How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Bunyip]

For some time I have been wanting to,challenge what I see to be a grossly overstated claim:

That the historicity of Jesus has been established. And that only denialists doubt the historicity of Jesus. It is often claimed that the historicity of Jesus is better evidenced than is the historicity of Julius Caeser and it it these over stated claims that I would like to challenge.

My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.

I would love to discuss/debate this with any other members, but seem to get responses only from those who tend to stick to ad hominem attaks and false accusations. I can guarantee to be polite, accountable and honest, I can and will follow the argument and try to have a fun exchange if you will do the same.

All I ask is an honest discussion without the endless accusations, insults, deceptions and so on.

 

[Bunyip]

Just to make sure, all I am asking is a discussion on the arguments and evidence without resort to ad homs, insults, false allegations and so on. If the historicity of Jesus is so axiomatic, it should be easily done.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that someone existed around whom grew up a number of legends and myths seems highly plausible to me. That much of what is said about him is legend and myth does no more, in my mind, to counter his existence than that the legends and myths said today about Elvis or John Lennon counters their existence.

 

[Majikthise]

I've had this discussion with my friend Jeff a few times. If after a few beers i weaken and admit Jesus might have existed as in scripture , his next step is to question my atheism and turn a good buzz into "if he exsisted why not this," or "why not that.".

I steer clear.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've had this discussion with my friend Jeff a few times. If after a few beers i weaken and admit Jesus might have existed as in scripture , his next step is to question my atheism and turn a good buzz into "if he exsisted why not this," or "why not that.".

I steer clear.

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament. That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days. That just didn't happen.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions. So he might as well not exist.

 

[Majikthise]

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Bunyip]

The notion that someone existed around whom grew up a number of legends and myths seems highly plausible to me. That much of what is said about him is legend and myth does no more, in my mind, to counter his existence than that the legends and myths said today about Elvis or John Lennon counters their existence.

Agreed. And thanks.

 

[Bunyip]

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament. That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days. That just didn't happen.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions. So he might as well not exist.

Great stuff. Thanks.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've had this discussion with my friend Jeff a few times. If after a few beers i weaken and admit Jesus might have existed as in scripture , his next step is to question my atheism and turn a good buzz into "if he exsisted why not this," or "why not that.".

I steer clear.

I don't think it's necessary to discuss Jesus without the theism, unless you are a historicist writing about it etc. The real 'importance' to Jesus is that we believe He is more than just some random teacher, like so many others.

 

[Desert Snake]

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament.

That isn't 'for sure'. Perhaps to you..

That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days. That just didn't happen.

Again, that is your belief.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions. So he might as well not exist.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think it's necessary to discuss Jesus without the theism, unless you are a historicist writing about it etc. The real 'importance' to Jesus is that we believe He is more than just some random teacher, like so many others.

Thanks. Great point, I'm sure that many others agree with you that knowledge of historicity is not essential to faith. I would hazzard a guess that Jesus would have most wanted people to focus on what he said, not where his birth certificate got to.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That isn't 'for sure'. Perhaps to you..



Again, that is your belief.


Speak for yourself.

Disciple, think logically, now.

If a person really went around turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 from a few fish and loaves of bread, raising a rotting corpse to life (!), changing his body to able to shine like the Sun during a visit from apparitions, rose from the dead after rotting in a tomb for 3 days (!) and ascended bodily into the sky (!), this person would not only be the biggest sensation in the ancient world but the biggest sensation in all of human history! The libraries wouldn't be able to hold all the contemporary writings documenting this amazing, out of the world person's many mind-blowing feats! Our very views on science and possibility would be permanently and astonishingly changed forever. No one would be able to refute this person's accomplishments and we'd have all the evidence needed to accept this person as the true Lord and Savior. There would be no atheists and the other religions would probably collapse under the weight of so much evidence for the truth of Christianity's claims.

Instead...

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not one word can be proven to have been written about this person during his lifetime. All the writings about him come decades or even over a century after all this is supposed to have occurred. We have no idea what this person looked like. There's not one drawing or portrait of him. We have no writings from this person, and he was supposedly literate. Why would the son of God not write anything down for posterity?

Doesn't this bother you at all? Thinking all this clearly out over a few years helped to wreck my faith, for sure. None of it adds up at all.

So we have two choices here, logically:

He existed but was just one of many preachers and possible messiah claimants and said and did nothing of importance to cause him to be noticed by many during his lifetime.

Or...

He never existed in the first place and the story was completely made up and possibly based on several different figures and combined into a composite with mythology thrown in.

Either way, the claims of Christianity collapse and all we're left with is a story that can entertain and inspire, but nothing more.

 

[Amechania]

While I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person, and a philosopher of great significance, he was likely not the man we meet in the gospels. But neither can we be certain he was entirely not that man. We can't say the gospels are false simply because they are propaganda. The writings of Tacitus is largely propaganda but rarely does anyone but scholars dispute his accounts.

 

[oldbadger]

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament. That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days. That just didn't happen.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions. So he might as well not exist.

Hi....
Read G-Mark again, is my plea..... it's not very long, and my suggestion is that most of it but the last verses are plausible.... by plausible I mean possible.... as seen and passed down by oral tradition.

I'm suggesting that even most of the miracles could have happened, but that they got 'adjusted' by evangelical momentum.

