I'm not sure what you mean. My understanding is that none of the atheists here, nor the non-believers, are searching for proof of divinity. This thread is about proof of existence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus a Mythical Character?
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
I beg to differ.
I believe logician's point is that the Jesus of the gospels cannot by definition be historical because he performs miracles and whatnot. He is not searching for divinity, he is merely demonstrating his lack of knowledge of ancient historical sources.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
touche
The gospels ARE historical sources (i.e. bioi) as I have demonstrated already (see previous citations). Josephus is too.
And what I meant by that comment is that anyone who looks at the gospels and discounts them because they contain myth, miracle, etc, is unfamiliar with ancient historical sources, which FREQUENTLY contain such things, and are NEVER held to the same standards of modern history. For this reason, he displays a lack of knowledge about ancient history.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes..They are all a part of the overall history in a sense that regardless what we do to it, it will remain as such. If we find additional writings or even if it is discovered that something has been forged, tampered with etc....the underlying result is that it's still history. I'm not concerned whether or not it's a gospel called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John because it's supected they penned them. What I'm interested in is if the story(s) they tell are factual.
It's without a doubt that the gospels have a lot of factual information but there is a lot of historical inaccuracies there as well. If you simply want to open it and observe it as if it's a historical account then that's not so simple.
In the gospels (the four) they all paint separate pictures of the life and times of the biblical Jesus. Most people, be they followers or historians, seem to merge them all together to paint one picture. All that aside it is we who now can look back and scrutinize them to discern facts from lies and facts from fiction (example: Herod ordering a hit on the children 2yrs. old and under.). Well, so far, I've found nothing to backup this biblical claim. That is fact vs. a lie. As far as fact vs. fiction, well those are self evident in the gospels. They are fanciful claims that can't be proven.
It seems one must start out with columns, putting known substantiated facts in one, non-facts in another, interpolation/tamperings, in one and fanciful claims in another. It almost sounds like Harry Potter. Now that's just the gospels. Josephus adds no credibility to it at all. He's a late comer who wasn't a witness, going off of what he had heard. We can set aside, for now, one passage as it has already been called an interpolation. The other one is excepted by (most) but again....tis no more than hearsay.
Every so often we have people who tell us what the bible is or isn't. I have heard some such as yourself claiming it to be a history book and as crazy as it sounds some have the unmitigated gall to suggest it holds some scientific value. IMO it is a reference book at best. Before believing in any of it's claims I'm forced to reconcile them with actual non-biblical sources. There's a "possibility" of a first century Jew activist who went by the name of Yeshua. Although I have seen no credible evidence of such a person, he may have existed. The information concerning his existence, for me, is skethy. This isn't because I "haven't read historical sources" or study some scholars' notes, opinions, books.....I'm not easily persuaded by opinion. You are correct on every scholar you have posted. I simply think their opinions need some evidence to back it up.....ehhh...but that's just me.....
Last edited:
Absolutely correct. As when viewing all ancient historical accounts (which all contain inaccuracies, most contain myth, etc) historians use various methodologies in order to help determine which parts are most likely historical.
Historians don't exactly just "merge" them. They examine them critically using various methods to determine historicity and what most likely happened.
Nothing in history can be proven. All we can say is what most likely happened. Given my study of the subject, and others, I would say that the gospels record the sayings and teachings of Jesus with a fair degree of accuracy. I would also say that during his life Jesus was credited with various healings, exorcisms, and miracles (whether or not he performed them is a matter of belief/faith, but whether or not people believed DURING HIS LIFE that he did is a matter of history). But the gospels also record a lot of myth/unhistorical data (like the birth narratives.
Sort of.
I would say that it is your lack of acquaintence with historical sources. You look at the gospels and they look like fiction. And compared to modern history they are. But to those who have looked at history as it was written in ancient times, the gospels start looking a lot more like history.
The sayings of Jesus, the parables, some of the miracles probably go back to historical events (not that the miracles actually happened, but that Jesus performed feats which were interpreted as miracles by those who observed them), the crucifixion certainly happened, etc. The birth narratives, parts of the passion narratives, the resurrection, etc, are all based on fictional accounts.
