Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[sojourner]

Please cite the evidence they give, I'm tired of the "all scholars believe jesus lived" stuff.

Also please tell me

1. When the supposed Jesus was born.
2. When he died.
3. Why he never wrote anything.
4. Why there is really no practical historical evidence of him at all.

Julius Caesar, for example, has mountains of historical documents, his own writiings, coinage with his likeness, etc. backing up his existence. Not so for this supposed Jesus, who seems to be a figment of a few men's imagination.

1. When was Ransom Ball born? (And he's documented!) (But you can't use the internet, or any encyclopedia.)
2. When did Ransom Ball die? (Same applies as above)
3. Jesus was part of an oral culture. Had Jesus lived today, he'd have written stuff.
4. Why is there practically no historical evidence for you?

Julius Caesar is a really poor example. Dwight Eisenhower had mountains of historical documents, his own writings, currency with his likeness, etc. backing up his existence. OH YEAH! He was leader of a major world power! Never mind. Where are your mountains of documentation? Where are your coins? Maybe you're just a figment of our imaginations...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What part of that excessive and excessively pedantic reply do you believe substantiates your claim that "currently, especially with ongoing research into accuracy within transmission of the oral traditions, scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) are for most part accepting a good deal of the gospels as historical"? For example, what "good deal" of Matthew is "for the most part" accepted as historical by this consortium of "atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc"?

I was attempting to explain the changes Jesus research has undergone since the more critical and earlier stages of historical Jesus research.

Thanks again for sharing, but I would far prefer it if you were responsive. So, again:

• what "good deal of the gospels" do claim deemed historical by "scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc)"?
• what "good deal" of Matthew is "for the most part" accepted as historical by this consortium of "atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's the point? Let's try that for a second.

There is a wide consensus that Jesus' saying "The last will be first and the first last" (Matt 19:30, Lk 13:30, Thom 4:2-3, Mk 10:31) is historical (i.e. it dates back to Jesus). Now I am going to assume that neither my saying "it is historical" nor my saying that a wide scholarly consensus agree, nor even citing numrous articles or books, will convince you.

It would certainly help. Show me a consensus of critical scholars claiming that a not atypical formulation (see, for example, Hanna's psalm) found in in texts dating to two or more decades after the purported crucifixion should be deemed authentic pronouncements of Jesus.

(Note, by the way, that "dating back to Jesus" and "most likely spoken by Jesus" are not at all the same thing.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Food for thought[/FONT]

More like thoughtlessly warmed over pablum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What follows may well be an exercise in futility. Even lengthy post, it is impossible to address all the questions concerning the historicity of the gospels to those unfamiliar with scholarship in the area. I am being asked to provide in a post (or a few posts) in a forum what most scholars do in large books, or even multivolume books. Nevertheless, I will give it the ol’ college try.

The most basic question behind whether or not the gospels, or anything in them, can be regarded as historical is one of genre. If the gospels are merely myths, than we can safely regard virtually everything in them as unhistorical. The same holds true if they are plays, or ancient novels, etc. However, if the gospels were written with the intent to record factual information (in other words, an attempt at ancient history or biography) then a more serious consideration of their content is required.

Those (like Freke and Gandy) who argue that the gospels are completely unhistorical (which is to be distinguished from containing unhistorical information along with historical data) call them myths. They place them in this particular genre, and say that it is therefore safe to regard their contents as nothing more than similar religious myths of Hercules or Zeus. For this reason, it appears the best way to start an investigation into the genre of the gospels would be to start with what ancient myths looked like. If the gospels do resemble these myths, then it would be safe to assume that they are unhistorical.

I’ll start with what are probably the greatest epic myths ever recorded: the Iliad and the Odyssey. Together, these two works form the closest thing the Greeks ever had to a bible. Both of these works were attributed to Homer, but by the fifth century the some Greeks doubted whether he ever lived. Modern scholars are divided on the issue, but there is probably a consensus that both of the works were composed by a single author. What is far less likely and more contested is whether they were composed by a single author. In any case, these two works were not composed from a single myth, but rather are an amalgamation of oral traditions weaved together, occasionally haphazardly. Within them are references to many separate myths, some of which we have more complete versions of, some of which we do not.

The important thing to note for us is how these events are described. Let’s take the Iliad. Although it was composed likely sometime around the seventh or eighth century, the events within it belong to a time long past. The Trojan War it describes took place during a period when “men were men” (or even demigods). It was a golden age, when the greatest heroes lived. In other words, even though both poems represent the earliest classical literature we possess, the events within them are still supposed to have taken place hundreds of years earlier.

Interestingly enough, however, there is still a nugget of historical information, even within this clearly mythic story handed down over hundreds of years, with little attention paid to accuracy in transmission (in fact, innovation and variety were important aspects of oral mythic tradition for the Greeks). Scholars at one time doubted whether or not Troy ever existed, and then we found it. So despite the fact that the genre here is clearly myth, the possibility for historicity remains.

But so what? For the most part both the Iliad and the Odyssey can be regarded as mythic and therefore unhistorical. But why? It is important to note that this is not because they contain fantastical information. In order to further demonstrate the difference between myth and history has genres, let’s examine another myth before moving on the genre of ancient history: Euripides’ Medea.

The Medea was a play. Plays in ancient Greece developed from more simple processions and public celebrations, in which epic or mythic lyrics were recited. Eventually, simple recitations developed into differentiation of parts, and from there plays. Plays like the Medea continued to contain choruses and lyrics, and were written in meter. All plays worked with myth. There are references in the Medea to events that are also referenced in the Homer’s epics. What most distinguishes mythic cycles from the historical genre is NOT the presence of fantastical events, but a lack of concern over “getting the story right.”

Back to the Medea of Euripides. When the audience members first saw the play, they had a vague idea what was going to happen, because they already would have been familiar with the mythic cycle of the Medea. Playwrights had a store of traditions from which to draw from, and were allowed to freely innovate from these traditions. To make this more concrete, every member of the audience would have known that there was little chance that Medea’s children would come out alive. Just how they would die was a question. In the most common version, it was the Corinthian’s who killed the children for revenge. In Euripides’ play (which some scholars argue was his innovation) it was Medea herself who murdered her children in order to get back at Jason. The important thing is that within mythic tradition variety is an essential element. It was not that certain details might be different, but central aspects of the history could and would change. A successful retelling of myth was not an “accurate” one, as no such thing was possible, but an entertaining one, and one that corresponded to the expectations of whatever genre within mythic genre (tragedy, lyric, comedy, etc) the author was writing in. In addition (and this is very important), the myths always took place in ancient times. Historical cities or events might be contained within them, but they are always set in a time so long ago that any details would have long been forgotten particularly since the mode of transmission not only allowed for but required innovation.

That’s myth. So what about ancient history? It is important to understand, as I have tried to point out, that ancient history did not conform to modern historical standards. It may seem ridiculous to people today to put the gospels in any historical genre, given their content, but (as I have said) this is generally because people are holding the gospels to standards of history foreign in ancient times.

The Gospels are either myth or history. They're arguably not entirely myth, therefore ... "scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) are for most part [justified in] accepting a good deal of the gospels as historical"

Nice try. Now please answer my questions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe Socrates is historical? By the standard of evidence you seem to require, we can't consider him anymore than a mythical "philosopher-type" invoked as a mythic character to further particular points.

If Socrates wasn't historical, what would it matter? For example, would the strength of the writings attributed to him diminish if we found out that it was some other person, or maybe several people, who wrote them?

I think this is a key distinction between Jesus and other historical figures. For example, if Euclid didn't really exist as Euclid, for most purposes, so what? I may be overly generalizing here, but I think the interest in most ancient figures flows from their works; we deem Elements to have merit in its own right, so we want to find out more about the person who created it. In the case of the Gospels, though, to a large degree the situation is reversed: much of the merit of the work is dependent on the merit of the subject. Even if Euclid was a fictional character, Elements still describes a monumental work of mathematics. OTOH, if Jesus was a fictional character, then the merit of the New Testament is diminished.

The most basic question behind whether or not the gospels, or anything in them, can be regarded as historical is one of genre. If the gospels are merely myths, than we can safely regard virtually everything in them as unhistorical. The same holds true if they are plays, or ancient novels, etc. However, if the gospels were written with the intent to record factual information (in other words, an attempt at ancient history or biography) then a more serious consideration of their content is required.

