So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[Luminous]

The overwhelming majority of evidence (gospels +) give weight to the claim that he existed. my history teacher told me this. to question his existance without evidence to contradict his existance is a mediocre argument.

 

[Sunstone]

The overwhelming majority of evidence (gospels +) give weight to the claim that he existed.

I think the gospels, when looked at more objectively, are more or less a wash on the issue.

 

[Luminous]

I think the gospels, when looked at more objectively, are more or less a wash on the issue.

yes, but they agree he existed and his story fits with context of time. his baby live is probably made up though.

 

[Sunstone]

yes, but they agree he existed and his story fits with context of time. his baby live is probably made up though.

Yes, looked at superficially, the agreement between the gospels would indeed seem impressive.

 

[Luminous]

Yes, looked at superficially, the agreement between the gospels would indeed seem impressive.

though then again, a lot of books agree that unicorns exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said history, not historical records. A reference to the fact that it was unquestioned for roughly 2000 years.

What? Of course Jesus' historicity has been questioned as long as his story existed. This is a large part of why so many people have continued to be non-Christians, even after hearing the Gospel story.

Also, I can't help but realize that geocentrism has been held as true by many more people than the Jesus story, and for a much longer time.

Yes, looked at superficially, the agreement between the gospels would indeed seem impressive.

I personally thnk that the agreement between the Gospels, especially the synoptic Gospels, is imressive evidence that they share a common source. This means that their agreement is not really evidence of their truthfulness.

 

[challupa]

If anyone is interested in researching this further, there are two guys that have co-authored some interesting books on the subject. They are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. Have a look for some of their books. It will make you think for sure.

 

[Storm]

What? Of course Jesus' historicity has been questioned as long as his story existed. This is a large part of why so many people have continued to be non-Christians, even after hearing the Gospel story.

It has? Can you give an example?

Also, I can't help but realize that geocentrism has been held as true by many more people than the Jesus story, and for a much longer time.

Yes, heliocentrism was an extraordinary claim, too. So was a round earth. I never said that such were impossible to prove.

 

[Storm]

For those who disagree with me on whether this is an extraordinary claim, what makes a claim extraordinary in your mind?

 

[fantome profane]

For those who disagree with me on whether this is an extraordinary claim, what makes a claim extraordinary in your mind?

Well for example lets start with something that contradicts well established laws of physics. Walking on water or transmuting it into wine would be good examples (I realize it is not what we are talking about when we talk about the “historical Jesus” but handy examples nonetheless). Or something that has no precedent in known history.

Personally I am of the opinion that the character of Jesus was most likely based to some extent on a real historical person (and btw, not that I would want to bring this back to the OP or anything like that, but I believe that Richard Dawkins himself has expressed a similar opinion). However the idea of a fictional Jesus is not impossible and it is not without precedent that writers could create such a character and that people could mistake it for real. It is not a position I agree with, but it is not entirely unreasonable and it is not extraordinary.

 

[challupa]

I actually think a mythical Jesus helps me out. I can't believe in a virgin birth, walking on water (unless it is ice), turning water into wine and rising from the dead along with some of the other things Jesus is said to have done. Now taken as symbolism or in a mythical context I can at least look at them.

The amount of other god figures throughout history are so similar in their story that it seems far more likely to me that Jesus was the Jewish version. It follows quite closely with the Horus story that was an egyptian mythological god man that it doesn't stretch the imagination that this would have been adopted. Alvin Kuhn, Gerald Massey, Tom Harpur are some other authors that have studied this subject quite extensively and had drawn the conclusion that there is a lot of Egyptian influence in the story of Jesus.

 

[Storm]

Well for example lets start with something that contradicts well established laws of physics.

I would agree with that, but I think everyone would. What else?

 

[logician]

Yes, looked at superficially, the agreement between the gospels would indeed seem impressive.

What agreement, there are numerous conflicts between the gospels, so numerous, one can come up with many different tales of the supposed Jesus regarding who did what, and when they did it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has? Can you give an example?

Are you serious? I'd say that the vast majority of people who heard the Gospel story but failed to become Christians (with the possible exceptions of Muslims and Baha'i) did so because they didn't believe it.

Yes, heliocentrism was an extraordinary claim, too. So was a round earth. I never said that such were impossible to prove.

That's fine, but you seemed to imply that the length of time a belief was held is some sort of evidence or support for its correctness; my point was that there are many beliefs that have been held for very long periods of time that are completely false, so the fact that the historicity of Jesus has been held for a long time as well isn't really support for your claim.

Also, it occurs to me that over the time period you talk about, this claim wasn't believed in isolation. For at least a substantial portion of that time, it was held concurrently with (and IMO intermeshed with) beliefs like these:

- Jesus is the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament
- Jesus is the son of God
- Jesus is God
- the Catholic Church was appointed by God as the authority over spiritual matters on Earth

Out of curiosity, how many of these beliefs are you prepared to accept based on their long-standing nature?

