Historicity Of Christ?

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's why proof if his existence, at all, should be scrutinized so heavily. And if an individual with such a significant social influence as Jesus actually did exist... it shouldn't require mounds of research, or years of study and scholarship to determine that.

And you base this claim on precisely what?

 

[RedJamaX]

And you base this claim on precisely what?

did you not read this part...

But this is not the same with "Jesus"... For Jesus to influence things like murder, burning people alive, violent conquests, war, suppression of knowledge, or the most recently popular idea of restricting the rights of other individuals based on a particular groups beliefs based on faith....

The only requirement is that he existed at all.

Regardless of what Jesus supposedly taught... the influence that is perpetuated by his very existence is a completely different matter.

 

[RedJamaX]

And you base this claim on precisely what?

history

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

history

And you think that things would be better if there were no Christians because...?

Let's look at history a bit:

Someone had described Pinker's latest book to me when it came out, and I foolishly chose to base my opinion off of this person's interpretation of Pinker's analysis and conclusion at first. Luckily, I happen to be working the day Pinker was giving a talk about his book, so I went down to hear him. I was glad to be wrong, and subsequently read his book.

There were, however, a few things (both in his presentation and his book) which were not exactly accurate and/or were somewhat distorted. Some were, I think, due to the simplification necessary to write a book on so broad an issue and make it non-technical. Others were more likely a result of Pinker's specialty (and the fact that he discussed much which has little or nothing to do with this specialty).

For example, he deals a lot with frequencies of violence, classified into various categories.There are currently a several international organizations which attempt to provide comprehensive reports on violence in various regions, such as EuroStat, WHO, HEUNI, etc. In the 2011 World Development Report: Conflict, Security, and Development, which alone is about half the size of Pinker's book and is only concerned with understanding modern violence, crime, etc., we can't even get to the Intro without the following: "One of the greatest challenges in researching lessons on violence prevention and recovery is the lack of available quantitative and qualitative data, due to challenges of security and access, along with low statistical capacity. Even in the World Bank’s comprehensive data sets, countries most affected by violence often register empty data columns."

HEUNI's chapter "Homicide" in it's Insternational Statistics on Crime and Justice (2010), like Pinker, deals with the issue of categorizing violence. Unlike Pinker, however, the concern is only with the most recent data. And homicide in particular "is perhaps the most widely collected and reported crime in law enforcement and criminal justice statistics". So we'd expect to see the least issues here. Yet instead we find "the challenges of cross-national comparability are considerable" (p. 7). Even for the EU (see EuroStat's Crime and Criminal Justice report), not only is classification a problem (different legal systems), but so too is missing data.

In other words, the leading organizations concerned documenting, classifying, and analyzing current trends, tendencies, and frequency of violence in the world continuously note the major roadblocks.

Pinker, on the other hand, is not primarily concerned with actually analyzing data (e.g., ensuring that the comparisons he makes are accurate), but taking datasets and interpreting them on a global scale throughout human history.

The most glaring example of an almost complete failure to properly understand violence trends is his treatment of genocide. Pinker discusses the "genocides" in the Homeric epics, the Bible, as well as other ancient literature. The problem here is that the destruction of Troy, or slaughter of the Hittites, and ancient warfare in general isn't genocide. At least not in the way the term is used to day. Perhaps the most glaringly obvious way to demonstrate this is etymologically: the word is a combination of the Latin for killing/murder with the Greek genos. For the Homeric epics in particular, but also for ancient Greek in general, the word meant "tribe" or "family" more than "race." Ancient warfare (like most warfare in human history) was characterized by going into some other city, or the region occupied by some other tried, and slaughtering them. Usually this included rape, enslavement, etc,. but sometimes just destruction and wholesale slaughter. Yet the only way we can classify this as genocide is by thinking that "race" means living in a particular city.

