sound reasons, but that's neither here nor there. The assumption still needs to be firmly grounded within academia. As far as I know, that is not yet the case.

The published mythicists are their own worst enemy when it comes to promoting mythicism. With the exception of Dr Carrier, they don't debate each other on their often conflicting theories. To his credit, Carrier went to town on Acharya S's nonsense and the nonsense of other mythicists. Doherty famously complained about this. He said that mythicists shouldn't criticise each other, surely the most anti-academic thing he might have said. Doherty's and Dr RM Price's qualified support of Acharya S's work is baffling.

It's said there was no Christian orthodoxy when it came to the texts until Marcion forced it on them in the Second Century CE. Perhaps mythicists will force academia to examine the HJ case seriously for once. In fact, I think that it is actually starting to happen.

But when it comes to the idea that it is biases that stops 'HJ' scholars seeing a non-earthly Jesus in the text, it is no more true than it is bias that stops them thinking that Jesus was a Martian or had two heads. If you tell any scholar that they don't consider the idea that early Christians thought that God kept a Cosmic Sperm Bank with David's seed in it due to their biases, they will wonder what the heck you are talking about. It's not bias that stops them accepting that idea, it is that "seed of David" has an established meaning with many precedents. It's an assumption, but one based on good reasons.

Could they still be wrong? Sure. Bring on the evidence. But show that they are wrong first, before declaring 'bias'. And that's true on either side of the HJ/MJ debate. Show us that someone is wrong before trying to work out WHY they are wrong, i.e. due to biases.

/rant

 

[Tassman]

That doesn't surprise me at all. The gospels were all written decades after the supposed Jesus lived. So these communities are popping up and saying, the guy was just here, and here are the stories.

But there is plenty of evidence for the relatively sudden beginning of the X’tian religion in that the Jesus story arose within mere decades around the time he was claimed to have lived, which speaks to it being based in an actual person. This as opposed to the evolution of the pagan gods, whose origins were grounded in animism and can be traced back many centuries.

 

[IanS]

At the very least it is earthly rulers who we know were crucifying people at that time.

Earthly rulers have been killing people since the time of Cave Men!

If you are specifically talking about crucifixion as the means of judgemental killing, then I think that started long before any 1st century Jesus. It's in the OT for example (as I pointed out just a few posts back). And according to Wikipedia it was also used by Persian rulers as far back as 500BC.

So the fact that Roman governors such as Pilate may have ordered crucifixions in the 1st century, is not by any stretch of imagination evidence for Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Because that is what this discussion is really about - religious beliefs, not history. That's why it's in the "Religion and Philosophy" sub forum, not "History, Literature, and the Arts".

For some atheists it's not good enough that Jesus be just an ordinary man, he has to be total fiction. They fear that if we admit the possibility of Jesus being a real person then it will give theists more credence, making it harder to counter their supernatural claptrap.

That's obviously untrue in the threads here though. Because (amongst many other reasons) atheists here, such as me, have said that of course Jesus might have been a real person. I've said that repeatedly throughout this thread. Had you really not noticed that?

That also removes any truth in your above highlight as well. So that highlighted sentence of yours is also completely untrue.

Many atheists came to realize that God doesn't exist by applying logic to the theist's claims and finding that they come up short. But it's not hard to conclude that supernatural things don't exist. What is hard for all of us is not letting our preconceptions get in the way of our perception. If you don't then you run the risk of becoming just like the people whose attitudes you despise..

Well I don't "despise the attitudes" of anyone here. So I've no idea why you'd write things like that. At any rate, it certainly does not apply to me.

You say that "it's not hard to conclude that supernatural things don't exist." But that's precisely the way Jesus is described in the only original source that we have for him (later non-biblical sources cannot be shown as independent of the biblical writing). So by your own logic we should be treating that description as just as unbelievable as God ...

... and there actually is no other description. The only source that we actually have for Jesus, describes him as constantly supernatural in almost everything he does. And there's is simply no other description from that original source.

The idea of a "Historical Jesus" who does almost none of the things that were claimed in the original source of the biblical writing, is something invented by bible scholars & others after they eventually realised that they could no longer claim that the bible gave an accurate historical description of Jesus.

But that HJ invention is something that can only be obtained by erasing almost all that was said in the only original source.

Selectively using information and logic to support a preconceived notion while ignoring or twisting the meaning of anything that doesn't fit your narrative? That's what theists do. But so do a lot of atheists, and they are just as oblivious to it.

How do you know it's a "pre-conceived notion". I have said in this very thread that when I first saw posts on the old Richard Dawkins forum where people were saying that Jesus might not have been real, I was very surprised, because until then I had no idea that there was any reason to doubt the existence of Jesus. And several of us here have said exactly that same thing. That's the complete opposite of what you have just claimed. Ie - for myself and other sceptics here, our so-called "pre-conceived notion" was that Jesus certainly did exist! ...

... it was only when we started put in some serious research, reading a vast array of books by both HJ-sceptics and by HJ-believers, that we began to see that there are huge problems with the claimed evidence for Jesus. And in fact also huge problems with the individuals who are claiming to have such great evidence.

