Thanks for all the insults....maybe you can have tea with the tooth farie after you a Jesus have lunch.....
Where is the evidence for historic jesus?
-
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!
To The Jesus Myth Theorist
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
Thanks for all the insults....maybe you can have tea with the tooth farie after you a Jesus have lunch.....
Where is the evidence for historic jesus?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
For someone who seems to value "scholarship" so highly, you haven't presented even a single shred of actual evidence or scholarship yourself. All you've basically done is say "if you believe this, you are stupid", which isn't really a reasonable argument against anything.
How about this: instead of just railing against something mindlessly, you should actually try presenting a case against their position with facts.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
LOL what a funny thread. The op question is ridiculous. Mentioning scholarship in the same breath as calling to offer proof of a negative?
The fact is, there is no good evidence such a man as Jesus of the bible existed, and some pretty convincing evidence he didn't. Number one, to accept biblical epistles and scriptures as literally true is to accept that magical events happen, and that people can do magic..which is a tall claim indeed. If one is to discount all the unrealistic fantasy attached to the myth, the question of where to draw the line becomes paramount..how can you know, realizing it can't ALL be true, what elements of it MIGHT be true? We might as well start claiming a historical thor that didn't really have a magic hammer, but still fought frost giants(big swedish oafs?).
Also, the parallels between 'gospel jesus' and a plethora of other god man myths itself builds a case for a mythical jesus, unless you want to start wearing blinders and use the word 'co-incidence' a lot.
And on the other side, what do we have to verify 'him'? A few mentions of a messianic cult (nobody is claiming paul didn't exist) a generation later, some of which are highly dubious (such as sections of antiquities), and a few passing references to the central element of this cult, the christ. Hell, even paul spoke of jesus in spiritual terms rather than physical, to those that read the bible with a careful eye. And let us not forget the the gospels were written well after paul wrote his epistles and started his cult, not vice versa.
So is it a 'conspiracy' theory, or an observation inconvenient to those that place all their chips, as it were, on the historicity of such a person to buttress their entire worldview?
The fact is, there is no good evidence such a man as Jesus of the bible existed, and some pretty convincing evidence he didn't. Number one, to accept biblical epistles and scriptures as literally true is to accept that magical events happen, and that people can do magic..which is a tall claim indeed. If one is to discount all the unrealistic fantasy attached to the myth, the question of where to draw the line becomes paramount..how can you know, realizing it can't ALL be true, what elements of it MIGHT be true? We might as well start claiming a historical thor that didn't really have a magic hammer, but still fought frost giants(big swedish oafs?).
Also, the parallels between 'gospel jesus' and a plethora of other god man myths itself builds a case for a mythical jesus, unless you want to start wearing blinders and use the word 'co-incidence' a lot.
And on the other side, what do we have to verify 'him'? A few mentions of a messianic cult (nobody is claiming paul didn't exist) a generation later, some of which are highly dubious (such as sections of antiquities), and a few passing references to the central element of this cult, the christ. Hell, even paul spoke of jesus in spiritual terms rather than physical, to those that read the bible with a careful eye. And let us not forget the the gospels were written well after paul wrote his epistles and started his cult, not vice versa.
So is it a 'conspiracy' theory, or an observation inconvenient to those that place all their chips, as it were, on the historicity of such a person to buttress their entire worldview?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So Jesus' life and death wasn't documented?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
So you don't understand the difference in documentation and modern documentation?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
The latter is done in the modern age?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
And? Care to comment on the validity of ancient documentation versus modern documentation?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Sure I would love to discuss such concepts as the Criterion of Dissimilarity, Multiple and Independent Attestations, the Criterion of Contextual Credibility and Historical Context but when people have it just seems to go over your heads.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
You can't trust the validity of either. You have to thoroughly analyze and critique all sources of information no matter how recent or old. If you just believe what Fox news tells you without analyzing the source then you're indeed stupid
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
What does this have to do with the validity of ancient documentation vs modern documentation? You have held up the documentation of historical Jesus as proof of his existance because the documentation of the Holocaust proves that it existed. What we are asking is how can you compare those two things? Surely you can't believe the validation of one proves the existance of the other?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Where did i say that? Why are you lying?
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Polemic much?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
that's a comparison. Nowhere do i state that Jesus has to be real because the holocaust happened. You're lying.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Zeigtgeist was definitely stupid to a degree but it's not the mantra all Jesus Mythicist use to state their case.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
By making the comparision you are showing that those who deny the existance of Jesus are the same as those who deny that the holocaust happened. You are stating that the ancient documentation for Jesus is proof that he existed just as the modern documentation is proof that the Holocaust happened. I'm not saying that you meant Jesus is real because the Holocaust was real, I'm saying that you're saying the documentation for each is the same validity when it is not. To make such a comparison is misleading.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Let's look at the pillars of the Jesus myth theory.
1. No contemporary accounts of Jesus exist. The Jesus Mythers believe that no one who witnessed the events or had access to eyewitnesses ever wrote anything about Jesus
They are wrong.