The anthropological models of genocide do tend to make comparisons with the past, but only in terms of certain common characteristics which can help inform underlying psychological mechanisms at play. Hinton's study "The Dark Side of Modernity: Toward an Anthropology of Genocide" (the introductory essay in the edited volume Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide; vol. 3 of California Series in Public Anthropology) makes this quite clear: "Prior to the twentieth century, the concept of genocide did not exist." (p. 3). It's true that althought "the concept of genocide is a twentieth-century invention, the types of destructive behaviors it references go far back in history" but with "the advent of modernity, however, genocidal violence began to be motivated by a new constellation of factors" (p. 7).

Not that all historians or anthropologists agree. There are some who would define, as Pinker does, older massacres of cities and so forth as "genocides". But as Gellately & Kiernan note in a similar essay to the once cited above (in that it too is the introduction to an edited volume on genocide), even scholars who argue genocide is as old as war, this tendency to "underline continuities in the human condition as explaining the recurrence of mass murder" (p. 9) misses extremely important factors. The authors (who are the volume's editors) write "In this book, Omer Bartov, Marie Fleming, and Eric Weitz focus on the specific modernity of genocide. In their essays here they insist that there is something very new about many (if not all) of the twentieth-century mass murders, such as those inflicted on the Armenians or the Jews. Many of us would agree with the point made by Isabel Hull in her essay in this volume. On the basis of what happened to the Herero tribe in German South West Africa before the First World War, she argues that the vastness and totality of recent genocides or “final solutions” aimed at what she terms “problem populations” is such that they can be pursued only by an institution like the modern state." (p. 9).

Pinker cites Chalk and Jonassohn's book both in support of the idea that genocide is ancient, and to explain why people are under the (false) impression it is new. Using their work as back-up, he writes "historians have never found genocide particularly interesting." It's hard to find interesting a concept that didn't exist until recently. And one need only look at the samples of definitions of genocide from just the 80s onward in Jones' textbook (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction 2nd ed.), which require about 3 pages even though some are only one line long, to not that "never found interesting" can only be true if we ignore the past 30 years.

To compare the warfare in Homer to the Holocaust, the "ethnic cleansing" in Yugoslavia, the slaughter in Rowanda, and similar hallmarks of the 20th century in particular (it has not stopped and there are comparable stains in the history of humanity from e.g., colonization) is at best flawed, and at worse to trivialize these horrors.

Let's just say that Pinker did some great work trying to present a balanced view of history, but the secondary nature historiography played in his work, his lack of familiarity with the study of history and historiography, and the incredible complexities inherent in his project all resulted in some rather unfortunate distortions. Hopefully, his conclusions aren't too affected by them.

 

[RedJamaX]

And you think that things would be better if there were no Christians because...?

Let's look at history a bit:

I wasn't claiming that all the evil acts performed by people were driven by Christianity. Nor did I claim that I wanted no Christians...

The social structure of the word would function best if all religious views were kept in the home, and in each of you own minds. And your tenants and dogma not be forced on other members of society.

Social structures should be built on a secular framework to help determine the best system for everybody, equally...

You can be religious all you want, I just don't belief you or my government has the right to stop my gay friend from being married.... religion doesn't own marriage... Predynistic Egypt had marriage LONG before Christianity.

Bad things have been done by all people through out history, for money and power, even when it's done "in the name of" religion. Taking religion out of the influence of social structures will remove it's influence on the global conflit we observe from day to day.

Then, we nee to figure out a way to get rid of our current economic system.

 

[Professor Paradox]

I think the entire character of Jesus is just that... a fictional character in a fictional book, and I used to be christian, and believed the whole damn thing... even 900 year old people (I was a child at the time)

I mostly agree with this statement. However it's possible that some of the things attributed to Jesus were based on a real person, or a composite of real people. Jesus is a latinized form of the name Yashua, or Joshua which was a common name and still is today.

That said I'm 99% sure that the events depicted in the bible such as the disciples, or the stories told about the so called "Jesus Christ" like Crucifixion are entirely ficticious.

 

[quizas]

If you said god have son
It is like saying god have temptation lust

In order to have kids there must be physical touch

So in this case he has weakness

As we know god is not week

I really don't know how this organized world
Has more than one god

All countries have one leader but
How it comes that this world has more than one leader

Are these peaceful god or what

 

[Objective Qualia]

I don't think Jesus was a real historical person.There is a lot of silence from Paul as to the life of Jesus you never hear about important events in his ministry, Sermon on the mount, betrayal by Judas, fleeing to Egypt. In fact, there is very little Paul says to make it seem Jesus was a physical being.

The accounts of Jesus were written in a time when a thing called euhemerization was popular. Euhemerization is basically writing a story of a god as a living human being. There was a story of Zeus as a king of a nation yet we don't believe Zeus ever existed. The fact that these accounts were written decades after the fact and that no one outside of Christianity mentions Jesus lends more credibility to Euhemerization.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think Jesus was a real historical person also.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Most historians today believe that there was a person called Jesus of Nazareth, who lived about 2000 years ago in Palestine. Most would also say that most of what's talked about him in the New Testament probably isn't true. The problem with this question, is that if you say you believe there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, alot of people, particularly Christians, take that to mean you believe what the New Testament says about him, which normally isn't the case. He was probably just an itinerant preacher who opposed the other Jewish sects of his day, and probably heavily influenced by the sect at Qumran, although he probably wasn't a member. But personally, I just find it easier to say I don't believe in his historical existence, it just makes things easier.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Most historians today believe that there was a person called Jesus of Nazareth

Not most. Virtually all. There are perhaps two historians in the world (one a biblical scholar and the other a classical historian) who doubt that Jesus existed. The modern arguments one finds on the internet about Jesus and Mithras or dying and resurrecting gods was hashed out over the space of about a 100 years, and all arguments presented today against Jesus' existence were answered then. What we find now are bad repeats of 19th century and very early 20th century poorly wrought historiography that fails to address either modern scholarship or even the counter-arguments presented at the time when such challenges to Jesus' historicity had any merit (by virtue of novelty- they may have been wrong but as such questions had at that point not been asked and therefore not answered, we can appreciate the fact that such questions were asked then).

 

[outhouse]

There are perhaps two historians in the world (one a biblical scholar and the other a classical historian)

Correct, Carrier and Price. Both at a genius level of understanding, yet their hypothesis are so weak, common sense and reasonability trump their work.

Price has always been supporting a weak replacement hypothesis. I expexted Carrier to do so much better, but in the end, his replacement hypothesis is so weak it is laughable in places.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He was probably just an itinerant preacher who opposed the other Jewish sects of his day, and probably heavily influenced by the sect at Qumran, although he probably wasn't a member.

I love it when people just make things up …

Why are either of these probable?​

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This has been addressed ad nauseam.

What's your point?

 

[edwinic]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

Do you mean the cosmic Christ that Saul met on his way to Damascus? Yeah, sure, its historical.

 

[ZooGirl02]

The class I took in college on this very issue: "Jesus of History. Christ of Faith." is frankly part of what led to my loss of belief in the Christ of Faith part.

There are reasonable arguments to make about what things are most likely to be historically accurate and what aren't. But it's pretty clear to me that Jesus of Nazereth was an apocalytpic preacher who was literally looking at the "coming of the Kingdom" or what have you within the next generation. Similarly Paul seems to feel the same way. The fact that now Christianity has kind of... ignored that, is evidence of the sand/pearl dichotomy that Penguin is talking about.

The details vary based on the sect/denomination of Christianity, but each interpret the pearl in a different way, right? And yet the grain of sand within was concrete. He was a person who did specific things. It's just not clear that those things were actually raising the dead, for example.

And sure he was persuasive and convincing, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God and the promised Messiah to the Jewish people. (It also doesn't make it OK to abuse the phrase "begs the question" like that. )

The problem with what you are saying is that yes, Jesus and Paul expected the coming of the Kingdom within a generation. Paul was likely talking about the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness. But the thing is, I believe that they were talking about the coming of the Kingdom of God, which I also believe is the Catholic Church.

