What's This ? No Historical Jesus ?

[trippymonkey]

See what you all feel about this then ...

https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396

[ippy]

See what you all feel about this then ...

https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396

Poor old Sass and A B.

ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

See what you all feel about this then ...

https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396

That it's an article up to the Indy's usual standards on such topics.


First of all, as covered many times anyone who uses historical methods to make claims about a supernatural Jesus is either misunderstanding the methods or deliberately misusing them. In that some of what is hinted at in the article, is correct but it's not new.

And because they started off with that the article doesn't really define what an historical Jesus means which then leads to confusion in any statement that it makes. The paragraph at the end where it talks about the likelihood of some itinerant preacher is what is accepted by most historians. That it isn't certain us not news either. It isn't certain that Julius Caesar existed, though in terms of the historical method, vastly more likely than Jesus. It isn't certain that Socrates existed and he's certainly arguably less likely than Jesus.


It not surprisingly, given that it is essentially byte filler, doesn't look at the problems inherent in the mythicist position that for there to be no historical Jesus, it requires a group of disparate people to invent an entirely made up character with family theoretically still around to put forward a set of views in such a way that they thought this would be more effective than any other. It seems to represent a very modern sensibility based on modern approaches for which we have no other evidence.

If you ever get in to an argument with a convinced mythicist, I think you will find it very similar to arguing with a Biblical literalist, just through the mirror.

[floo]

I am of the opinion a guy called Jesus probably existed, but what written about him by the gospel writers was highly exaggerated, or pure fantasy.

[trippymonkey]

Good points all - Floo, thanks for that concise opinion.

N

[Owlswing]

I have read "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald and it makes an intersting read.

That the Gospels, the ones the Church allowed to be included (why were the others, known to exist or to have existed, were excluded is one of the many unanswered questions still, after God alone, if he exists, remembers how many years, awaiting a response from the Vatican) contradict each other in matters that are basic tenets of the religion, why there no longer exist any writings about Jesus written while he was, supposedly, alive.

The earliest being at least fifty years after his, supposed, crucifixtion and most that exist from that time writyten by Christians or their apologists.

At least Pagans are willing to own to their beliefs being FAITH not FACT!

[floo]

Jesus has never been recognised as the promised 'Messiah' by most Jews, therefore he couldn't have done a very convincing job of presenting himself as such.

[wigginhall]

This is ancient stuff.  The myther arguments have been around for some time, and as far  as I can see, have been demolished.   One of the best critics of it is Tim O'Neill:

http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

[Nearly Sane]

Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.


http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html


Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.


It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Jesus has never been recognised as the promised 'Messiah' by most Jews, therefore he couldn't have done a very convincing job of presenting himself as such.

Mmm .... If we are using some form of anti ad populum, it would have to be accepted that in terms of followers Jesus, real or not, has been spectacularly successful.

[floo]

Mmm .... If we are using some form of anti ad populum, it would have to be accepted that in terms of followers Jesus, real or not, has been spectacularly successful.

Islam has a many followers too, who truly believe Allah  exists.

[Nearly Sane]

Islam has a many followers too, who truly believe Allah is exists.

And? 

[floo]

And?

Just because a religion has a lot of followers doesn't mean it has any more credence than any other belief system for which there is no evidence to support it.

[Nearly Sane]

Just because a religion has a lot of followers doesn't mean it has any more credence than any other belief system for which there is no evidence to support it.

And since I didn't say it did that is entirely irrelevant. You were the one taking the position that because if the lack of Jewish people thinking Jesus was Messiah was relevant to whether he was. You cannot use that and then avoid the overall success of Jesus, you are being illogical.

[Walter]

See what you all feel about this then ...

https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396

Of course Jesus existed , he's mentioned in the Bible !

[Rhiannon]

Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?

[Nearly Sane]

Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?

'Oi, you! Random intern. Run me up a couple of hundred words on was Jesus real! And do it in 5 minutes!'

[wigginhall]

Saw this headlined on the Indie, didn't even bother looking. Is it journalism or clickbait?

It is recycled every year somewhere in the press.    They tend to avoid actual historical arguments like the plague, and make bizarre statements such as,  why didn't Jesus write anything down, or where are the Roman records, and so on.   History, it ain't, more like popular entertainment.

[wigginhall]

I was just thinking, the common confusion on this topic is between a historic figure, who was a Jewish preacher, and the divine personage, called Christ.   Historians don't discuss the second issue, since they have no means of assessing the supernatural (does that sound familiar?), but do discuss the first.   And I think most historians accept that a historic figure probably existed.  The most obvious argument is on grounds of parsimony.   See the article above by O'Neill.  Also, the meagre historic evidence for historical Jesus is normal for ancient figures.   