Last edited:
Definitely the most articulate and well-informed statement you have yet made.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Barring the need to prove a historical Jesus because at this point believers and (most) historians already do (believe) he existed. Now we must question, considering "Yeshua" never wrote anything and everything that is attributed to him saying something, we must question their methods of determining what he supposedly said considering the only place, that I'm aware of to look for him saying anything, is the NT. I've often said that using the bible to prove the bible is futile.
Then it is a guestimate because we really have no way of proving he said these things.
I agree.
I am often found here in various threads debating the "godhood", "ressurection", and statements of the biblical Yeshua. Unlike some of my atheist companions they may choose not to engage in these types debates. I find them informative and it helps me to get an understanding of what and why people believe what they do. In these debates, for the most part, I speak with those who are already believing these things to be facts. I don't normally disagree unless it is something that has been found to be an interpolation or if I have a problem with their interpretation. The NT (4 gospels) are an easy read. They're not complicated at all.
Simply not true. Because I am familliar with them I can and have concluded that a lot of it is fiction. Some of it parallels other pagan stories, maybe not scene to scene, line for line etc. but comparatively there are some similar elements there. Not ALL of it is fiction. Those who suggest they have no similarity may no be aquainted with ancient historical sources. It would be naive of us to suggest no resemblance. On the fip side there is a lot of accurate historical information.
Yes....history....but IMO..the question is how factual. I have spoken with plenty of christians here who believe that the bible is accurate history. We all get into heated debates because I know they aren't. One such debate that comes to mind is the flood. Herod ordering children 2yrs and younger to be slaughtered is another. I simply think that the notion of a historical Jesus is a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't seem to have progress from that point.
All historians of this period.
However, that argument is fallacious. The NT represents the various strands of tradition which may be compared with one another, like Josephus may be compared to Philo. The bible is not a single work (as I know you are aware). It represents numerous texts by numerous authors. At times, these texts (especially when they are independent of each other) may be compared with one another.
The gospels were written close to the time they describe (as far as ancient history goes). There is good reason to believe that the authors were in a position to know a great deal about Jesus. There is independent evidence outside of the NT which testifies to a fair degree of control of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. In short, there is good reason to believe that the sayings and teachings of Jesus were reliably recorded (to debatable degree) in the gospels.
The same might be said for Socrates. Do you believe he is historical?
Again, we have no way of proving ANYTHING in history (this is why there are people who actually deny the holocaust). As a matter of fact, you can't prove anything beyond ANY doubt (can you prove this isn't all a dream you are having?). This is nowhere more true than in ancient history. However, there is more evidence for Jesus than all but a handful of ancient persons.
Not on the surface, no. But I think it is important to keep a few things in mind (some of which I am sure you know already). The gospels you are reading are translations, which means you are not directly accessing the texts. As far as a general understanding of the texts is concerned, this isn't important. However, for indepth analysis it is. Also, the evidence of orality in the gospels is stamped into the text. It was the type of indepth analysis I just referred to that first revealed much of the gospels are various logia strung together with an overall narrative superimposed upon these older traditions. Just reading the gospels in the way you describe isn't sufficient for understanding them on this level.
Furthermore, my comment about you lack of possible lack of familiarity with ancient soruces was not about the gospels at all (and if I am wrong, and you have read a good deal of ancient history, I apologize, but I would appreciate if you could tell me what). The point I was making was that people who doubt the gospels and then point to various historians who don't mention him often misunderstand not only the amount of evidence available from ancient times but also the nature of the evidence. If you were to look at many ancient biographies (such as those by Diogenes Laertius, or the "life of Apollonysus of Tyana") you would find that although they are "biographies" of sorts, and "history," they are far less historical than the gospels. They are often removed by over a century from the events they described. With the gospels, the authors are much closer to the events and teachings of Jesus. Close enough that it is possible to say a fair amount about Jesus above and beyond "he was historical."
I would suggest that there is very, very little in common between the gospels and pagan myth. Even the "dying and resurrecting" god part is very different. Often enough, the so-called "dying and resurrecting" pagan gods aren't really resurrected per se (such as Osiris, who was really just put back together). Morever, these "rebirths" are much more cyclical. Basically, there is a wide, wide, gulf between the pagan myths and the gospels.