....which puts me into the 'plausible' 'probable' camp......

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hi....
Read G-Mark again, is my plea..... it's not very long, and my suggestion is that most of it but the last verses are plausible.... by plausible I mean possible.... as seen and passed down by oral tradition.

I'm suggesting that even most of the miracles could have happened, but that they got 'adjusted' by evangelical momentum.

....which puts me into the 'plausible' 'probable' camp......

When was that written? I'm going to need a lot more information on that. And what is this evidence for an oral tradition?

 

[Bunyip]

Hi....
Read G-Mark again, is my plea..... it's not very long, and my suggestion is that most of it but the last verses are plausible.... by plausible I mean possible.... as seen and passed down by oral tradition.

I'm suggesting that even most of the miracles could have happened, but that they got 'adjusted' by evangelical momentum.

....which puts me into the 'plausible' 'probable' camp......

Thanks. I would definitely agree with plausible and possible.

 

[Desert Snake]

Disciple, think logically, now.

If a person really went around turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 from a few fish and loaves of bread, raising a rotting corpse to life (!), changing his body to able to shine like the Sun during a visit from apparitions, rose from the dead after rotting in a tomb for 3 days (!) and ascended bodily into the sky (!), this person would not only be the biggest sensation in the ancient world but the biggest sensation in all of human history! The libraries wouldn't be able to hold all the contemporary writings documenting this amazing, out of the world person's many mind-blowing feats! Our very views on science and possibility would be permanently and astonishingly changed forever. No one would be able to refute this person's accomplishments and we'd have all the evidence needed to accept this person as the true Lord and Savior. There would be no atheists and the other religions would probably collapse under the weight of so much evidence for the truth of Christianity's claims.

Instead...

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not one word can be proven to have been written about this person during his lifetime. All the writings about him come decades or even over a century after all this is supposed to have occurred. We have no idea what this person looked like. There's not one drawing or portrait of him. We have no writings from this person, and he was supposedly literate. Why would the son of God not write anything down for posterity?

Doesn't this bother you at all? Thinking all this clearly out over a few years helped to wreck my faith, for sure. None of it adds up at all.

Jesus had many followers. There is no argument from history about that. Xianity had from the very beginning numerous adherents, now, whether you are a Xian or not, if you read mythology, etc., you would have realized that the chance for a religion like Xianity to grow that quickly from a vague 'myth' simply doesn't happen, especially with people in those regions.
What is sort of clear to me is that you think Xianity was 'invented' later by Paul or something, this isn't the case, if you research early writings about Xians.
You need to understand, early on, Xians were the 'enemy' of the empire, it's amazing we have any records tbh, this state of an outlawed religion lasted for a very long time.

 

[Bunyip]

Jesus had many followers. There is no argument from history about that. Xianity had from the very beginning numerous adherents, now, whether you are a Xian or not, if you read mythology, etc., you would have realized that the chance for a religion like Xianity to grow that quickly from a vague 'myth' simply doesn't happen, especially with people in those regions.
What is sort of clear to me is that you think Xianity was 'invented' later by Paul or something, this isn't the case, if you research early writings about Xians.
You need to understand, early on, Xians were the 'enemy' of the empire, it's amazing we have any records tbh, this state of an outlawed religion lasted for a very long time.

Just on that point - the religion based upon Sai Baba grew even faster, and his miracles and life can be attested to by hundreds of millions of living people - but few here seem to,dpubt that they are mythical.

The point is that speed of spread and popularity are not evidence for the historicity of the tradition.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus had many followers. There is no argument from history about that. Xianity had from the very beginning numerous adherents, now, whether you are a Xian or not, if you read mythology, etc., you would have realized that the chance for a religion like Xianity to grow that quickly from a vague 'myth' simply doesn't happen, especially with people in those regions.
What is sort of clear to me is that you think Xianity was 'invented' later by Paul or something, this isn't the case, if you research early writings about Xians.
You need to understand, early on, Xians were the 'enemy' of the empire, it's amazing we have any records tbh, this state of an outlawed religion lasted for a very long time.

Christianity didn't grow quickly. Even when Constantine came on the scene, only about 10% of the Empire was Christian, at most. Early Christianity did go through short periods of persecution, apparently due to anti-social behavior that was disturbing the peace, but I don't think it was ever flat out outlawed, as Judaism was at times.

That still doesn't answer the other, much more important, glaring issues I pointed out.

Also, I don't know if there ever was a Jesus or not and don't take a solid stance, either way. I leave room for that possibility although I find the mythicist argument to be quite compelling. But I certainly don't believe that the Jesus that the New Testament describes existed. That is completely ruled out for the reasons I explained.

 

[oldbadger]

When was that written?

...we don't know, but let's try and agree on a time span.... OK?
Most historians place G-Mark as the first to be written, circa 50-70 CE. Let's say 60 CE...? Which means that It was written just after the lifetimes of most of the witnesses.

I'm going to need a lot more information on that.

Well, you know, that's for your own individual investigation.

And what is this evidence for an oral tradition?

Cultures that are mostly illiterate become better at oral tradition. For oral tradition to reach across a few decades is a doddle. Some societies have passed down their history over many many generations, I believe. So the only folks who could answer your question to an academic standard would be the anthropologists, is my guess.

I am not proposing certainty, you understand, just plausibility <-> probability.