 

[Storm]

Are you serious? I'd say that the vast majority of people who heard the Gospel story but failed to become Christians (with the possible exceptions of Muslims and Baha'i) did so because they didn't believe it.

1) I assumed you meant by historians, so I was wondering if you knew of a medieval equaivalent to The Jesus Mysteries.

2) I don't think we can assume that everyone who has rejected Christianity rejected the historicity of Christ. Does your rejection of Buddhism or Islam cause you to doubt the existence of Siddhartha Gautama or Muhammad?

That's fine, but you seemed to imply that the length of time a belief was held is some sort of evidence or support for its correctness;

If I did, it was unintentional.

Out of curiosity, how many of these beliefs are you prepared to accept based on their long-standing nature?

Given that I'm not claiming what you thought I was, this question strikes me irrelevant.

To attempt to clarify my stance, I don't think the status quo is evidence for itself, that would be silly. I DO think that claims which threaten to overturn the status quo are automatically "extraordinary," whether the status quo is historical assumption or current science. Is that better, or just confused?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) I assumed you meant by historians, so I was wondering if you knew of a medieval equaivalent to The Jesus Mysteries.

Not offhand; your original statement was phrased in a general way, so I responded in a general way.

2) I don't think we can assume that everyone who has rejected Christianity rejected the historicity of Christ. Does your rejection of Buddhism or Islam cause you to doubt the existence of Siddhartha Gautama or Muhammad?

It's not caused by my rejection, but I do doubt the existence of Siddhartha Gautama as a historical figure. Muhammad less so - I think there's enough real evidence for him to believe he probably was a historical figure (though IMO much less evidence for the supernatural aspects of his story than I would need to be convinced).

Rethinking things, I think it would be more accurate to say that most people who were exposed to Christianity but weren't converted didn't so much reject the historicity of Jesus as they just didn't care. While I suppose that could be considered being "unquestioning", it's not exactly resounding support for your claim.

If I did, it was unintentional.

Given that I'm not claiming what you thought I was, this question strikes me irrelevant.

To attempt to clarify my stance, I don't think the status quo is evidence for itself, that would be silly. I DO think that claims which threaten to overturn the status quo are automatically "extraordinary," whether the status quo is historical assumption or current science. Is that better, or just confused?

Confused, I think, since ideas like the Trinity and the authority of the Church are all wrapped up in the status quo you're appealing to by claiming that the historicity of Jesus is part of the status quo. You still have the problem that you're holding up one of those ideas as special without any particular reason I can see to separate it from the others.

 

[Comet]

What should I expect?

I just started it a couple of weeks ago myself. Take it with a grain of salt, as most things...

 

[Storm]

Not offhand; your original statement was phrased in a general way, so I responded in a general way.

Well, you were supposed to read my mind, you incompetent jerk!

It's not caused by my rejection, but I do doubt the existence of Siddhartha Gautama as a historical figure.

Really? Why?

Rethinking things, I think it would be more accurate to say that most people who were exposed to Christianity but weren't converted didn't so much reject the historicity of Jesus as they just didn't care. While I suppose that could be considered being "unquestioning", it's not exactly resounding support for your claim.

What do you think I'm claiming atm, hon?

Confused, I think, since ideas like the Trinity and the authority of the Church are all wrapped up in the status quo you're appealing to by claiming that the historicity of Jesus is part of the status quo. You still have the problem that you're holding up one of those ideas as special without any particular reason I can see to separate it from the others.

Hmm. I guess it's just that I see those as details. They're dependent on the also rather extrordinary claim that Jesus was the Son of God.

Also, they've always been contested. There are other Orthodox Chrurches, and while they've been a minority for centuries, Unitarians have been around longer than the Bible.

Then there's the fact that details of mythology/ theology are extraordinary claims themselves, when taken in isolation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? Why?

Very little factual evidence... at least what I'm aware of. I don't reject the idea that he's historical, I just have no particular reason to accept it.

What do you think I'm claiming atm, hon?

At this point, I'm not sure any more.

Hmm. I guess it's just that I see those as details. They're dependent on the also rather extrordinary claim that Jesus was the Son of God.

I consider that extraordinary as well, but it's also part of the status quo you referred to, which apparantly counts for something.

Also, they've always been contested. There are other Orthodox Chrurches, and while they've been a minority for centuries, Unitarians have been around longer than the Bible.

By the same token, there have been Christian groups just as old as the Unitarians that believe that Christ was fully divine and not human at all. As long as Christianity has existed, there have been people who would vehemently deny the claim that there was ever a historical person named Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever) upon which the mythic Christ story was hung.

 

[lunamoth]

By the same token, there have been Christian groups just as old as the Unitarians that believe that Christ was fully divine and not human at all. As long as Christianity has existed, there have been people who would vehemently deny the claim that there was ever a historical person named Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever) upon which the mythic Christ story was hung.

I think that although the docetists focused on Jesus as divine that does not mean that deny he ever walked the earth.