Did the Jesus in the New Testament exist?

[edhopper]

Isn't that the real question?

Do any of the Gospels portray anything that actually happened, or was actually said?

Discussions of a man named Yeshua seem to me a distraction from the pertinent question.

[hrmjustin]

1. Yes.

[elleng]

2. I don't think that's anyone's 'real' question.

We agnostics, and atheists, don't really care, and 'believers' just believe.

[smiley]

3. No

[notadmblnd]

4. christians and their churches will tell you yes

and historians and scholars will tell you that there is no real evidence

[longship]

8. This is the correct answer.

I don't know whether Jesus existed in history. I doubt that he did because the only known histories are all derivative of each other and have too damned many elements of fable and far too many elements that have been outright falsified by history.

But it does not matter whether a dude named Jesus existed or not. One thing one can state fairly unequivocally, the Jesus of the gospels did not exist as far as those narratives relate.

But like many unbelievers, I don't really care that much as long as people keep their beliefs to themselves.

[notadmblnd]

9. I agree. I think the Romans would have kept records.

[okasha]

21. Of what?

[notadmblnd]

24. of his trial and execution

by Pilate and Herod Antipas

[okasha]

31. Crassus crucified 3000 captives along the Apian Way

at the end of the Spartacan uprising. Titus crucified thousands more outside the walls of Jerusalem before overrunning and razing the city in CE 70.

Please point us to the Roman records of all those trials and executions.

[notadmblnd]

35. Jesus was not killed in a battle of war

[okasha]

36. Neither were the thousands crucified by Crassus and Titus.

But here, I'll make it easier.

Can you point us to any record of any trial and crucifixion in the province of Judea during Pilate's tenure?

[edhopper]

39. so that shows

The Gospels are true?

[okasha]

45. No.

Unless the other poster can come up with one, it shows that the lack of a Roman trial or execution document is not evidence.

[notadmblnd]

51. I said I think there would be a record

And if it were recorded by a historian, a Roman historian (historians that recorded history would be valid also- or tell me why it wouldn't) then, it would be evidence that Jesus existed.

You asserted- that Romans recorded no crucifixions (and challenged me to prove they did) and implied that therefore not having a written record of Jesus trial and execution is not proof he didn't exist. Which by the way- I never asserted.

I just wanted to make that clear to you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

184. Not to split hairs here...

...but you can't have evidence that something didn't happen. But I get your meaning: given the lack of official documents from that period, one less isn't really all that surprising.

I think the bigger issue here is the genuine lack of historical accounts. If the Romans crucified Jesus because they feared him becoming Judas Maccabees returned, you'd think Josephus would have had more to say about it.

[notadmblnd]

40. Who is this US of which you speak?

You bring a gang with you?

Do your own homework

annales historiae cornelius tacitus annals

[okasha]

42. The readers of this thread.No need to get defensive.

Tacitus was an historian, not a court reporter.

You're going to have to do better than that. Much better.

[notadmblnd]

43. No, I don't

why should I prove my assertions, when you don't bother to prove any of yours?

[okasha]

44. I haven't made any assertions, only asked for a source for yours.

[notadmblnd]

46. Yes you did.

the OP asked if Jesus (written about in a book called the "Bible&quot actually ever existed. You asserted "yes".

Now I think you should have to prove it as you are requiring of me. Only fair, no?

[okasha]

47. No, I didn't.

Go back and check the name on that post.

[notadmblnd]

49. Oh. it was your pal

Sorry, I did reply to you again though

[notadmblnd]

48. And I gave you a source.

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Read through it, I guarantee you will find at least one name of another person crucified.

Josephus was a first-century Roman-Jewish scholar and historian, who was born in Jerusalem and a eye witness of the Jewish wars. He was captured by Vespasian, who spared his life after a great deal sucking up and later became Vespasian's grandson Titus' personal assistant.

No, Josephus was not a court recorder. He was a Roman citizen and a historian, hence a keeper of Roman records.

[okasha]

50. I am not asking you for a reference in a general history.

You claim by inference that the Romans kept trial and execution records of those it crucified. I am asking you to produce one--just one-- such official document.

Obviously, you can't. The reason you can't is that no such records ever existed,.

We're done here.

[notadmblnd]

52. That's what you read into it.

I said "I think Romans would have kept records." I never said Romans would have court recorders or stenographers. Real people did exist back then and they recorded history. Many recorded Roman history.

[okasha]

171. Then let's clarify.

When you say "records," you mean "historical accounts," not official documents such as court minutes or dockets or lists of case dispositions such as "X was tried by P. Pilatus on Date Y„ found guilty/not guilty and sentenced to Punishment Z/released."

By your definition, then, we have records of Jesus of Nazareth's existence from both authors you cite. Tacitus mentions him as the founder of the group charged by Nero with instigating the conflagration of Rome during his reign. Josephus cites him in the Antiquities in his account of "James, brother of Jesus," who was judicially murdered by a corrupt High Priest. (There's also the Testemonium reference, which is generally considered unreliable and consequently properly disregarded.)

[edhopper]

177. But these are only arguments

that a man named Yeshua existed. Not that any of the NT is a record of him. Except in a most cursory was.