It simply comes down to a matter of evidence. And that must always be the case in any field of study if we are being honest and objective about it. And, unfortunately, in the case of Jesus, there simply is no evidence.

 

[Jerrymander]

This thread is not about the Baal Shem Tov. The existence or non-existence of the Baal Shem Tov has no bearing whatsoever on the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth the son of the Ghost.

It is quite illogical to argue that if Baal Shem Tov lived 1698-1760 that Jesus the son of the Ghost walked on earth in the time of Pilate.

Way to miss the argument. You keep arguing that Jesus can't be historical because people believed he was supernatural. By the logic, the Baal Shem Tov wasn't either.

 

[Jerrymander]

Earthly rulers have been killing people since the time of Cave Men!

If you are specifically talking about crucifixion as the means of judgemental killing, then I think that started long before any 1st century Jesus. It's in the OT for example (as I pointed out just a few posts back). And according to Wikipedia it was also used by Persian rulers as far back as 500BC.

So the fact that Roman governors such as Pilate may have ordered crucifixions in the 1st century, is not by any stretch of imagination evidence for Jesus.

Paul says the "rulers of this age" crucified Jesus. Sounds pretty recent.

 

[Darat]

Because that is what this discussion is really about - religious beliefs, not history. That's why it's in the "Religion and Philosophy" sub forum, not "History, Literature, and the Arts".

For some atheists it's not good enough that Jesus be just an ordinary man, he has to be total fiction. They fear that if we admit the possibility of Jesus being a real person then it will give theists more credence, making it harder to counter their supernatural claptrap. ...snip...

No idea who you've interacted with to give you such a distorted picture.

Being in the UK I know quite a few atheists and have never, ever heard this or anyone imply it. Indeed I'd bet a quick "hands up" showing would have most atheists in the UK saying there probably was a Jesus who kick started everything, it is the "default" position in the UK for pretty much everyone regardless of believing in the mythical Jesus of the Christians and Muslims or being an atheist or Hindu.

And I mean your assertion has been shown to be wrong in this very thread - at least two of us that now don't think there is evidence to conclude a historical probably Jesus existed came to that view from the position of thinking a Jesus probably did exist and only after learning about the evidence claimed for that "probably existed" historical Jesus changed our minds.

Someone posted something that I think sums up your assertion "Selectively using information and logic to support a preconceived notion while ignoring or twisting the meaning of anything that doesn't fit your narrative? "

 

[Darat]

But there is plenty of evidence for the relatively sudden beginning of the X’tian religion in that the Jesus story arose within mere decades around the time he was claimed to have lived, which speaks to it being based in an actual person. This as opposed to the evolution of the pagan gods, whose origins were grounded in animism and can be traced back many centuries.

Look how quickly Scientology arose - there was no real Zenu.

 

[Jerrymander]

How do you know it's a "pre-conceived notion". I have said in this very thread that when I first saw posts on the old Richard Dawkins forum where people were saying that Jesus might not have been real, I was very surprised, because until then I had no idea that there was any reason to doubt the existence of Jesus. And several of us here have said exactly that same thing. That's the complete opposite of what you have just claimed. Ie - for myself and other sceptics here, our so-called "pre-conceived notion" was that Jesus certainly did exist! ...

Even if you accepted HJ before that doesn't mean you couldn't have latched on to MJ as yet another strike against theism.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Paul says the "rulers of this age" crucified Jesus. Sounds pretty recent.

I always thought an age was a long time, not a short one.

 

[Darat]

Way to miss the argument. You keep arguing that Jesus can't be historical because people believed he was supernatural. By the logic, the Baal Shem Tov wasn't either.

He is saying the Jesus we have evidence for, the Jesus of what we now refer to as the Christian religions is a supernatural being. We have no descriptions of any other Jesus existing.

As I said before I am sure we all agree that the Jesus the Christians believe in did not and does not exist?

 

[clayflingythingy]

Paul says the "rulers of this age" crucified Jesus. Sounds pretty recent.

"The archons of this aeon crucified the lord of glory" = the demonic powers. This understanding of the phrase is attested by ancient church fathers and modern scholarship.



Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

Even if you accepted HJ before that doesn't mean you couldn't have latched on to MJ as yet another strike against theism.

I would say from a view of not believing in a god or gods anyone being able to prove a historic Jesus existed would be more a "blow" to the theists. It would be easier then to simple say, to paraphrase the scientist Gag Halfrunt "Vell, Jesus's just zis guy, you know?

 

[Jerrymander]

He is saying the Jesus we have evidence for, the Jesus of what we now refer to as the Christian religions is a supernatural being. We have no descriptions of any other Jesus existing.

As I said before I am sure we all agree that the Jesus the Christians believe in did not and does not exist?

And the Baal Shem Tov we have evidence for preformed miracles.

 

[Darat]

And the Baal Shem Tov we have evidence for preformed miracles.

And?

 

[Jerrymander]

And?

We know he existed.

 

[Darat]

We know he existed.

Still not getting the point you want to make.