You say it doesn't progress from that point, but how deeply have you looked into this? In other words, how much reputable scholarship from various views on the historical Jesus have you read (which do progress from that point)? As you obviously depart from their views as soon as they progress past this point, can you share the specific errors you see in the methodologies they adopt with which they do progress?
Last edited:
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
I was going to give you frubals for this...
But then I read this.
Admittedly you did qualify it with "to a debatable degree", but I don't think one can claim that the sayings and teachings of Jesus were reliably recorded even with qualification. In particular, there was a great deal of conflict going on in the church between two main groups; the Petric sect (Jesus is for Jews!) and the Paulean sect (Jesus is for everyone!). Much of what Jesus "said" is actually these warring groups parroting their ideas and attributing it to Jesus.
For example, at some points Jesus says he is there to uphold the law (Petric sect) while at others he says that one can heal on the sabbath or that prostitutes shouldn't be stoned (Paulean sect).
As such, these conflicts meant that there was a great deal of bias coming from both sides. It's like instead of having the history of Bill Clinton and George W Bush written by historians and political scientists, we got a bunch of Republican and Democrat public relations people together and had them take turns writing pages. The result would be a lot of bias and very little accurate information beyond "Bill Clinton and George W Bush existed".
Another overarching inaccuracy is Jesus' numerous conflicts with the Pharisees. In the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were few and non-influential, and it is very unlikely that Jesus interacted with them significantly. In contrast, by the time the first three (synoptic) gospels were written, the Pharisees were a strong force in Judean politics.
As for the gospel of John, it was written so far after that it's at best a tertiary source on Jesus.
I strongly disagree. Many of the sources we have are much more accurate and historical than the gospels. Some were written AS the events described were happening, in contrast with the gospels.
Death and rebirth is extremely common in mythology, as is virgin birth, prophesy before an important person is born, and the way Jesus told his parables (look up chiastic structure and chreia). Sure, the details differ slightly, but much attributed to Jesus has clear parallels in other mythology.
You may not have read a great many of my posts throughout this thread (understandable, because it is so long) but nonetheless you have relied solely on this qoute and none of the frequent references to scholarship as well as my more thorough reasoning given elswhere. So I will start by asking what your sources are for your views on the Jesus postition, particularly on the reliabilty of the oral transmission behind the gospels (it will help me better understand where you are coming from)?
This very statement is evidence that the gospels were more reliably transmitted than older scholarship (and some of the more modern scholarship, all of which nonetheless acknowledge the historical Jesus and all of which uses the saying in the gospel to reconstruct him) acknowledged. If it is true that the gospels were using Jesus to resolve conflicts between the early christian communities, why does Jesus nowhere discuss circumcision? It is perhaps the central issue behind the earliest schism in the church, yet nowhere in any gospel are sayings on this topic inserted into the mouth of Jesus.
Yet these two parts are in the same gospels. If they were written to defend particular christian communities, they would have been far more consistent. It is more likely that Jesus did argue upholding the law, but that he reinterpreted what this law meant. And you should also take note that there was during Jesus' life vast disagreement on just what constituted God's law. Much of the disagreements Jesus' is depicted as having involve those with Pharisees, who had a much stricter view of the law than probably most Jews (as they relied in addition on the oral torah) and certainly the Sadducees, who rejected entirely later Hebrew scriptures and the oral Torah.
You aren't exactly correct here. It is unknown how numerous or influential the Pharisees were in Jesus' time. Certainly the conflict between the Jesus sect and the Pharisees goes back to the beginning (Paul, a contemporary with Jesus, was a pharisee who persecuted the earliest followers of the sect).
The time it was written is less important than the degrees it is removed from the events. For example, if it was written 70 years after Jesus' death, but by a follower of one of Jesus' disciples who was transmitted the Jesus tradition, than that wide gap of time doesn't mean much (it would be like me writing down my grandfather's memories of WWII). However, if it is the result of testimony that is not 3rd hand but many, many times removed, there is far more reason for skepticism. I think that both internal and external analysis of the gospel, along with an understanding of the likely model of oral transmission, make the former closer to the truth. However, I would also argue that John's gospel is clearly the most "theological" and "innovative" in content, and that he is therefore far less reliable.
