[Winstonm]

To show my ignorance once again, I did not realize there was a debate on whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. As it turns out, the case for reality is vague, and as this book reviewer observes, it is not at all clear that Jesus existed:

Richard Carrier reviewing: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus by Earl Doherty

Quote

Finally, all this is not to say that the historicity of Jesus has been refuted or that it is now incredible. Many arguments for historicity remain. They simply are not as abundant, strong, and coherent as Doherty's thesis, no matter how abundant, strong, and coherent they may be. That Jesus existed remains possible, and if Doherty could take early Christians to court for the crime of fabricating a historical Jesus, they would go free on reasonable doubt. Still, the tables have turned. I now have a more than trivial doubt that Jesus existed, to my surprise. But this stands only by a margin, allowing that I could easily be wrong. This is the impact I believe Doherty's book will have on any careful, objective reader. As an historian, I do not believe truly decisive evidence exists either way. It could. We might turn up proof that Jesus did or didn't exist, if we had better documentation of the 1st century, especially of early Christian communities and beliefs, but we don't, a fate that leaves many an historian in an inescapable position of relative ignorance. As it is, we must entertain the plausible possibility that Jesus didn't exist.

It seems there is really no strong historical evidence of anyone named Jesus having lived during that time period, and there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that Jesus was a mythological creation in keeping with the common pagan gods' creations - similar god/man resurrection themes had previously occured in the myths of the pagan gods Zalmoxis and Inanna.

The review of the book is here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...esuspuzzle.html

[NickRW]

Not being any sort of Christian myself, I've got to give this a "wtp!"

Being the father of a lad who went and got himself baptised only a few days ago, I gotta say, leave the Christians alone. So, just maybe Christ didn't exist. So what. They think he did. It is fine by me.

Nick

[Winstonm]

NickRW, on Jul 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Not being any sort of Christian myself, I've got to give this a "wtp!"

Being the father of a lad who went and got himself baptised only a few days ago, I gotta say, leave the Christians alone. So, just maybe Christ didn't exist. So what. They think he did. It is fine by me.

Nick

I am not of the mindset to pick on anyone at all - but as this topic was new to me and caught my fancy, I thought it might make an enlightening discussion.

[luke warm]

in your opinion winston, by what name were the ones persecuted by nero et al called and why were they so named? the bible says they were first called 'christians' in the city of antioch... i think there's evidence that a movement started, i think there's evidence that those involved in this movement were known by a certain name...

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

[Winstonm]

Quote

in your opinion winston, by what name were the ones persecuted by nero et al called and why were they so named? the bible says they were first called 'christians' in the city of antioch... i think there's evidence that a movement started, i think there's evidence that those involved in this movement were known by a certain name...

Jimmy, I don't know the degree to which you have made a study of this issue (it is all very new to me, BTW), but it seems there was a tremendous amount of conflict even around the inception of Christianity, with different branches having very different ideas - and in the midst of all this was the worship of Mithra, which had some similarities in their myths to those beliefs found in Christianity.

Any biblical reference must be ruled out a an historical documentation, as all have been shown to be observations written much later than the death of the alleged Jesus and not eyewitness accounts at all.

A huge part occured around 400 A.D., when Constantine picked out a particular branch of Christianity and made it the official Roman religion.

Quote

What happens is that Constantine has a vision. Luckily for the Church, there's a bishop nearby to interpret what the vision means. Constantine ends not converting, technically, to Christianity, but becoming a patron of one particular branch of the church. It happens to be the branch of the church that has the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as part of its canon. Which means that since this branch of Christianity includes the story about historical Israel as part of its own redemptive history, it has an entire language for articulating the relationship of government and piety. It has the model of King David. It has the model of the kings of Israel. And it's with this governmental model that the bishop explains the vision to Constantine.

Others say this choice was simply a way to incorporate Mithra myths into Christian myths and so end the religious controversy.