[notadmblnd]

178. links?

[okasha]

180. You gave the pertinent references yourself.

Review your own homework.

[notadmblnd]

181. that's right I did

But the conversation I was having with you is your assertion that records of crucifixion of people did not exist. It was not about whether Christ in the Bible existed. That was the OP's question. So it's not quite a gotcha moment for you.

There is mention of a person called Christ in all the writings I provide below. However, there is no proof any where that he rose from the dead after his execution nor that he was actually the being God.

Here is a list of non-Biblical ancient sources that refer to Jesus:

Tacitus, Annals
Suetonius, Life of Claudius
Suetonius, Life of Nero
Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 26.2
Pliny the Younger, Epistles, (Epistles X, 96)
Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13
Phlegon, Chronicles, (as cited by Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)
Thallus, in his collection of “histories of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time”, as cited by Julius Africanus, Chronicles, 18.1
Mara Bar-Serapion, Syrian philosopher, as cited by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Macrobius, Saturnalia, lib. 2, ch. 4
Juvenal, Satires, 1, lines 147-157
Seneca, Epistulae Morales, Epistle 14 “On the Reasons for Withdrawing from the World,” par. 2
Hierocles (Eusebius, The Treatise of Eusebius, ch. 2)
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 3
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 9
Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanhedrin 10:11; y. Sanhedrin 7:12; Tg. Esther 7 )
Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 67a; y. Sanhedrin 7:16)
Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 107b; t. Sabbath 11:15; b. Sabbath 104b; b. Sota 47a), as cited by Joseph Klausner
Babylonian Talmud (b. Yebamoth 49a; m. Yebamoth 4:13; b. Sanhedrin 106b; see also b. Sanhedrin 104b), as cited by Joseph Klausner

[okasha]

182. Very nice cut and paste.

It's really rather difficult to have that conversation, since neither ed nor you nor anyone in this thread has defined 'resurrection" or what would constitute evidence that such a thing had occurred.

[notadmblnd]

183. yeah, so?

why do you keep moving the bar? The original question was did Christ really exist? And instead of proving the Christ of the Bible really did exist, you argue silly crap like "whether Romans recorded crucifixions." I prove to you that there are indeed written accounts of crucifixions and you change it back to "well that proves Christ of the Bible really exists." When I point out that there is still no proof that the Christ recorded by historians is the Christ of the bible- it becomes, we can't have this discussion, because "we haven't defined resurrection" for you.

It's just a game of weave and dodge for you and your pals when you aren't tossing around your snarky comments and thinly veiled insults. So I copied and pasted the non biblical references to someone in history called Christ. So what?

[doxyluv13]

152. Worst argument I've seen on DU today.

Of course those things are recorded Roman history. In fact Roman records are the reason we even know about these events. Plutarch IS the source for much of what we know about Spartacus. Titus destruction of Jerusalem, which happened about the time of Jesus, is the subject of a whole book by Josephus, and well covered in Tacitus' Histories.

[okasha]

172. See post 171.

[Major Nikon]

175. Anything significant

You have a guy supposedly performing miracles across Roman territory and the Romans, who tended to write down anything significant have no mention of it.

[okasha]

179. Significant with a few centuries'hindsight.

but not to Romans at the time. Bear in mind that to the Romans, Judaism was merely one of a number of distasteful Oriental cults, and Jesus and his followers were a small offshoot. His miracles we almost all performed in villages in Galilee, remote corners of a remote corner of a remote corner of the Empire. He came to Roman attention only when he started a riot and occupation of the Temple-right under the walls of the Antonia and laid claim to the kingship (Messiah Ben David) of Judea. That brought him rather vividly to Roman attention, and arrest and execution followed.

[Major Nikon]

185. There was a Roman presence in all of these areas

There would have been members of the Roman army and tax collectors at a minimum. Jesus even supposedly healed the son of a Centurion. He supposedly raises Lazarus from the dead right outside of Jerusalem. Kinda hard to imagine how those two things alone would have escaped even a casual mention in any Roman records of the day.

[gordianot]

5. He sounded very progressive in his day 99% who today claim to be Conservatives would hate his guts.

Mostly when you cut out the mumbo jumbo like Thomas Jefferson. One of the first bleeding heart liberals of all time small wonder he got crucified.

[rug]

6. Did Christians exist in the first century CE?

[gordianot]

7. Some debate about that, that is when what I like to call mumbo jumbo started up.

Most of the mumbo jumbo was pure plagiarism from Mithiraic cults and depended heavily on Jewish cults.

[edhopper]

10. Did Mormons exist in the 19th Century?

Or Scientologists in the 20th?

[rug]

11. Did Joseph Smith exist?

Did L. Ron Hubbard exist?

[edhopper]

12. so you missed the point

Of my post, I see.

[rug]

13. Not at all. Let me sharpen it for you.

Do the Mormons of the nineteenth century trace themselves to Joseph Smith?

Do the Scientologists of the twentieth century trace themselves to Hubbard?

[edhopper]

15. you seem to think

I am talking about whether Jesus existed.

Perhaps you should read the OP again.

[rug]

16. "Did the Jesus in the New Testament exist?"

Iesus being the Latin word for Yeshua, we must agree he did.

If your question suggests the New Testament is no more than a gloss on that life, that's been done already.

[edhopper]

19. so the central question

of the veracity of the Gospels is meaningless for you.
Interesting?

[rug]

20. It is fascinating. And it's been done. The message is far more fascinating.

[edhopper]

25. so you have

a difinitive answer?
No more scholarship or writing is needed on this. I see.

[rug]

26. I've read enough. If there is anything new I'll read it.

In the meantime, I'll dwell on the message.

[edhopper]

28. I will leave it at that

Though I must say the opportunity here for a snarky retort is almost irresistible.
But, I'll turn the other cheek.

[rug]

32. Just as well. Snarky retorts tend to result in snarky retorts.

And Newton's Third Law does not govern that.

[notadmblnd]

54. To be fair, he/she only said they would dwell on the message, not practice it.

[tblue37]

151. Did Descartes exist? Or did he just *think* he did? (Sorry--couldn't resist.)

[rug]

164. If I stop thinking about it, will I die?

[longship]

14. Apparently, but who knows?

There is debate on exactly when the gospels were written. And apparently the epistles of Paul seem to predate them. The social history of those days is a bit of a muddle, so there is little to enable one to hitch ones wagon on one narrative or another.

I think Christians must have existed, but heaven only knows what sect. It might have been the Gnostics, or any number of mysterious sects. The Christianity of the modern world certainly did not exist, and probably not for at least a hundred years or more. (Probably or more.)

Again, my friend, who knows?

[Yorktown]

17. There was one jewish guru called Yeshua

There probably was a charismatic jewish guru by the name of Yeshua, probably born in Nazareth, who had a way with provocative one liners (let he be who is without sin ..) and had a solid Golden Rule platform (like many other philosophers before him: Thales of Greece, Confucius of China, the Khun-Anup legend of Egypt, ..)

He also probably entertained some weird ideas of his time and place: that he was a literal 'healer', that there should be no care for the morrow because the end times were coming soon among others. And he was crucified for disturbing mainstream judaism.

Assuming the above points to be true (and we can't be sure), there is precious little more we can be positive about. The stories called gospels can all be traced to that of Mark, which is an account by an author unknown who wrote a bit under half a century after the death of jesus and reported the events through hearsay and probable group consensus beautification of the real events. Beautification which involved David Copperfield events like angels, resurrections and multiplying of fish and bread loaves.

Oh, and we also know that man Yeshua was not deemed important enough for his contemporaries to leave written accounts of the events. Zilch. Zero. Nada.


Edit: Horrible Mark/Luke slip corrected

[edhopper]

22. I can only add

that I thought the first written Gospel was Mark.

I'll have to check wiki.

[Yorktown]

34. Sorry, I was inattentive. Yes, absolutely, Mark.

My mistake. Mind slip.

[skepticscott]

18. More importantly, was any "real" Jesus anything like

the way he is described and depicted in the NT? In particular, was he the son of a diety, born of a virgin, capable of doing magic and come back to life after being dead for 3 days? None of the pompous, presumptuous and "serious" scholars on the Jesus Project and similar endeavors seem capable of addressing those questions. Nor do the rather shallow digging pseudo-intellectuals here who ramble on at great lengths to show off their familiarity with all of this rather useless scholarship.

[rug]

29. Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals, what is described is not magic.

[edhopper]

41. Then what is

Walking on water, water into wine, loaves and fishes, raising the dead, etc...?

[delrem]

57. It all makes for a remarkable show

that puts Aristotle and the other plodders to shame.

Aristotle existed.

[rug]

60. Here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/magic.html

[edhopper]

64. Some care if the very basis of a religion

happened or not.

If the leading figure was actually divine with supernatural powers.

Some don't.

It's still magic.

[rug]

67. That's a shallow, simplistic - and wrong - conclusion.

Differences indeed matter.

[Major Nikon]

176. Not a bad explaination

The author is floating the idea that Jesus never performed any miracles, but instead simply performed a few cheap parlor tricks. So he and his followers duped everyone into thinking they were miracles in order to prop up his fraudulent messianic claim.

http://jaymack.net/isaiah-commentary/Gl-The-Three-Messianic-Miracles.asp

[phil89]

58. It's not?

how would you know? Why do you avoid the difficult question? What would the difference between what Jesus supposedly did and magic?

[rug]

61. I see scottie is not alone.

No wonder he's fond of saying "we".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/magic.html

[Yorktown]

38. Short answer, all the NT magic appeared with the texts. No reports at the time.

Which is strange, because feeding 5000 persons with two loaves of bread should have created some stir in the Hebrew grapevine.

Besides, how does one ever hope to demonstrate Mrs Mary was a virgin? I wonder what scientific theory Christians would construct to support the virgin birth. I mean, the Holy Spirit™ 'did' it, I get it, but how? How does one human female egg get fertilized by a Holy Spirit™? Did the Holy Spirit™ bring in some DNA? Under what form? Was there Holy Spirit™ sperm involved? If so, how was the Holy Spirit™ sperm inserted?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[gcomeau]

165. The most damning evidence in that vein in my mind...

Is that the earliest versions of Mark never mention a risen Jesus being seen by a single person. Guy gets crucified, gets interred, later find the cave empty, some guy tells them Jesus is risen, the end. Pretty mundane stuff.

Then in later versions somebody has made some "creative edits" with the ending of the story.


Pretty clear signs that the story was being progressively embellished as time passed. (and then by the time someone writes Matthew... hooo boy... a great earthquake! Angels descending from heaven in lightning robes! A risen Jesus appearing and talking to people!)



Classic fish story growing in the telling.

[Yorktown]

168. Plus the fact not ONE version of the resurrection agrees with another

Try counting the number of people who witnessed the resurrection.
Who they were.
Angels present or not.
Other concurrent resurrections.
Earthquakes or not.

Vs the TV age, Internet creates vasts flows of info: it's the death knell of religions.

[gcomeau]

169. Yep, not even close to agreeing with each other. -eom

[Binkie The Clown]

23. Don't be ridiculous. Of course not. Might as well ask if Paul Bunyon really existed. n/t

[rug]

27. Bt he said that's not what he's asking.

[immoderate]

37. But if he didn't have the magic powers, who was he?

--imm

[rug]

62. For starters, not a magician.

You must be thinking of Simon Magus.

[immoderate]

66. Word games.

Walking on water and raising the dead and such, by anyone else would be called magic. Then there are the equivocators...

--imm

[rug]

68. Words are not games.

Maybe that's how you treat them.

[immoderate]

71. And the game takes us to the question:

If the "real historic" Jesus was not, say, "transcendental," (hope that avoids stimulating your equivocation glands) then who was he?

I'll bet you nave no responsive answer.

--imm

[rug]

73. If not, he was an interesting passing figure.

I'll refrain from commenting on any of your glands.

[immoderate]

79. A nobody who was euhemerized*.

*Not glandular, just sounds like it.


--imm

[rug]

81. If you mean euphemism,

it still is senseless.

[immoderate]

85. No. I say what I mean. And I mean what I say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

--imm

[rug]

86. Ok, Popeye. Thanks for a new word.

To answer your hypothetical, if he was not "transcendent" (which is debatable) and if these accounts were written (which is not debatable), then that person would have beem euhemerized.

That word has an interesting etymology.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=euhemerism&searchmode=none

[immoderate]

87. OK. So then, who was he?

What did he do that's verifiable?

--imm

[rug]

88. He is who he said he is.

Design the protocol to verify the claim.

You do realize you're moving to a different topic?

[immoderate]

89. Perhaps to you. If you eliminate the superhero in the book, who have you got?

--imm

[rug]

90. And not to you. So what?

Removing the divinity would still leave a far more interesting person than Sam Harris.

[immoderate]

91. If you skip the magic, he doesn't eclipse King Lear, or Gilgamesh...

If Sam Harris is your standard.

--imm

[rug]

130. I would have thought Grendel was your standard.

[Binkie The Clown]

56. He's asking if the Biblical Jesus, in other words,

the magical miracle worker, existed. The answer is: of course not. The laws of nature don't work that way.

[rug]

63. The question is correct.

Your answer isn't. There's a reason for the word supernatural.

[edhopper]

65. You can characterize

your belief in impossible things however you wish.

It's still magic and it's still the same fantasy tales.

[rug]

69. Repeating yourself does not make you correct on the third or fourth repetition.

[edhopper]

98. Nor you

This differentiation without a difference is an unconvincing sidetrack.

[rug]

104. The ability to distinguish difference is a sign of intelligence.

The converse is also true.

[AlbertCat]

109. distinguish difference is a sign of intelligence. The converse is also true.

Magic: "The use of ritual activities or observances which are intended to influence the course of events or to manipulate the natural world..."

Y'know... like prayer. Or that whole Eucharist thing. Or raising people from the dead. Or walking on water.

Supernatural: "Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings..."

Y'know... like prayer. Or that whole Eucharist thing. Or raising people from the dead. Or walking on water.

You really shouldn't call people unintelligent when you are so very wrong yourself. It's embarrassing!

[rug]

112. QED

[edhopper]

111. And obsessing over a difference

When none is there is a sign of irrationality.

[rug]

113. Obsessing over something that doesn't exist is downtright peculiar.

[edhopper]

116. are you being

Ironical?

[AlbertCat]

149. Ironical

just dense. (and supposedly "clever" )

[NeoGreen]

155. I might go with..

..."obtuse" to describe the habitual behavior on display.

Might even go as far as to say an affected or feigned obtuseness,

But then again, I could be analyzing too deeply.

Or not.

Who knows

[AlbertCat]

150. Obsessing over something that doesn't exist is downtright peculiar.

Like the nonexistent inappropriateness of referring to religious miracles as magic.


(Now Rug will continue to play "get the last word in" even if it's irrelevant.)

[edhopper]

158. I was thinking

of God.

[Binkie The Clown]

100. And there's people in India

who swear they have seen gurus levitate.

Do you believe that?

If not, why not?

One crazy magical fantasy is just as good as another, and just as obviously false.

I know, you're really, really in love with your particular fantasy. That's OK. I understand. And those people in India are every bit as much in love with their fantasies. But you know what they say, "love is blind". You love your fantasy so much it blinds you to the obvious nonsense of it.