[Owlswing]

Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.


http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html


Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.


It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.

The two I mention Ad_O and Sassy fit my description!

I checked his, Fitzgerald's, biblical references and they appear to be correct.

You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.

[Owlswing]

Fitzgerald's book is an example of the mythicist fanaticism. I'm pretty sure that this critique has been linked to before. While it is from a believer, it is coherent and rational.


http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html


Just to link back to the Indy article p, it's a hit odd referring to Ehrman who is far from a mythicist.


It's also worthwhile to remember that many Christians do attribute their position to faith, so it might be better not to make lazy generalisations about them.

As to


http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html


It could almost be Sassy, Hope, Ad_O or B A writing it. Predictable, defend the Bible and the biblical Christ at any cost just in case too many people believe these 'he's a myth' guys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trippy,

See what you all feel about this then ...

https://www.indy100.com/article/historians-are-questioning-if-jesus-ever-existed-at-all-7801396

In a word: "meh".

Three issues:

First, I'm not sure I see the point of trying to argue an unknowable - ie, that an itinerant preacher/mystic/conjuror/moral philosopher (or an amalgam of several such) didn't exist. There seem be be enough scraps of evidence to suggest that a real person did exist, but it's a bit like saying "Saul the amphora maker on Cedar Avenue didn't exist" when we have pottery shards with "S" and "UL" on them. Sure, there may be other explanations but on balance there's no great significance in going with the direction of available records that Saul was indeed doing his stuff.

Second, as for the thoughts of Jesus (or the thoughts attributed to him), again does it matter whether he specifically said them any more than it matters whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays? What matters surely is that we have the ideas at all, to be considered and accepted or not as we wish. Whether the true author was in fact Reg the Reticent who decided that he'd attribute his thoughts to the street preacher on the corner who seemed to be working up a bit of a crowd for example seems to me to be fairly irrelevant.

Third though we have the claim of Jesus the man god. As NS has already said, the methods of academic history are naturalistic so using them to attempt to prove or disprove claims of the supernatural seems to me to be a fool's errand from the get-go. How anyone would go about demonstrating claims of the supernatural is a problem for the supernaturalist I'd have thought, but that's a different matter from arguing that Jesus didn't exist in the first place. Come to think of it, what would "exist" even mean in any case for a magic man who we are told could be dead for a bit then alive again?                   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trippy,

In a word: "meh".

Three issues:

First, I'm not sure I see the point of trying to argue an unknowable - ie, that an itinerant preacher/mystic/conjuror/moral philosopher (or an amalgam of several such) didn't exist. There seem be be enough scraps of evidence to suggest that a real person did exist, but it's a bit like saying "Saul the amphora maker on Cedar Avenue didn't exist" when we have pottery shards with "S" and "UL" on them. Sure, there may be other explanations but on balance there's no great significance in going with the balance of available records that Saul was indeed doing his stuff.

Second, as for the thoughts of Jesus (or the thoughts attributed to him), again does it matter whether he specifically said them any more than it matters whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays? What matters surely is we have the ideas at all, to be considered and accepted or not as we wish. Whether the true author was in fact Reg the Reticent who decided that he'd attribute his thoughts to the street preacher on the corner who seemed to be working up a bit of a crowd for example seems to me to be fairly irrelevant.

Third though we have claim of Jesus the man god. As NS has already said, the methods of academic history are naturalistic so using them to attempt to prove or disprove claims of the supernatural seems to me to be a fool's errand from the get-go. How anyone would go about demonstrating claims of the supernatural is a problem for the supernaturalist I'd have though, but that's a different matter from arguing that Jesus didn't exist in the first place. Come to think of it, what would "exists" even mean in any case for a magic man who we are told could be dead for a bit then alive again?                 

I liked this post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I liked this post.

Bloody hell - have the clocks struck thirteen? 

[Nearly Sane]

The two I mention Ad_O and Sassy fit my description!

I checked his, Fitzgerald's, biblical references and they appear to be correct.

You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.

I have no idea where you think I argued that all of Christian beliefs are facts in the post you were replying to. As to the existence of a preacher called Jesus,various points have been made in the thread about why it is the most reasonable, parsimonious and generally accepted historical conclusion. When you want to argue with them, rather than simply say you don't accept any, get back to me.