Why this distinction? And does it even work?

I mean, there's quite a bit of information in the Gospels that is obviously meant to record fact: place names, date references to kings of Judea and Caesars, details of life and social organization in Judea and Jerusalem, etc., etc. At the same time, there's quite a bit of information that's (IMO) obviously mythical; it seems clear to me that the author's intent isn't just to record happenings in Judea 2,000 years ago, it's to launch a religion.

I think the most reasonable position is that the Gospels (and arguably the Bible as a whole, but that's a whole other matter) are a mixture of both history and myth. The question is where the line between the two sits.

Also, I think we need to factor into all this the problem of accuracy: consider certain details in the Gospels that appear to be historical. Did Herod's slaughter of the infants actually happen? If it did, it seems exceedingly odd to me that Josephus wouldn't have commented on it among the many details he wrote on Herod.

Did Nazareth actually exist in Biblical times? From what I've read, it was a cemetery during the lifetime of Jesus and would have been considered an "unclean" place to Jews.

When was the Roman census, and was it actually required for all the citizens to return to their family hometowns to be counted?

I'm not sure if this is the case among Biblical scholars, but I think that the term "historical" implies "reliable", or at least "potentially reliable". When you use the term "historical" to describe Jesus and events of the Bible, what exactly are we supposed to be able to conclude from that?

Interestingly enough, however, there is still a nugget of historical information, even within this clearly mythic story handed down over hundreds of years, with little attention paid to accuracy in transmission (in fact, innovation and variety were important aspects of oral mythic tradition for the Greeks). Scholars at one time doubted whether or not Troy ever existed, and then we found it. So despite the fact that the genre here is clearly myth, the possibility for historicity remains.

However, the fact that there was a city of Troy doesn't necessarily mean that the Trojan War occurred, or that any of the central characters of the Iliad actually fought in it if it did. It certainly doesn't mean that the war was sparked by divine interference in human affairs at a dinner party.

Take another story: The Day of the Triffids. Its details of English geography and world politics circa 1950 are likely very accurate. Is The Day of the Triffids "historical"?

You mentioned the possibility of fantastic events occurring in otherwise-historical works. However, how exactly are we supposed to decide what's historical and what's not in a work like that without some outside frame of reference with which to judge what's reasonable and what's not?

So where do the gospels fit into all of this? What I have been trying to establish is that just because an ancient work includes theology or miraculous stories does not mean it should be excluded from the genre of ancient history. Ancient histories contained these things. Nor should the fact that there are inaccuracies (such as the census in Luke’s birth narrative) exclude it, as ancient historians often relied on rumor and often made mistakes.

That isn't just mentioned in passing, though: the census is presented as the reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I personally think that it points toward a later attempt to make the Jesus story fit Jewish Messianic prophecy.

Another common criterion is that of embarrassment. Many things in the gospels actually do not make Jesus look that good, and yet are recorded. For example, Jesus’ baptism by John make John look superior to Jesus, or John’s disciples asking if Jesus was the one foretold, when John was supposed to know that Jesus was the messiah. The gospel authors may try to explain these events, but they are nonetheless recorded, indicating once again the authors are writing a form of ancient history. Scholars look at those aspects of the gospels which are embarrassing to Christians, and tend to judge them as having a greater chance of actually having happened, because the gospel authors wouldn’t make up stories to make Jesus look bad, nor would others add to the Jesus tradition narratives or sayings or stories which were embarrassing.

I really don't see how you can call the baptism story "embarrassing" for Jesus. If Jesus being baptized by John makes John look "superior" to Jesus, doesn't this fit in with a theme that runs throughout the Gospels of Jesus lowering himself? "Blessed are the meek", the washing of feet and all that?

Also, I don't think you can look at it so much as a matter of embarrasment as disbenefit: it might be true that people won't lie unless they think they can get something out of it, but sometimes that's served by looking slightly foolish if it means getting what you want.

From what I gather, there was a group paralleling the early Christians who considered John the Baptist to be the Messiah. I can see the passages about John, including the baptism story, as a way to try to bring them in... almost like a celebrity endorsement: "See! Even the person you think is the Messiah realized that our Messiah is the real Messiah! Come and join us!"

This effect could potentially be of great benefit to the Gospel authors, regardless of any "embarrasment" that it implies (though I don't think it actually implies that anyhow).

