Historical Jesus

[Jerrymander]

Still not getting the point you want to make.

Its the point I've always made. Supernatural things being attributed to a person don't make then non-historical. You say we only have records of a supernatural Jesus, therefore he doesn't exist but we also only have records of a supernatural Baal Shem Tov.

 

[Delvo]

Matt Dillahunty (an atheist and magician) has done magic tricks for theists, then been told he had supernatural powers, then shown them exactly how the tricks really worked, then been told "that's not what you did the first time; the first time you used real magic".

Unfortunately, the instant somebody said that about him, he poofed out of existence, because a person about whom supernatural claims have been sincerely made can not exist.

 

[GDon]

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.

Dr Bart Ehrman, through his historical studies of the Bible and early texts, moved from believing that Jesus was a miracle-working son of God to that Jesus was just a man:
https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-p...-mythicists-were-right-a-blast-from-the-past/

When I started my serious study of the New Testament, on the other hand, I had a view of Jesus very much like the one most conservative evangelicals have: Jesus was a miracle-working son of God who came to earth principally to die for sins. My historical studies eventually changed my views of Jesus...

And so, one might ask, what about the existence of Jesus? Didn’t I start my study of the historical Jesus thinking he existed, and didn’t I come out of my study with the same view, so isn’t that view suspect?

I think that is an entirely appropriate and fair question. My response is this: I looked at all the evidence I could, as hard as I could. I examined every surviving source that refers to Jesus in all the relevant ancient languages. I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!! Quite the contrary...

Since I am an agnostic who does not believe in Jesus, one could easily argue that a mythicist position would be more attractive to me personally...

So why don’t I argue that, if it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world? Because I’m a historian, and I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can. If we rewrite history according to our own agendas and in light of our own deeply vested interests, how are we any better than other ideologues...​

 

[Delvo]

On the subject of biases...

The first case I saw being argued on the subject was the mythicist case, and I was more on that side than the opposite side for a while, though not all the way. But then I saw more of the arguments on both sides and discovered how empty the mythicist case is and how solidly the evidence actually points toward historical amalgamation (not to mention how consistently the mythicists behave in a manner that I've previously observed typically coming from the wrong sides on other subjects when their bluffs are called too).

 

[GDon]

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.

Yes, we do. We have various versions dating back to earliest Christianity. Ebionites, for example, believed that Jesus was just a man, the natural son of Joseph and Mary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law...

The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as Jesus' pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death and physical resurrection.​

It was the 'Nicene orthodoxy' version that won out, of course.

 

[Delvo]

One of those early sects that believed he was just a mortal human like any other Old Testament prophet is still around, in the hundreds of millions, maybe over a billion. They just aren't called "Christians" today.

 

[Darat]

One of those early sects that believed he was just a mortal human like any other Old Testament prophet is still around, in the hundreds of millions, maybe over a billion. They just aren't called "Christians" today.

Historical Moses.......

 

[Darat]

Its the point I've always made. Supernatural things being attributed to a person don't make then non-historical. You say we only have records of a supernatural Jesus, therefore he doesn't exist but we also only have records of a supernatural Baal Shem Tov.

Nope - we were talking about your summary of Dejudge's position....

But even that aside it is still a nope.

We know that the Jesus that Christians believe in today 100% did not exist, no ifs, no buts, that happens to be the Jesus we have undeniable evidence for.

As ever if you want to claim that a historical Jesus exists it's up to you to provide the evidence.

I've just realised something, are you a Christian?

 

[Darat]

Matt Dillahunty (an atheist and magician) has done magic tricks for theists, then been told he had supernatural powers, then shown them exactly how the tricks really worked, then been told "that's not what you did the first time; the first time you used real magic".

Unfortunately, the instant somebody said that about him, he poofed out of existence, because a person about whom supernatural claims have been sincerely made can not exist.

Perhaps you need to read some more of these historical Jesus threads - no one here has ever claimed that.

 

[IanS]

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

Is there genuine evidence to show that Baal Shem Tov existed? Because if there is, then that is quite unlike Jesus for we have no such evidence.