Quote

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

Ancient history is clearly unable for the most part to show definite proofs - which is why I posted this particular historian's book review - he seemed even-handed and fair in his evaluation of the arguments.

And his observation is that now there is a slightly stronger argument for a mythical Jesus rather than an historic Jesus, although that could change if stronger historical arguments could be formulated.

[Elianna]

luke warm, on Jul 4 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

'Christ' means 'Messiah'...

Out of curiosity... In what language?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Not being any sort of Christian myself, I've got to give this a "wtp!"

Being the father of a lad who went and got himself baptised only a few days ago, I gotta say, leave the Christians alone.  So, just maybe Christ didn't exist.  So what.  They think he did.  It is fine by me.

Nick

I am not of the mindset to pick on anyone at all - but as this topic was new to me and caught my fancy, I thought it might make an enlightening discussion.

We've had numerous threads in this forum about religion, either intentionally or due to going off on a tangent. I've participated in most of them (arguing the atheist position). But I have to ask: have they ever actually been enlightening? Both sides just keep repeating the same arguments over and over. The very nature of religion makes it incredibly resilient. Since Faith trumps Logic, rational arguments rarely hold much sway over true believers.

[TimG]

luke warm, on Jul 4 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

in your opinion winston, by what name were the ones persecuted by nero et al called and why were they so named? the bible says they were first called 'christians' in the city of antioch...

They were called "Christians" or they were called something that was later translated into "Christians".

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jul 4 2008, 10:34 PM, said:

in your opinion winston, by what name were the ones persecuted by nero et al called and why were they so named? the bible says they were first called 'christians' in the city of antioch... i think there's evidence that a movement started, i think there's evidence that those involved in this movement were known by a certain name...

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

The Bible also claims that Jesus existed, and that's being called into question. If the Bible got this pivotal fact wrong, why should anything else in it be believed?

[EricK]

What does it even mean to say Jesus was a real person? How much of the biographical detail attributed to Jesus needs to be true before we should say that Jesus was a real person? Suppose that none of the miracles attested to in the bible actually occurred but that every saying attrbuted to Jesus was said by a single person then I think it would be reasonable to say that Jesus was a real figure. But suppose that only some of the sayings were said by one person, some by another, some by yet a third some only attributed to him centuries later and so on, then, even if one of those people was called "Jesus" (or the hebrew equivalent), could we say that the Jesus of the bible really existed?

[Al_U_Card]

The Essene sect of Judaism had a "Great Teacher" personage that was the example they used to personify god's presence on earth. When you read the Essene texts on his purpose and presence, they pretty much parallel the "teachings of Christ" as described in the gospels etc.

Plagiarism...who's your daddy?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

I can't help but note that the article that Winston cited deals with this issue in depth.

The article clearly articulates the probabilistic nature of History as an academic discipline. Historians rarely make any kind of absolute claim about past events; especially those in antiquity. Rather, historians deal with likelihoods: Some of which are very close to one. Others are viewed with a grain of salt.

The central theme of the review that Winston posted is the application of very standard academic techniques like "Argument from Silence" and "Argument to the Best Explanation" to Doherty's book.

Its hard to understand why you would have raised this critique unless

1. You didn't bother to read the review OR
2. You are incapable of understanding the arguments advanced in the review

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

Any biblical reference must be ruled out a an historical documentation, as all have been shown to be observations written much later than the death of the alleged Jesus and not eyewitness accounts at all.

this is absolutely unacceptable, winston... why should biblical references be ruled out, on whose authority? as for the dating of the writings, many scholars believe paul's writings were from as early as the year 42... do you really mean to say that no observations written much later than the death of a principle can be accepted as historical?

Elianna, on Jul 4 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 4 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

'Christ' means 'Messiah'...

Out of curiosity... In what language?

i'm sorry, i should have said "is synonymous with" rather than "means"

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 5 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

I can't help but note that the article that Winston cited deals with this issue in depth.

The article clearly articulates the probabilistic nature of History as an academic discipline. Historians rarely make any kind of absolute claim about past events; especially those in antiquity. Rather, historians deal with likelihoods: Some of which are very close to one. Others are viewed with a grain of salt.

The central theme of the review that Winston posted is the application of very standard academic techniques like "Argument from Silence" and "Argument to the Best Explanation" to Doherty's book.

the new testament is hardly silent, and stands as the best explanation of that era available... it is only by beginning with the presupposition that the new testament is not sufficient in an historical sense that those arguments can be made

Quote

Its hard to understand why you would have raised this critique unless

1.  You didn't bother to read the review OR
2.  You are incapable of understanding the arguments advanced in the review

as usual, you think that the reasons you can think of for a thing are the only ones possible... could another have been
3. You think the NT, in part or in whole, is historically accurate
?

[Winstonm]

Quote

this is absolutely unacceptable, winston... why should biblical references be ruled out, on whose authority?

Maybe I misworded it, then. The point being is that these references from the bible are hearsay - written much later than the events depicted - and thus hold no strong value as historical proof.

These ancient history arguments are impossible to prove, and thus we are left with our "best case guesses" - and I find it quite interesting (and a new revelation) that Christianity may have been simply an extension of pagan myths.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 10:35 AM, said:

Quote

this is absolutely unacceptable, winston... why should biblical references be ruled out, on whose authority?

Maybe I misworded it, then. The point being is that these references from the bible are hearsay - written much later than the events depicted - and thus hold no strong value as historical proof.

These ancient history arguments are impossible to prove, and thus we are left with our "best case guesses" - and I find it quite interesting (and a new revelation) that Christianity may have been simply an extension of pagan myths.

again, i'd just say that to dismiss the NT as hearsay and not do the same for other documents of antiquity seems to be arbitrary... it seems to be based on circular reasoning... now i don't deny that we all reason that way occasionally, but i think we should admit that's what we're doing

[Winstonm]

Quote

again, i'd just say that to dismiss the NT as hearsay and not do the same for other documents of antiquity seems to be arbitrary... it seems to be based on circular reasoning...

Dismissing is not the purpose, Jimmy. There is no exact in antiguity. As Richard pointed out, the Argument from Silence and the Argument of Best Explanation are about all we can do to conjecture what is true about antiquity.

We cannot ignore the NT writing - at the same time, we cannot grant them more importance than they hold. For example, how do you weigh a text written some 200 years after an event when compared to a lack of historical recording at the time of the event. Neither is conclusive proof,

A quick (very) internet search produced this reference to dating the new testament:

Quote

The oldest surviving complete text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, dating back to the middle of the fourth century. The oldest fragments, the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and Papyrus 52, date back to the second century but only contain bits of the Gospel of John. All of these texts are Greek.

The point being that these writings are not being dismissed, but rather argued that there is a better explanation as to their meaning in historical context. The fact that no historian of the time recorded any mention of Jesus, and the only mention came some many years after his death, makes the Argument from Silence somewhat meaningful.

But nothing is being dismissed - the problem lies in attempting to understand what it means. While it would be unfair to dismiss the new testament writing, it is also clearly unfair to dismiss historians of that time.

"The Jesus Puzzle" (the book being reviewed) advances another explanation which falls under Argument from Best Explanation. Personally, I find that an interesting position and it makes me want to learn more.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Quote

Its hard to understand why you would have raised this critique unless

1.  You didn't bother to read the review OR
2.  You are incapable of understanding the arguments advanced in the review

as usual, you think that the reasons you can think of for a thing are the only ones possible... could another have been
3. You think the NT, in part or in whole, is historically accurate
?

Sorry, I tried to save time by ruling out a number of truly inane explanations.
I guess that I gave you a bit too much credit.

The discussion at hand is whether or not the New Testament can be trusted as valid.

The fact that you believe the New Testament to be true is well known. However, it doesn't advance the discussion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The discussion at hand is whether or not the New Testament can be trusted as valid.

I like to think of it as even more than this, Richard - a quest for honesty, or truth.
I do not consider the questions to be anti-religious. Rather, the question is whether or not the religion is based on history or myth. I read a quote from an ordained minister who does not believe in the historical Jesus yet still believes his faith.

Another interesting aspect to me of the myth versus historical discussion is that other religions (such as Islam) incorporate the Jesus figure but do not grant him deity status, which to me is more consistent with mythological treatment than reality.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

There is no exact in antiguity. 

The fact that no historian of the time recorded any mention of Jesus, and the only mention came some many years after his death, makes the Argument from Silence somewhat meaningful.

there are *many* historical references to Jesus, winston... i don't have time but i could easily show more... these quotes are from this website, there are many more sites and quotes

Quote

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament.

Quote

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus.

Quote

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D.

Quote

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

Quote

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

Quote

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

this one you'll find interesting, since caiaphas is only mentioned in the NT

Quote

The New Testament refers to the High Priest Caiaphas. Records of the Temple of Jerusalem where destroyed and history has not been able to verify that Caiaphas, like Christ, existed. If no evidence existed of Caiaphas when the New Testament was embraced by the Christians of the second century, then it would have been a fact lost to history. But now, 1,950 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a public works project building a water park in November 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave. The inscription in the burial chamber was that of the Caiaphas family. The Caiaphas name had only been mentioned in the New Testament and by Flavius Josephus, no Jewish records have been found with Caiaphas' name linked to being the high priest. The remains of a 60-year-old man were found in the burial cave that may have been the High Priest Caiaphas. The inscription on his craved ossuary, fit for a high priest, was the name Yehosef bar Qafa (Joseph, son of Caiaphas). Coins found in the cave were bronze minted in 42/43 (C.E.) during the reign of Herod Agrippa I. These are similar to images of coins found on the Shroud of Turin Ð believed by many scientists to be the burial shroud of Christ.

in any case, we each have to come to our own conclusions about him, whether we believe he existed or not and the even bigger question, "but who do *you* say I am?"

[Gerben42]

It seems to me that Jesus was a real person, after all there are many independent sources, esp. Roman ones, that refer to him.

Quote

The discussion at hand is whether or not the New Testament can be trusted as valid.

Perhaps some parts have been written much later than when the events it describes occurred, but why should this put the whole existence of the main figures in doubt? The "Truth value" of the New Testament should be similar to that of other legends like the Iliad, which was, of course, written down quite some time afterwards as well.

Quote

The point being that these writings are not being dismissed, but rather argued that there is a better explanation as to their meaning in historical context. The fact that no historian of the time recorded any mention of Jesus, and the only mention came some many years after his death, makes the Argument from Silence somewhat meaningful.

Christians were not important to historians in the time of Jesus, so it is not very surprising that he wasn't mentioned a lot. They would rather report from important things like conquest of new provinces. And historians worked from Rome, where Judea was just some boring province far away, where nothing happened.

So the question at hand is really: Is it likely that someone made it up to make a nice story? I doubt that. The Roman era wasn't the time for this kind of fiction. Fiction would be made with animal characters, representing real people or groups of people. For me, the story of a charismatic leader of what was then considered a sect, is one that was not made up completely, but instead a later deification of a real person, Jesus, was the basis of the New Testament.

No doubt Jesus was one of many prophets of the ancient times - after all at this point monotheism was over 1000 years old. But in the end, only 1 survived and became the religion of the Roman Empire. How many have tried, and why did the Christian story stick?

We are still seeing similar processes around us: there are many sects around, or extremist groups that pretend to be in line with one of the main religions. Most are very small, some are quite successful. Maybe in the future one of them will become a dominant religion. After all, remember that history is written by winners.