[rug]

106. If youre referring to TM.that has been investigated.

There is a technique involved which makes it appear that levitation is occurring.

So, no one levitated.

And people say they saw levitation.

Both statements can be correct.

This,

One crazy magical fantasy is just as good as another

on the other hand, is demonstrably false.

I know, you're really, really hate all religion. I understand.

[Binkie The Clown]

108. No, not TM. This goes way back, long before the TM craze.

But what you said was key: "That has been investigated."

Trouble is, nobody can say the same about Jesus. There's no way to investigate the third and fourth hand claims made about him, if he even existed. That being the case, the only sane conclusion is that it's all fantasy. There's no way the laws of nature can be suspended that way. To believe otherwise is magical thinking. I don't care if you call it "miracle" or "magic" it's the same nonsense. Abracadabra, water into wine. Abracadabra, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat. Abracadabra, your card was the queen of diamonds.

If Jesus did exist, and if people really saw him perform "miracles" he was probably "magician" in the sense of a sideshow entertainer. There were a lot of fakers in those days who made a living demonstrating "miracles". Just as there are a lot of fakers doing the same thing in India today. Remember, these people were iron age goat herders who thought the world was flat. How hard could it be to fool them. And you take somebody's third hand account seriously? Wow. Just wow! I don't see how you can possibly dismiss the claims of modern day fakers in India. Believe one and you should believe them all. Doubt one, and you should doubt them all.

And for the record, I don't hate religion I just think it's infantile to believe in fairy tales past the age of 6 or 7.

And if you want modern first hand accounts of miraculous doings, read the "Don Juan" series of books by anthropologist Carlos Castaneda. They are riveting, and very convincing. (Until you factor in reality. Then they are obviously nonsense.) But if you believe accounts of ignorant goat herders, surely you can believe the accounts of a trained anthropologist.

But no, you side with the goat herders. I'm just curious why you reject every ridiculous claim of magic/supernatural except for one of the oldest, and hardest to verify from unknown and obviously ignorant sources. What a puzzle that is!

[rug]

114. I see lots of infantilism going on in here.

[Leontius]

117. It's more like the one thing the Wise Men can agree on

"Oh aren't we so fucking wise."

[Yorktown]

119. Infantilism? Like beliefs grounded in tall tales told by parental figures?

Infantilism is believing in leprechauns, Santa, the tooth fairy

and some other mythical figures that will stay unnamed for the while.

[rug]

120. Case in point . . . .

[Yorktown]

122. Acting superior isn't a sound talking point.

And believing in tall tales is a reasonable example of infantilism.

[rug]

123. It just seems that way when I respond to you.

[Yorktown]

124. Do tell me what 'case in point' meant then.

I really would wish to thicken my skin if I imagined irony.

[rug]

126. case in point

1. an instance or example that illustrates what is being discussed.

[Yorktown]

127. Thank you, I knew that.

What was being asked is why you used those words if not in an ironic sense.

[rug]

128. Oh, it was said in the most literal sense.

[Yorktown]

129. Explain what you think you meant

Clearly, your words do not convey what you think they do.

Assuming you are trying to be understood.

[edhopper]

131. No

He just thinks he is being clever. Sad, really.

[Binkie The Clown]

141. I like beans.

No, I'm serious. I really like beans.

[edhopper]

147. what kind?

[Binkie The Clown]

153. All kinds, really.

But mostly my home made 10 bean soup. Yummmmm!

I find that eating beans facilitates my talking out of my ass. A very important skill for this group.

[edhopper]

157. Ah

the musical fruit

I like legumes as well.

[Yorktown]

121. The reason for the word supernatural is ignorance.

Our forefathers knew very llittle at some point. Reason encompassed little.

What was beyond the known was 'supernatural'. Presto: supernatural is here.

Note how, as cameras and scanners progress, cases of prophecy recede?

The late Sahi Baba is the last who dared to play the holy man card, and got burnt.
(kind of. He was exposed, but still raked in millions)

[rug]

125. You have unwittingly stumbled upon an epistemological point.

How do you know that only what is natural exists?

You may answer after defining natural.

[Yorktown]

133. I won't waste time on epistemology. Show me some supernatural.

The burden of proof is on people who claim the truth is out there.

[rug]

136. You know what you know and that's all there is to it.

[Yorktown]

140. No. I politely asked you to show some supernatural.

Take your time. And the supernatural of your choosing.

I'll be waiting. Holding my breath.

[rug]

142. "I won't waste time on epistemology."

You go right ahead and hold your breath.

I'll check in on you in the morning.

[Yorktown]

144. No. Show me proof of the supernatural, not words of epistemology

As I said, I am not interested in the word plays of philosophy and epistemology. Very entertaining to be sure, but not producing light in this discussion.

The point is: can anyone produce a supernatural fact? If not, it's a hypothetical conjecture.

Sound conjectures like the theory of relativity start being respected because of logical theoretical grounding and end up being verified by experience.

The conjectures on the 'supernatural' theoretical grounding is fairy tales. As for experimental confirmation, like I said, I'll be waiting, breath held.

[Yorktown]

134. PS: how do you know unicorns do not exist?

How do you know that only what is natural exists?

Who can demonstrate the inexistence of things? You seem to enjoy logical fallacies.

You may answer after defining natural.

Asking me to define words that are open to interpretation is an exercise in futility.

It could be a display of arrogance by someone still enjoying 'philosophical' plays on words.

NB: speaking of arrogance, I actually 'may' do as I please.

[rug]

137. Easy-peasey. Unicorns have specific physical attributes and properties.

For which there is no physical evidence.

Really, epistemology is a far less infantile subject than unicorns.

[Yorktown]

139. You still haven't demonstrated the inexistence of unicorns.

A fact which gives me heart, as I believe in unicorns.

And in old prophets.

[edhopper]

30. Let's assume there was a man by that name

Does that make the Gospels any more true than if there wasn't?

[kimbutgar]

33. I like the Jesus in the book, Lamb by Christopher Moore

This was a book I read that I shared with my husband and Mother in Law who is a every Sunday real Christian and she loved it. It's a book I plan to reread again someday.

This is the Jesus I know, the man who loves people despite their imperfections and is accepting of all.

[phil89]

59. Too bad the bible Jesus

wasn't that way. And what is the objective standard for a "real Christian"?

[Maedhros]

55. I've always been fascinated by the need for the Christian religions to promulgate a myth.

If the message of the New Testament is valid, it doesn't matter if Jesus actually existed or not. All the unlikely stories of walking on water, feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, and raising Lazarus from the dead are unnecessary

Were Jesus just some ordinary guy, would his message somehow be less true?

[Leontius]

72. yes

[Maedhros]

74. Do you mean "Yes, I agree" or "Yes, Jesus' message would be less true"? [n/t]

[Leontius]

75. yes, the message would be less true

[Maedhros]

76. I'm interested in your take on that.

I believe that truth is truth, regardless of who speaks it.

[Leontius]

92. There is one essential truth that cannot be ignored

Christ is risen.

[Maedhros]

93. I recognize that it is your truth, and I can respect your acceptance of it.

It is not mine, however, which is why I left the church.

The value of the gospels is their guidance in how we choose to live. I find that guidance valid regardless of the divinity (or mere humanity) of Jesus.

[Leontius]

97. We don't disagree on the value of the teachings or their truth

I think they are a vital and dynamic guide to a good life.

[Maedhros]

105. "Love one another."

Pretty damned simple.

[Leontius]

107. Simple yes. Easy, not so much for many.

[trotsky]

161. Indeed, many Christians struggle mightily with that.

They're rude, insulting, aggressive, and downright hateful. Clearly they are the bad ones. But they still think of themselves as Christian, yes indeed. Many even rationalize their horrible behavior in crude, ridiculous ways.

[edhopper]

163. It's a long Christian tradition

that it only applies to other Christians with the same beliefs.

[Leontius]

166. It's a hard thing being human isn't it

what with the rude, insulting, aggressive and downright hateful behavior but then you know all about that don't you.

[trotsky]

167. Yes I see a lot of that from so-called Christians.

It's pretty sad. Especially when their religion is allegedly about "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." They seem to feel they have a license to be as nasty and vicious as they want to be, and then pull the old "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" passive-aggressive bullshit. Oh well, if their god is real they'll be judged for their behavior, right Leo?

[trotsky]

95. Jews ignore that.

So do Muslims. And Hindus. And everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your narrow little view of Christianity.

What happens to people who reject your "truth"? Are you looking forward to seeing us all burn in hell?

[Leontius]

99. Everyone has a choice to make

Make it and own it. Quit worrying so much about what others think of you it seems to cause you much distress. an anguished life is a wasted life.

[trotsky]

132. I notice you didn't answer the question.

What happens to people who reject your "truth"?

[phil89]

78. Except that whole salvation thing.

That's kinda the basis of Christianity.

[Maedhros]

80. Like I said, promulgation of myth.

"Salvation" could be seen as allegory for enlightenment, thus there is no need for Jesus to be anything but an enlightened man.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. I tie that to the view of some Christians that atheists must be immoral

because they don't believe in Hell & must therefore think that it's OK to do anything to other people.

As a sort of agnostic with Buddhist/pagan leanings, I've always tried to pay attention to the fact that doing good things for others makes me feel happy, and doing otherwise makes me feel miserable. There may or may not be a Heaven and Hell, but their putative existence has nothing to do with how I conduct my life.

On the other hand, I gotta worry about someone who is only refraining from doing terrible things to others due to a fear that some God will "get them" if they stray.

[Maedhros]

94. I see it as an enforcement measure.

Putting the authority of God behind the dogma to ensure that it is followed.

[Jackpine Radical]

96. I'm sorry, but

my karma ran over your dogma.

(Old line, I know.)

[cbayer]

70. What difference would it make.

What if some of the gospels accurately portray what happened and what was said.

What if some of the gospels partially portrayed what happened and what was said.

What if the gospels are stories that changed over time and have a kernel of truth but have little resemblance to actual events.

What is the Jesus described is an amalgamation of people.

What difference would it make? What makes it pertinent?

[edhopper]

101. None to you

some to others

[cbayer]

110. The question was sincere.

What difference would it make to others?

[edhopper]

115. ask a Christian

If Jesus not being the Son of God, not risen and not hearing prayers makes a difference.

But the thread was to put into perspective what I think is more central issue to historical Jesus.

I think the existed/not existed debate isn't the real issue.

You don't care if he lived or not, many others do.

[cbayer]

145. Do you think you "win" if you can somehow prove that the historical

Jesus is not real?

Do you think that's a check mate?

[edhopper]

146. it's not about whether historical Jesus existed

I am not advocating that he didn't.

I am saying whether there was a man named Yeshua or not isn't the issue.


I am not a mythicist.

[Yorktown]

118. You are asking if Truth matters.

Our actions are better suited to the world when they are grounded in reality rather than fantasy.

That's why it's generally better to try to understand what is true and real rather than desired.

[upaloopa]

77. The Jesus I read about in the gospels

is not the Jesus I here about from my religious friends.
They say Jesus rejects certain kinds of people. They will post a "Jesus loves you" thing on facebook and also anti immigrant think next and a anti marriage equality after that. Their Jesus lives in their heads.

[Jackpine Radical]

82. Maybe.

I take from Christianity a set of messages about peace and love, and it doesn't matter to me whether the messages originated from a fictional character, a mortal human, or some sort of deity. It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.

I draw similarly from many other religio/philosophical traditions, particularly Buddhist and Anishinaabe perspectives, in shaping my ideals.

[deutsey]

83. Scholar Bart Ehrman believes he existed

According to the page about him on Wikipedia: He's an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a leading scholar in his field, having written and edited over 25 books, including three college textbooks, and has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.

Ehrman used to be an evangelical Christian but he lost his faith the more he researched the history of Christianity.

However, he still asserts that Jesus did actually exist:

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

There's more at the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

[edhopper]

103. Does his existence

make any of the Gospels, especially the parts about his divinity and miracles any more true?

To me that is the bigger question.

[deutsey]

135. Well, you have to understand what the Gospels are

They are not (and were never intended) to be biographies or historical/journalistic accounts of Jesus. They're faith documents of early Christian communities attempting to make sense of what they considered was their experience of the risen Christ.

What is derived from the early oral tradition about the "real" historical Jesus in the Gospels and what are post-crucifixion attempts to understand what the Christ of faith meant to these early Christian communities is a huge part of New Testament studies.

Here's an interesting video lecture from Yale (I find it interesting, anyway) on the methodology used by scholars to sketch broadly the historical Jesus:

[Yorktown]

143. That explanation is too vague

The writers of the gospels must have thought they wrote either fact or fiction.

Which do you think it was? Was a risen Christ fact or fiction for them?

[edhopper]

148. you would think that would be

a central question.

[deutsey]

154. I think it's not an either/or proposition, personally

It's too bad if you think it's too vague. It's the way it is. That either/or approach is a very modern way of understanding. It's much more ambiguous than that when you look at it in terms of the times in which the Gospels were written.

As the professor points out in the video I attached, there's ambiguity surrounding the "historical Socrates". Was he as Plato portrays him, was he the way another student portrayed him (Xenophon, I think)? Was he the way IF Stone portrayed him in "The Trial of Socrates" (in which he says Socrates was actually a nihilistic reactionary who despised democracy)?

I'm no expert, but I've studied the New Testament at the graduate level and based on what I know of the scholarship around the "historical Jesus":

I believe there was a person named Jesus of Nazareth who initiated a mostly peasant-oriented movement that challenged the Roman occupation and its Jewish collaborators.

I believe he and his followers went to Jerusalem during Passover, probably believing they were going to initiate the in-breaking "kingdom of God" in human history.

I believe Jesus was arrested and executed for sedition.

I believe his followers came to see and experience the life of Jesus and his teachings in a new light after his death. They claim it was through experiencing his resurrected form (which, as one of my professors used to say, is different from resuscitated).

They continued to build communities modeled after the "kingdom of God" ethos probably in the belief that Jesus was going to return soon. Most of what was known about Jesus was passed on orally.

I believe Paul came along and took the Jesus movement into a different direction than the original followers began. Basically he took a Jewish peasant movement and reinterpreted it as Christianity in a way that appealed to the Hellenized world beyond Nazareth and Jerusalem.

I'm leaving out entire continents of info here, but suffice it to say, I think the Gospels are faith (theological) documents of a pre-modern era written decades after Jesus was executed and after Paul came along (his epistles are the earliest documents in the NT). The Gospels were written for particular early Christian communities trying to understand and convey the meaning of what they believed was their experience of the resurrected Christ for that community at a given time. The authors drew from oral traditions about the historical Jesus (not documented histories or biographies) and possibly an earlier lost collection of sayings (known as "Q" in NT studies...it stands for "Quelle" or "source" in German).

These were not meant to be journalistic accounts or biographies or even histories of Jesus. They were theological documents that wove together what the authors and communities knew about Jesus to help those early followers understand the meaning of Christ in their time. Matthew, for instance, is believed to be for Jewish Christians who have been expelled from Judaism, which is why the author portrays Jesus as the new Moses. Luke, on the other hand, was for more Hellenized converts to Christianity who were not Jews and knew little about Judaism...in Luke, therefore, he's more universal and portrayed as the new Adam

Look at the genealogies of Jesus in both of those Gospels, for example. Matthew's emphasizes the Jewish roots of Jesus going back to Abraham; Luke traces him back to Adam.

Are these fictions? Myths? Are fiction and myth "lies" and "made up" stories, or are can they capture and convey deep truths that propositional statements just can't encompass?

Personally, I lean toward the latter. So I don't think the Gospels are "fact" or "fiction" (i.e., made up stories).

As Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar believe and as as the professor in the video I attached and Eherman believe, I think we can discern the historical probabilities around Jesus in the Gospels using history, archaeology, etc. (we'll never "know" who the actual historical Jesus was, though) and we can see in the Gospels how the early Christian communities/church experienced what they believed was the risen Christ.

I can draw meaning and inspiration from both.

[edhopper]

159. Thanks for the thoughtful

post. You seem to be saying "Here is the philosophical lessons we can draw from the Gospels." and "Here is the limited historical information we can discern from them."

Am I right that you make no claims for any divine content in the Gospels and no evidence that Jesus was anything but a man.

[deutsey]

160. You're correct

I believe the Gospels are human-created documents and I see Jesus as a human being. I believe he was a human being worth noting and remembering, but a human being. Some early Christians believed that as well until three centuries later when the Church established the orthodox belief in the divinity of Jesus.

I'm glad my early morning ramblings made more sense than I thought they did.

[edhopper]

162. They did indeed

I think the influences, both philosophical and political in the NT are interesting. As well as the previous myths that shaped it.

The "word of God" BS gets in the way of realistic analysis.

That most Christians believe the stories are literally true (not word for word literalists, but that all of it happened just as described) gets in the way of a rational discussion of the merits and detriments of the books.

[Yorktown]

170. Did the Gospels writers invent? Did they know they were not factual?

Are these fictions? Myths? Are fiction and myth "lies" and "made up" stories, or are can they capture and convey deep truths that propositional statements just can't encompass?

Personally, I lean toward the latter. So I don't think the Gospels are "fact" or "fiction" (i.e., made up stories).

People can today find 'deep truths' in some philosophical passages of the NT, no doubt.

That is on a different level from asking if the writers themselves believed in the stories of miracles. As has already been pointed out, there is a clear pattern of embellishment of the resurrection myth from gospel to gospel. Clearly, someone knew he was inventing along the way. But let's stick to the initial gospel of Mark: do you think Mark thought he was reporting fact? Do you think mark believed in magic in general? (a possibility).

But there are two statements of you that are obvioulsy too vague for me (again, sorry )
•1• something is either fact or fiction. if the writer was deluded, it's an earnest fiction, not fact.
•2• there are no truths that propositional statements cannot encompass.
Accepting statements like that leads there, the hellfire where reason melts:

[deutsey]

174. That's a good question

I just think that's us looking back and making that judgment. I don't think it was an issue in a world where people were regularly promoted to god-like status or became legendary demi-gods (Herakles).

Crossan points out that resurrection was really not a shocking notion back then. Apparently, people believed that Caesar was resurrected into godhood, for example.

What made Jesus different, according to Crossan, was his status (peasant) and the impact his life and death had. Was there evidence that his resurrection has changed the world in anyway like Caesar's did? He argues that the alternative communities Jesus inspired in his lifetime and after his death would have convinced some back then that Jesus was resurrected and influencing the world through these new communities.

(I watched this a while ago, so I don't remember where he says this...I think it's near the end).

Regardless, I think it was common for pre-modern (and even post-modern) people to truly believe in what they're embellishing because at some level, they experienced what they are embellishing in a way that was real for them.

That may well mean pre-modern people were prone to delusions and superstitions (that's what the post-Enlightenment world posits), but I think it's deep in human nature to engage in such imaginative (or "magical realist&quot endeavors.

It's early in the morning and I don't know if I'm making any sense.

Were there people back in ancient times who knowingly embellished and made up things? Of course. But I think there were many instances where the lines we have separating fact and fiction were blurred to such an extent where the two categories didn't exist.

And regarding resurrections, I've always been intrigued by the tendency of modern people to want to believe that our own versions of demi-gods (such as rock stars) live on after their deaths (e.g., Jim Morrison and Tupac).

[okasha]

173. That's an excellent summary.

It's short, but you hit all the major points.

[randys1]

102. It isnt important to me if he lived or not. What is important to me is

why do 99.999999999999999999999% of all Christians fall a minimum of three thousand miles short of doing what he commanded they do, real or not?


Very few, VERY few human beings, WAY less than ANY of you think, are actual Christians if being a Christian is following in what he commanded.

VERY few, oh god is the number small

I mean SMALL


I am talking s m a l l

[rurallib]

138. I vote no

sounds like he was an amalgamation of many previous god-as-man stories.

[NeoGreen]

156. There may have been...

... a man (or group of men {or women, or group of men & women} conflated into and) named or known as jesus...

but fortunately that Scoundrel named Christ was a complete fabrication...