 

[Setepenaset]

I believe Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person (I'm reluctant to say a "historical" person, because most of the stories about him are most likely not historical.
My belief is that he was a mystic who may or may not have claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and he got on the wrong side of a few of the wrong people and got himself killed. Because his followers could not very easily accept the idea that the Messiah could be killed, they started believing he was alive somewhere (much as there are people today who refuse to accept the fact that Elvis is dead, and some even claim to have seen him alive). Within the next couple of centuries, legends about him started being written down as what we now know as the gospels (both canonical and apocryphal) which the Christians took to be historical facts. A lot of the teachings attributed to him were devised to patch up "holes" in the story. For example, he died without fulfilling many of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, so they devised the doctrine of the Second Coming at which time he is supposed to fulfill those hitherto unfulfilled prophecies.

 

[Alt Thinker]

IMO it is more likely than not that there was an historic Jesus.

After removing the supernatural elements from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke) they describe a believable environment: Temple-centric religious life, House of Shammai type Pharisees, tenure of Pontius Pilate, imminent apocalyptic expectations. When the Gospels were written sometime after 70 CE, the Temple was gone, the Shammai Pharisees were mostly wiped out in the Siege of Jerusalem, and Pontius Pilate was long gone. If this is all just an invented story, the details suggest that it is already several decades old.

The Gospel of Mark tells of a tradition that the Messiah would return very soon in the manner described in the Book of Daniel. Paul, who wrote earlier than Mark, also emphasizes the expected imminent return. The tradition has it that some people who heard the words of Jesus would still be alive when the Son of Man returned. For Mark that has now been 40 years or more. Mark attempts to reset the clock by making the destruction of Jerusalem the sign of the imminent apocalypse, just making it under the deadline. This suggests a belief at that time in actual historical events.

But to me the most convincing argument is Paul. To begin with he is addressing a widespread audience who apparently are already aware of and believe in the idea of an historic Jesus. Beyond that there is Paul’s recasting the humiliating execution of a Messiah-like figure into an intentional sacrificial act. Toward this end he invokes a plethora Jewish references that do not really add up. Blood sacrifices do exist in the OT but they are not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Human sacrifice is strictly forbidden as are painful sacrifices or painful killings of any sort as well as sacrifices performed by other than priests in the Temple (and not even by Jews). There is a great deal of Passover related material but the Passover sacrifice is not an atonement sacrifice. For Jesus to be the Passover Lamb it is necessary for him to be eaten by the Seder participants. To accomplish this Jesus get represented by matzo. And drinking blood is just plain not allowed in Kosher Law. All in all a difficult to accept set of references. But Paul was looking to justify the unexpected and unacceptable death of Jesus. Which suggests that the death (and life) really happened.

 

[steeltoes]

Do you mean the cosmic Christ that Saul met on his way to Damascus? Yeah, sure, its historical.

Ha.

Take away the Son of Gods powers and what do ya know, He's historical.

 

[Norrin-6-]

I have never doubted Jesus as a real life historical figure. This is not something I've researched thoroughly, I've just always allowed the evidence we do have count for something.

I have read little in the way of literature on the subject of a historical Jesus; actually, I'm just finishing up Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Although I've plenty of articles, this is the first book I have picked up, and I will soon be reading Reza Aslan's Zealot.

I guess the above mentioned books have more to do with who the historical Jesus was and not about whether or not he existed. I did recently listen to an episode of the Unbelievable podcast which had Richard Carrier (mythicist position) and Mark Goodacre (historicist position). Not much can be said in an hour with breaks in between and two people sharing their views so I don't want to misjudge anyone's position. At the very least I can say it seems as though the mythicist position held by Carrier relies on re-interpreting the evidence, which is a plus because if you're looking at the evidence and not just denying everything by sticking your fingers in your ears then you can actually be more convincing. But if Carrier is right, it is going to be hard to undo the current understanding.

Right now, I'm of the mind that Jesus most likely was a historical person. There are things, like his relationship to his family, that make it hard to disbelieve. But the more attention I pay to the subject I'm definitely going to have to hear out the perspective laid out by mythicists solely because I want to be open minded to the side I haven't really heard a lot about.