A third fairly common criterion of historicity is the recording of an event of saying multiple independent sources. Matthew and Luke appear have both used Mark, and to have drawn from a source we call Q, in addition to having access to other parts of the Jesus tradition. Many scholars argue that the extra-canonical gospel of Thomas is also independent from the Synoptics. So when a saying is found in Thomas, Q, and Mark, it is more likely to be historical, as it is confirmed by multiple sources.

But if Thomas, Q and Mark are all products of the community of early Christians, are they really multiple independent sources?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not exactly. For one thing, I am not a Christian apologist.

Not what I meant exactly but the way you approach "proving" a historical Jesus almost mirrors a christian apologist.

I do not believe the Jesus of the Gospels (i.e. Son of god and all that) is historical. I am agnostic. I acknowledge the possibility of these things, in that they remain outside the realm of proof. As a historian, however, I can't say that we can historically say Jesus actually performed miracles or was the son of god.

That's cool. I have no problem with your view here. I'm an atheist so I don't believe it either.

Finally, this guy seems to assert that all the scholars who defend the historical Jesus are christian. They aren't. I gave you a list of people who don't believe Jesus was the son of God, and some of them don't believe in god at all.

Well, he himself is an agnostic. He was actually addressing one of the scholars you mentioned. In another video he quotes that scholar from work the scholar did in another area. See, it doesn't matter, at least not so much to me, if the scholar is atheist, a theist, deist...whatever... If he or she is approaching the "supposed historical Jesus" by starting with NT and Paul then they loose me. Proving a biblical story by using the bible is futile.

I will attempt to post a substantial introductory to the historical Jesus, and why scholars of all types believe he existed.

Good luck. I think you will be the first to be able to show external proof of his existence.

In the meantime, I will freely admit that all scholars rely almost entirely on the NT for information about Jesus. However, I submit that they understand the history and cultures behind the text better than you do.

I already said...pages ago how scholars regurgitate scripture as a bases for their proof. As far as them understanding the history better than me....I highly doubt it. First off I don't use the bible to try and prove the bible. They have the burden of proof since it's them who make the claim the biblical Yeshua was a historical person. Don't let titles and degrees persuade you into believing a person always knows what they're talking about.

Do you believe Socrates is historical? By the standard of evidence you seem to require, we can't consider him anymore than a mythical "philosopher-type" invoked as a mythic character to further particular points.

Socrates is not in question. If he were then we'd deal with it. For the sake of this discussion we're addressing the biblical Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

If Socrates wasn't historical, what would it matter? For example, would the strength of the writings attributed to him diminish if we found out that it was some other person, or maybe several people, who wrote them?

I think this is a key distinction between Jesus and other historical figures. For example, if Euclid didn't really exist as Euclid, for most purposes, so what? I may be overly generalizing here, but I think the interest in most ancient figures flows from their works; we deem Elements to have merit in its own right, so we want to find out more about the person who created it. In the case of the Gospels, though, to a large degree the situation is reversed: much of the merit of the work is dependent on the merit of the subject. Even if Euclid was a fictional character, Elements still describes a monumental work of mathematics. OTOH, if Jesus was a fictional character, then the merit of the New Testament is diminished

I think you're right. However, I also think that the only reason people (again, not experts) care enough to write books trying to disprove the existence of Jesus, not to mention the reason behind the extreme skepitism of some scholars, is due to the fact that Christainity is still a religion. If it wasn't, I think no one would argue Jesus isn't historical, because we have much more information about him than we do about most ancient persons.

Take, for example, Apollonius of Tyana. No one that I know of has ever put forth any work attempting to prove he didn't exist. All scholars (that I know of) accept him as a historical person. However, apart from a passing reference from Lucian, the only earliest substantial information we have on Apollonius is from Philostratus, writing over a hundred years later. A critical look at his history has revealed severe problems. And Philostratus also fills his work with fables, myths, miracles and other such supernatural events. This is far less than the gospels, and yet we have no one out there saying crying "he is fiction! he is fiction!" Why? Because, as you point out, no one cares enough, except historians. And even historians are motivated by biases, christian and non-christian alike.

Why this distinction? And does it even work?