2. No secular sources of Jesus.
Well there are some, very little but we have some. And so what? Jesus wasn't that important during the 1st century
3. Myths about Jesus are paralleled in other myths.
Again so what? These solar god myths were attached to Alexander the Great too. Is that evidence that Alexander is a purely mythical figure?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
What eyewitness or contemporary can you present? The only "contemporary" that seemed to write about him was Saul (Paul) but we know he never met him.
Not that there aren't any...rather what is there appears well after the fact. It doesn't mean these sources don't have value or should be discounted.
No but it does raise questions as to how important he really was. Martyrdom does wonders for ones reputation.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The problem with your argument is that Jesus wasn't unique in the fact that mythical elements were added later on to his life. We see this with Augustus, where there is no doubt he existed, as well as for Alexander the Great. They both have unrealistic fantasy attached to them. We have no problem removing it from those figures, and we have sound historical means to do so.
Paul also had the same sort of mythical ideas attached to him, yet there is no doubt he existed. So I really don't understand the problem with mythical ideas being attributed to Jesus when it was a fairly common thing.
And no, he really doesn't resemble another "god-man." At least not any more than someone like Augustus does. I wrote more on that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html The idea that Jesus resembled other god-men really only happens when people are either very vague, make things up about Jesus (such as him being born on December 25th), or people attributing really late ideas (or made up ones), to ancient gods.
We have the Gospels, Paul, and Josephus. Josephus in fact is good enough. Paul is more than good enough. And there is no reason to dismiss the Gospels, unless we want to dismiss the ancient biographies of Alexander the Great or Augustus. Especially when considering that the biographies we have of Alexander the Great are from long after he was dead. That is not surprising at all, considering the historical context.
Paul did not speak about Jesus in just spiritual terms. Someone with a careful eye would see that. Paul states that Jesus was born according to the flesh, born of a woman, was a descendant of David, was a fellow kinsman (as in Jew), was crucified, was buried, had a brother and disciples that were still living (as in he met them), had other family that was still living, etc. I wrote more on that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107542-paul-jesus.html
And most scholars (nearly all anymore) agree that Josephus wrote about Jesus. There are two passages in Josephus, and the shorter one is nearly universally accepted as authentic. The longer one is agree to be partially authentic. I have an argument here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html
So it may not be a conspiracy theory to deny that Jesus existed, but it is special pleading, and usually based off of bad research (not saying your research is bad, but the information that you get is bad and is not based on sound scholarship).
gnomon
Well-Known Member
How is questioning the historicity of Jesus in general any different from questioning the historicity of Confucius or Lao Tzu. Those are two people who are referenced in historical literature. Most scholars agree that both of these individuals likely existed. However, that does not mean that all the works attributed to these individuals were actually written by those individuals. The body of works that comprise Confucianism and Taoism are referred to as the works of Confucius and Lao Tzu but that is for the sake of simplicity. That some of these works of later origin were attributed to those individuals to give them greater weight.
Same with Homer. Same with Socrates. Even the notion that all the Shakespearean plays were the work of Shakespeare is debated.
Was there a Jewish rabbi/teacher/healer who is attributed with being a leader of these various Messianic sects? Most likely. Who was he actually? That is very questionable. How many of these sects took known teachings and attributed them to Jesus for the sake of credibility? Was there more than one rabbi/teacher/healer in which the canonical Jesus is simply a composite?
Stating that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is a conspiracy theorist is unfair. In modern historical scholarship we didn't get the history of Paul Revere's ride right. A myth grew up around that man thanks to one of his descendants and a poet which was perpetuated in the education system for some time. It's not that a question of whether or not he existed but of what he actually did. It took a few decades for that history to become mythologized in the national conscience. I'm quite certain there was a central figure in the Messianic sects. Who this person actually was, in my opinion, remains unknown. A couple of possible contemporary sources stating that a Jewish leader was either crucified or hanged doesn't validate the story of the Gospels.
However, Zeitgeist was horrible. Also that denial of the existence of any historical figure that the Christian mythology/religion was built around does sound absurd.
Same with Homer. Same with Socrates. Even the notion that all the Shakespearean plays were the work of Shakespeare is debated.
Was there a Jewish rabbi/teacher/healer who is attributed with being a leader of these various Messianic sects? Most likely. Who was he actually? That is very questionable. How many of these sects took known teachings and attributed them to Jesus for the sake of credibility? Was there more than one rabbi/teacher/healer in which the canonical Jesus is simply a composite?
Stating that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is a conspiracy theorist is unfair. In modern historical scholarship we didn't get the history of Paul Revere's ride right. A myth grew up around that man thanks to one of his descendants and a poet which was perpetuated in the education system for some time. It's not that a question of whether or not he existed but of what he actually did. It took a few decades for that history to become mythologized in the national conscience. I'm quite certain there was a central figure in the Messianic sects. Who this person actually was, in my opinion, remains unknown. A couple of possible contemporary sources stating that a Jewish leader was either crucified or hanged doesn't validate the story of the Gospels.
However, Zeitgeist was horrible. Also that denial of the existence of any historical figure that the Christian mythology/religion was built around does sound absurd.
Last edited: