History is based on probability. We can't prove what happened in history, we can just show whether or not it was probable.
And in some cases, it's so mucked up by mythology we can barely even guess at what was most probable.
All we can say is that the supernatural accounts were likely untrue- but even today we have faith healers who make people (temporarily) feel better by way of a placebo effect (which should not be underestimated).
It's possible that Yeshua was a construct made from many people or ideas of the time, a single philosopher, a faith healer who drank his own Koolaid and was sincere, or a conman.
There's nothing to give us any overwhelming probability to point to any of those.
Some modern faith healers believe that they are really healing people, but they're mostly charismatic and intelligent people, so most of them ultimately figure it out and amount to nothing other than conmen when they keep up the racket.
Modern extrapolation would favor the conman over the sincere healer (although most conmen also rationalize their actions to themselves, and convince themselves they aren't bad people- which may have been the case here too). Unless there is a reason to believe that modern faith healers would be fundamentally different from those of antiquity, that extrapolation is only probable.
I think it is reasonable to believe that most of the philosophy came from Saul and after, though. Whatever came before- whether a conman, or a non-figure made by amalgamating pure myth and rumor- it's pretty philosophically empty without the overwhelming contributions of Saul and later theologians. If there was such a man and he ever was a philosopher, it's hard to say what he said or believed.
He definitely didn't intend to die on a cross for humanity's sins unless he was a complete lunatic (which seems unlikely), that I can tell you.
A forgotten and superseded philosopher? A con-man? Or a non-entity originally constructed by combining myth and rumor?
I can't say which one is more probable of those- but it's also unreasonable to call any of those interpretations out as themselves unreasonable given the vacuum of evidence.
The only things that can be called completely unreasonable are supernatural interpretations, and absolute certainty.
If we take the evidence presented for Jesus, and call it weak, then we must use those same standards for other figures.
Absolutely, but you extrapolate that incorrectly as: "that first hand accounts are weak, that historians are weak, that oral tradition is weak, etc."
Bad logic.
It is not the first hand accounts that are weak- it is first hand accounts of a certain type, it is not historians that are weak- it is their recordings of a certain type, it is not even oral traditions that are weak- it is oral traditions of a certain type that are.
Copernicus said it quite well:
Most historical figures [...] do not have a massive movement of people behind them that have a religious motive for belief in their existence.
Fallingblood, I would encourage you to look into Laozi
.
There are other figures that make good examples too, but he's probably the best.
When we come across a body of philosophical work, we
WANT to assign individual authorship. People want to personify, and to relate to a work they're invested in on a personal level.
IF such a character as Yeshua never existed, it would be necessary for the believers in the philosophy to invent him- there is an overwhelming cultural motivation to fabricate unknown details and invent an author (of the philosophy, not just of the books involved).
That is why it is entirely reasonable to consider him never existing as a realistic and competitively probable possibility.
This doesn't require or involve conspiracy; it is a work of accumulative oral story telling. It's neither complicated, not uncommon.
Chiefly, we believe that figures such as emperors and pharaohs existed because there is no other plausible explanation- there would be no good reason to have invented them- and if the rulers of the time did invent such leaders, that
would involve a conspiracy (thus making that option less probable).
For religious and philosophical figures, that is not the case- there is a very good reason to invent a powerful genius as a central figure, even if the philosophies were developed by many people over time- and that invention is done, itself, over time- gradually to the point that nobody notices.
The Romans believed Yeshua existed because the Christians believed it, and the Romans neither understood their cultural motivation for fabricating a character to embody their philosophy, nor would they have likely cared if they did.
It's as simple as that.
Yeshua deserves the same amount of incredulity as Laozi, because if he didn't exist, he would probably have been invented anyway.
Did he or didn't he? I don't know. I don't really even care that much.
Personally, I slightly prefer to assume that a character representing the origins of Christianity existed, if only because it makes a very useful symbolic tool. I have no certainty on the matter, and wouldn't place a bet on it, and I'd be happy to have actual evidence as to any of the possibilities.
Historians of antiquity are great sources- but mostly for what people believed, and not necessarily what was true. They're only good sources for what is probably true when there is no other very plausible explanation, and ideally when multiple hostile sources are in agreement.
We might as well as just dismiss all of history, or at least huge portions of it, if we want to apply those same standards.
Nonsense.
But dismiss our certainty as to the literal existence of many religious and philosophical founders? Certainly.
Such characters demand higher burdens of evidence due to the compelling psychological motivations to invent them to represent philosophies.
the fact they burned the gnostic and jewish versions, means we used to have overwhelming documentation.
There was a period where those things were actively destroyed, but I think more document loss comes by vice of not being actively copied and preserved (most documents being written on perishable food stuffs which insects much enjoy). It doesn't usually matter how much you're trying to destroy something like that- if people really want to preserve it, they usually will.
I actually don't see why Christians are so determined that a real Jesus existed [...] It's all suppposed to be faith based in the end, so why even be concerned with that question?
Because a part, however small, of them usually holds some nagging itch of rationality.
Sure, they say it should be based on faith- but they don't all believe that, not really.
The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22.
They could very easily be the stories of a con-man, as recorded by his victims. I think that's also the interpretation that Christians are most able to comprehend.
They do not understand the nuances of gradual genesis of oral tradition and mythology. They say that if a story exists, it must have come from a source, and thus must be true (or even more absurd, that it must be true, or it would be a conspiracy). They hypocritically ignore the application of the same induction to other religions.
If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note.
Nah, fraudulent 'healers' and cult leaders were a dime a dozen, and it was no more difficult then than it is today to con hundreds or thousands of people into following one. That's why there are stories in the NT of Yeshua serving other would be cult leaders (an attempt to set him apart from the rest).
The most historically incredulous interpretation of the NT- assuming the stories are as true as possible- would favor only that of a conman; but given that, would not necessarily have to be completely false on all details (just duped into believing false miracles).
Magicians of the age were not likely much less technically skilled than modern magicians- and modern magicians rarely if ever use any technology newer than the bronze age (it's almost never magnets, or anything like that).
Watch some magic shows- look into modern cult leaders- it's not hard to imagine; the charlatans were pigs in ****. Society was suffering a veritable plague of these criminals, of whom Yeshua may have just been one who got what he had coming, and whose cult following didn't die with him.
Maybe he realized the authorities had him pat, and he was going to die anyway, so might as well have a last laugh as he went.
Just a possibility- not necessarily more likely than it being a myth all together, but certainly more entertaining.
It's a thoughtless and disingenuous question. At issue is whether it is reasonable to presume the mythicist narrative.
At issue is your inability to respond to arguments, and your willful ignorance.
Contrary to your ignorance of what qualifies a conspiracy, it is perfectly reasonable to presume a non-conspiracy mythicist narrative along with the possibility of the man being a con-artist, or a several decades BCE philosopher whose actual thoughts and personality have been lost in the noise.
Assuming one over another with certainty would be a little unreasonable. Assuming a literal, true, and historically incredulous interpretation of the NT and other texts as you seem to is far worse than mere insanity.