I mean, there's quite a bit of information in the Gospels that is obviously meant to record fact: place names, date references to kings of Judea and Caesars, details of life and social organization in Judea and Jerusalem, etc., etc. At the same time, there's quite a bit of information that's (IMO) obviously mythical; it seems clear to me that the author's intent isn't just to record happenings in Judea 2,000 years ago, it's to launch a religion.

I think the most reasonable position is that the Gospels (and arguably the Bible as a whole, but that's a whole other matter) are a mixture of both history and myth. The question is where the line between the two sits.

I would agree with all of this, accept for the bit about the author's intent. To begin with, Paul still thought of himself as a Jew, and Christianity began as a Jewish sect. The intent was to record a tradition. The authors of the gospels all worked like ancient historians. They sorted through their sources, and attempted to record what was "historical." They even included information that was embarassing to their point. The gospels fit quite well into ancient biographies. However, like ancient biographies, that also means they record quite a bit that is clearly legendary/mythic. They did not have the same standards of proof, and so (as you put it) the question is where the line sits. Scholars have difference ways of answering that depending on the methodology employed, and particularly on how controlled they believe the oral tradition to be. For the purposes of this debate (in terms of the original post) all that is irrelevent. What is important is that even the most critical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical person.

Did Nazareth actually exist in Biblical times? From what I've read, it was a cemetery during the lifetime of Jesus and would have been considered an "unclean" place to Jews

No, Nazareth was a habitable village during Jesus' life. However, it was also nowheresville. Hence the line (faithfully recorded despite its embarassing nature) "can anything good come from Nazareth?" This is also probably why the tradition that Jesus was born in bethlehem arose, because the messiah was not supposed to be from Nazareth.

When was the Roman census, and was it actually required for all the citizens to return to their family hometowns to be counted?

No. Plus the date for the census is off. I believe Jesus was born in Nazareth. I think most scholars would agree.

I'm not sure if this is the case among Biblical scholars, but I think that the term "historical" implies "reliable", or at least "potentially reliable". When you use the term "historical" to describe Jesus and events of the Bible, what exactly are we supposed to be able to conclude from that?

That a fair amount of the gosple "probably" happened. In a basic sketch, there was a guy named Jesus (or rather the aramaic equivalent) who lived in the beginning of the first century, was a palestinian Jew, had a group of followers, said a bunch of stuff, had a reputation as a miracle worker and an excorcist (he wasn't the only one), and so on. All the particulars the central aspect of his mission are debated. Christains obviously have their versions. Other popular ones among scholars are that he was a wisdom teacher, an apocalyptic prophet, or even a cynic-type philosopher. Personally I think it is a combination of one and two.

However, the fact that there was a city of Troy doesn't necessarily mean that the Trojan War occurred, or that any of the central characters of the Iliad actually fought in it if it did. It certainly doesn't mean that the war was sparked by divine interference in human affairs at a dinner party.

Take another story: The Day of the Triffids. Its details of English geography and world politics circa 1950 are likely very accurate. Is The Day of the Triffids "historical"?

No. And neither is the Iliad. That was my point. I merely thought it interesting that even myth has a grain of truth. My main point, however, was that the gospels are ancient biographies. As such they are not "history" the way we would define it, but neither are they myth.

That isn't just mentioned in passing, though: the census is presented as the reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I personally think that it points toward a later attempt to make the Jesus story fit Jewish Messianic prophecy.

I would agree.

I really don't see how you can call the baptism story "embarrassing" for Jesus. If Jesus being baptized by John makes John look "superior" to Jesus, doesn't this fit in with a theme that runs throughout the Gospels of Jesus lowering himself? "Blessed are the meek", the washing of feet and all that?

That was an attempt to make it look less embarassing. However, there are other example, like Jesus' treatment in his home town or the fact that his family thought he had lost his mind.

but sometimes that's served by looking slightly foolish if it means getting what you want.

Most of the embarassing details do not serve this purpose however. Even the the example of baptism by John would make John look superior to any Jew who was not already a believer.

But if Thomas, Q and Mark are all products of the community of early Christians, are they really multiple independent sources?

Yes. Eventually, even independent sources of historical fact will go back to the same source. In fact, I believe (and this is not scholarly consensus by any means, just my opinion) that given the most likely model of oral transmission, the fact that Matthew and Luke judged various sayings in Q or Mark as part of the tradition should make them independent sources. It is like two ancient historians, both with similar access to the tradition, confirming that those parts of Mark and Q were accurate.

There is another thing I should mention about the way the oral tradition functioned. Sayings and parables were the most accurately transmitted. And while the gospels authors often put the teachings and events in a particular order, most of that is simply a literary device. Beyond sayings and parables, I think that arguments may be made that certain events (particular healings or exorcisms, for example) are historical. Certainly the tradition could have retained them. But they are far less likely to be transmitted reliably. This is because Jesus, being a jewish teacher, and working in that particular oral mode, made his parables and sayings memorable, and likely repeated them over and over. Particular events, on the other hand, by their very nature only happen once, and there is much more room for innovation or corruption.

 

[Oberon]

It would certainly help. Show me a consensus of critical scholars claiming that a not atypical formulation (see, for example, Hanna's psalm) found in in texts dating to two or more decades after the purported crucifixion should be deemed authentic pronouncements of Jesus.

Ok, just for starters, check out the Jesus Seminar. Not only are they critical, but they are a consortium of scholars who tend to view all of the Christian parts of the gospels (resurrection of the dead and all that) as later additions to the tradition. However, they view it as a something Jesus said.

Thanks again for sharing, but I would far prefer it if you were responsive. So, again:

• what "good deal of the gospels" do claim deemed historical by "scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc)"?
• what "good deal" of Matthew is "for the most part" accepted as historical by this consortium of "atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc"?

That changes from scholar to scholar. What I am reporting is a change in trend from Bultmann onward. This change is often called the "third quest." Short of generalizing this trend, the only way to answer your question would be to go through matthew saying by saying and give the opinion of every scholar, and that's without checking their religious background first. I can give you examples of parts of the gospels, even large parts, deemed historical by a few non-christian scholars, but beyond that would be more work than I can do, even if I had access to the religious backgrounds of the scholars. What you are asking for is pretty much a research paper in and of itself (i.e. sorting through vast numbers of scholarly articles and books and reporting the results).

The Gospels are either myth or history. They're arguably not entirely myth, therefore ... "scholars (including atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc) are for most part [justified in] accepting a good deal of the gospels as historical"

Nice try. Now please answer my questions.

It's not they they are either myth or history. It is that they aren't myth, and are history. Not history as it would be written today, but as it was written then. (Check out "What Are The Gospels?: A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography")

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not what I meant exactly but the way you approach "proving" a historical Jesus almost mirrors a christian apologist.

The problem seems to be a reluctance or inability to distinguish between

• the claim that the historicity of Jesus is a reasonable inference, and
• the claim that the Gospels are substantially historical.

He simply over-reaches, and over-reaches badly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok, just for starters, check out the Jesus Seminar.

I have been following the Jesus Seminar for years. Now please answer my question.

 

[Oberon]

I have been following the Jesus Seminar for years. Now please answer my question.

They deem it to be a historical saying of Jesus. Isn't that your question?

As for the other question, I already said it was impossible. However, I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "large parts." I would say that there is a scholarly consensus that dozens of sayings of and parables Jesus are historical (i.e. he said them, or the same basic thing), and probably on a few of the healings/exorcisms. That is what I call "large parts."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They deem it to be a historical saying of Jesus. Isn't that your question?

If you don't know the question by now, let's drop it until you're able or willing to be more attentive.

 

[dogsgod]

The following is why Oberon is not taken seriously.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes the gospels are of real and actual events) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

We're still waiting for reason and sources of evidence to back up Oberons appeals to authority. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The following is why Oberon is not taken seriously.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of ...

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

- source

There is zero justification for not taking Oberon seriously ...

 

[dogsgod]

There is zero justification for not taking Oberon seriously ...

You've taken one line from the statement I provided and removed it out of its context. Of course we must rely on authorities in any given area. They still have to provide their reasoning and evaluation of the evidence. I don't take Oberon seriously because he merely points to authority because they are considered authorities by his circular line reasoning, in that he points to whatever scholar that supports his point of view. I've asked him repeatedly to provide their line of reasoning but he refuses to do so.

 

[logician]

1. When was Ransom Ball born? (And he's documented!) (But you can't use the internet, or any encyclopedia.)
2. When did Ransom Ball die? (Same applies as above)
3. Jesus was part of an oral culture. Had Jesus lived today, he'd have written stuff.
4. Why is there practically no historical evidence for you?

Julius Caesar is a really poor example. Dwight Eisenhower had mountains of historical documents, his own writings, currency with his likeness, etc. backing up his existence. OH YEAH! He was leader of a major world power! Never mind. Where are your mountains of documentation? Where are your coins? Maybe you're just a figment of our imaginations...

Actually, my wallet is full of documentation that I exist, there are mountains of paper documents filed away that are evidence of my existence in government, educationl, business, and medical offices, so your argument is a joke.

Again, there is NO hard historical evidence whatsoever that a man remotely resembling the JEsus of the Bible ever existed. We cannot assume he existed because god-myths quite qimiliar to other pre-existenct god-myths were written by unknown authors 2000 years ago about some miracle worker named Jesus well after his supposed life. They have no historical veracity whatsoever.

 

[Oberon]

I don't take Oberon seriously because he merely points to authority because they are considered authorities by his circular line reasoning, in that he points to whatever scholar that supports his point of view. .

Not scholars who support my point of view. Most of the citations I have given are from scholars I disagree with. My point is that all experts in the field agree Jesus was historical. And I also gave a general intro into why I think the gospels fall into the category of ancient biography.

 

[dogsgod]

Not scholars who support my point of view. Most of the citations I have given are from scholars I disagree with. My point is that all experts in the field agree Jesus was historical. And I also gave a general intro into why I think the gospels fall into the category of ancient biography.

All experts in the field agree Jesus was historical? Of course they do, only a non-expert would question that.

 

[dogsgod]

Getting back to the original post:

Or did he actually walk the earth and do the things he claimed he did ?

And if he did, is there something we should be paying attention to?

"The core of the Jesus story is the Son of man, who has been hidden from the beginning of time, who will be revealed when the end of the ages is near, and who will serve as the judge of men and angels when the earth is destroyed and the New Jerusalem of heaven comes as the place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations where death will be abolished and the righteous live with the Son of man for ever and ever. That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus, whose story is not fundamentally different from a dozen or so other stories from the same time and place, other than the specific name of the savior and the method of his death.


Why was the mode of death crucifixion in the early Jesus story? Because this was the mode of death suffered by the people under the occupation of Rome from which they sought deliverance (He is suffering what we are suffering in order to take our suffering away).

Why was the name Jesus used? Possibly because Yeshua son of Nun was the name of the supposed successor of Moses, about whom popular stories were still being written. Possibly this was related to the widely circulating publication of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, though we know about the the life of this Jesus and it has nothing in common with the Jesus story other than him being considered a wise person. Possibly because of the meaning of the name, which means "Yahweh saves". Or, possibly because the name Jesus was one of the most common names and thus "Jesus Christ" was seen as an "Everyman" name, like G.I. Joe or John Doe, i.e. "Joe Messiah". Jesus was, after all, supposed to be taking on the sins of "every man".


Every act and saying of the Jesus character has precedents in the Hebrew scriptures and non-scriptural writings, either directly or indirectly. This fact is indeed at the core of traditional and conservative Christian belief, yet this very obvious fact is somehow ignored by liberal Christians and secular historians.

Daniel 7:
13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.
​

Mark 13:
26 Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
​

To shy away from the obvious roots of the Jesus myth within Jewish mythology is to deny that the ancient Jews had mythology. To deny that mythology is at the core of the Jesus story is to deny the obvious fact that most of the Jesus story existed long before the supposed time of Jesus. To claim that in spite of the preceding mythology the Jesus story may still "be true" or be "based on reality" is to claim that the preceding mythology is not mythology, but in fact literally true and real prophesy."
Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

Viewing these religious texts as mythology does not conflict with our written history which does not include an actual Jesus. No one wrote of him while he supposedly lived, and no physical artifacts. There is nothing outside the religious texts to corroborate the events surrounding an actual Jesus. We have a religious belief built upon religious scripture which makes sense. There is no conflict here, no contradictions to smooth out, no cognitive dissonance. All is well within the realm of mythology. Is Jesus a mythological character? Apparently so.