And also - you just said “we have evidence for his miracles”, so are you claiming he really did perform miracles? If he did not, then you certainly do not have evidence of them (what you may have is what mistakenly looked like evidence).

As fas as Jesus is concerned - we do not of course have actual evidence of him performing miracles (the miracles never happened). What we have evidence for is people writing by some time before about the 4th century to say that people in the 1st century believed that Jesus had performed many miracles ... that's evidence of peoples beliefs written in books of religious devotion. But its certainly not evidence that any actual miracles were performed.

 

[IanS]

Yes, we do. We have various versions dating back to earliest Christianity. Ebionites, for example, believed that Jesus was just a man, the natural son of Joseph and Mary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law...

The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the precepts central to Nicene orthodoxy, such as Jesus' pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death and physical resurrection.​

It was the 'Nicene orthodoxy' version that won out, of course.

What evidence did these Ebionites produce to show Jesus was real?

If they had no evidence of him, then that is not at all persuasive for a real human Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

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.

I never ever argued that the Baal Shem Tov did or did not exist.

I argue, based on the existing evidence, that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of fiction, a supernatural being without a human father that was BELIEVED to have existed by people who believe in the supernatural.

It is completely illogical to assume Jesus of Nazareth existed as a real human being because the Baal Shem Tov did or did not exist.

 

[dejudge]

One of those early sects that believed he was just a mortal human like any other Old Testament prophet is still around, in the hundreds of millions, maybe over a billion. They just aren't called "Christians" today.

There are people today who believe an HJ existed but have no historical evidence for their belief.

You believe there was an HJ because other people believe there was an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

On the subject of biases...

The first case I saw being argued on the subject was the mythicist case, and I was more on that side than the opposite side for a while, though not all the way. But then I saw more of the arguments on both sides and discovered how empty the mythicist case is and how solidly the evidence actually points toward historical amalgamation (not to mention how consistently the mythicists behave in a manner that I've previously observed typically coming from the wrong sides on other subjects when their bluffs are called too).

What you say is not reflected in your posts.

You have not shown any solid evidence at all that there was an HJ -none whatsoever.

 

[dejudge]

Before we get distracted let us not forget the HJ/MJ argument is based on the character called Jesus of Nazareth found in the Christian Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Christian Bible is described as a supernatural being - a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending the Son of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father.

There is no historical evidence anywhere at all to show that Jesus of Nazareth was really a known human being- none whatsoever.

It is evident, as seen in Christian writings, that people who believe in the supernatural accepted the stories about the supernatural Jesus and were called Christians.

Belief by Christians in the supernatural Jesus character is a product of superstition - never ever history.

 

[Jerrymander]

I never ever argued that the Baal Shem Tov did or did not exist.

*sigh*

 

[Jerrymander]

Nope - we were talking about your summary of Dejudge's position....

But even that aside it is still a nope.

We know that the Jesus that Christians believe in today 100% did not exist, no ifs, no buts, that happens to be the Jesus we have undeniable evidence for.

As ever if you want to claim that a historical Jesus exists it's up to you to provide the evidence.

I've just realised something, are you a Christian?

The Jesus of the Bible didn't just do supernatural things, he did mundane things or had mundane things done to him as well. He taught parables, he made speeches, he was baptized, he argued with religious leaders and was crucified. Take the supernatural stuff out of Mark and you still have a story.

 

[Jerrymander]

Is there genuine evidence to show that Baal Shem Tov existed? Because if there is, then that is quite unlike Jesus for we have no such evidence..

Yes the writings of his followers, just like Jesus.

 

[Darat]

The Jesus of the Bible didn't just do supernatural things, he did mundane things or had mundane things done to him as well. He taught parables, he made speeches, he was baptized, he argued with religious leaders and was crucified. Take the supernatural stuff out of Mark and you still have a story.

Again "and?"

 

[Lithrael]

See this is the fun meaty stuff to read, thanks guys.

And thanks again to Gdon for some more great background thoughts; I haven’t read the Big Name Mythicists anyway but it’s the lack of... hmm, let’s say null-hypothesis straight scholarship that bothers me. I’d love to see what you get if you go looking to see what you can find instead of if you go looking to see how much you can justify (which is why I haven’t read the mythicists either, lol).