I don't think you read my statement carefully enough. I didn't say the gospels were the MOST reliable of ancient history. I said they were more reliable than many "lives" (the genre of the gospels) which are removed from the person described by over a century, and I proceeded to give examples.
Absolutely. That was my point. The gospels DO NOT describe "death and rebirth" but a resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven as the fulfillment of the promise of the scriptural messiah (who had to be radically reinterpreted in light of Jesus' death). Resurrection of this type is to be clearly differentiated from that of pagan myth, and rather makes use of distinctly Jewish (represented both in later canonical texts and extra-canonical) hopes.
Of course. Because Jesus taught in an oral mode in order for his teachings to be remembered, which was fairly common. Please don't tell me to look up anything without reading earlier posts. I am well acquainted not only with Jesus research but particularly the model of oral transmission behind the gospels, as this will be my dissertation topic.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes... I'm currently looking into the biblical quotes of Jesus. I saw a presentation some time ago on the sayings compared to other "mythological historical" figures and they are very similar. It could be that they were borrowed from these other cultures and affixed to the biblical Jesus. (Richard Carrier PhD., one who does not except the historicity of Jesus,) did a biblical comparison of The Gospel of Mark and various Old Testament verses and was able to show that similarly and word for word quotes were taken and attributed to Jesus. I can kind of except that it may have just come from oral/written tradition but if it was taken from the OT from a totally different situation regarding other people but affixed to the biblical Jesus then it may not be as historically accurate as one may assume.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
This is true, and it becomes more evident within situations of power. [FONT=times new roman,times]In the Synoptics the Pharisees play no role in the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus. John is in error when he depicts the Pharisees as playing a powerful role as there is no evidence that in 30 CE they had any such power. They are stand-ins for the Jewish rabbinical leaders of Johns day (circa 100 CE).[/FONT] Trial and Crucifixion
This is not strictly true. Richard Carrier (who, although not an expert in biblical or nt studies per se, is nonetheless a fully qualified expert in ancient history, his specialty being science in ancient greece and rome) has not exactly argued against a historical Jesus. In fact, most of his "work" on religion in general and christianity specifically is more oriented to "disproving" religioun. To date, most of what he has written on the NT concerns the lack of evidence for resurrection and its general unreliability, not that Jesus was not a historical figure. To quote him directly (in his critique of Doherty's book):
"When we compare the standard historicist theory (SHT) with Doherty's ahistoricist or "mythicist" theory (DMT) by the criteria of the Argument to the Best Explanation, I must admit that, at present, Doherty wins on at least four out of the six criteria (scope, power, plausibility, and ad hocness ; I think DMT is equal to SHT on the fifth criterion of disconfirmation ; neither SHT nor DMT wins on the sixth and decisive criterion). In other words, Doherty's theory is simply superior in almost every way in dealing with all the facts as we have them. However, it is not overwhelmingly superior, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty. For all his efforts, Jesus might have existed after all. But until a better historicist theory is advanced, I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn't exist than that he did. I say this even despite myself, as I have long been an opponent of ahistoricity.
However, I think the fault is more with historicists who have stubbornly failed to develop a good theory of historicity. By simply resting on the feeble laurels of prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!"), the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it."
Unfortunately Carrier, like many others who argue similar positions, ignores a great deal of relevent scholarship in his critiques (this only natural, as his central concern in addressing this topic at all is his anti-christian attitude). He has also not applied the same level of criticism when it comes to other ancient personalities, which is a further weakness in his position. However, he is at least a step above most of the other "jesus myth" authors, and he does allow for the existence of historical Jesus, even arguing against ahistoricity. I am looking forward to his book "On the historicity of Jesus Christ." I am hoping that in this work he will actually address not only the more recent work on the oral tradition behind the gospels, but also a mass of scholarship he has failed to interact with yet.
And yet he has also endorsed the even more improbable position of MacDonald that Mark used Homer as a source. This is what happens when one is more concerned with undermining christianity than scholarship (it is the same sort of failing behind the more christian "scholarship" that goes well beyond the evidence in order to defend their faith).
Last edited: