Eise

The bible a single source?? We know how it was put together, which discussion were held what should belong to the bible, we know there were mere than 20 gospels, but that slowly after many discussions (which of course were also against the background of theological debates, not of historical reliability) the present new testament was chosen. That is your opinion, yes. Nothing more. No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying it is the easiest explanation. No, I did not say that too. This is tiresome, Ten oz. You twist my words. I said that considering everything we know about ancient Palestine, and about the spreading of Christianity, the best explanation is to suppose that Jesus existed. Don't you see the difference? The references in the new testament to events that happened in those days that we know that really happened, are more precise than anything we have about Krishna, Moses, Horus o whoever. Most historians even agree that Buddha existed, but he also has not written anything, and his stories were only written down after a few centuries. I agree that we don't know that Jesus existed, but it is just the most viable hypothesis, knowing what was before, and what came after. The bible just fits in, if you strip out the errors, forgeries, miracle etc. And you cite selectively. About Ehrman, from the same article: And about his work:

Robittybob1, You do not get what I am arguing: that the contents of the scriptures changed the later they were written: when it turned out that Jesus was wrong, they changed Jesus' idea (of the kingdom of God coming in Jesus' time, or at least very soon) into heaven. Instead of 'projecting' God's kingdom horizontally in time, they projected it vertically to another place, in heaven. But you are a believer, you try to save as much of the miracle as you can. I don't. I try to see what the real historical picture of Jesus is, and then there is not much left. Forget about the miracles, if you want to find truth. Moontanman, With your dragons you make the same error again and again. Comparing something supernatural with something natural. I don't defend the existence of the son of God. You are silly. Do we have more hints for the existence of Ra, of Buddha, of Moses, of Krishna? Do we know independently of their historical contexts? And I don't read anything against Jesus being real by scholars who have a vested interest in Jesus not being real. It is a kind of anti-theism that betrays the principles of historical science. They are mostly angry men/women for who every means of dispute of religion is ok.

Mark 9:1: Mark 1:14-15: Jesus expected the kingdom of God more or less in, or shortly after, his life time. You see? Mark. The oldest Gospel. You also find these in Luke, but not in Matthew and John. But John talks about the kingdom of God as heaven, 'not of this world'. I leave it to you what this worldly kingdom of God would be like.

The first citation is of John, the latest of the four gospels (but only as 'world', not 'earth'). I did not find the second. The problem for all people reporting about Jesus in later year is that the apocalypse that Jesus had said to happen in his own life, did not happen. That means God's Kingdom on earth was not restored. You do not find references to 'a kingdom in heaven' in Mark. So Matthew, Luke and John changed God's Kingdom in Heaven, another place, not here on earth, not of this world. It is exactly these kind of changes, that show that scribes had to change Jesus message. So one way of trying to find the historical Jesus is extrapolating these changes back in time. And then of course strip off all the supernatural episodes. O, come on. You focus again and again on one sentence arguments. We know a lot of the time in which Jesus was supposed to live. We have pretty reliable sources. We do not have them of Krishna. And then the life of Jesus fits pretty well in this historical context. So the easiest explanation of Christianity spreading in antiquity is that a person Jesus really existed, impressed people, and from this sectarian movement grew a complete religion. With of course all its exaggerations, projections, forgeries, will to power etc. I don't need counter narratives because we know nothing of the times that Moses and Krishna were supposed to live. But who knows? Maybe we once will find some prove of a small Jewish tribe traveling from Egypt to Canaan, maybe because they felt mobbed after one or more natural disasters that had a big impact on the economy of Egypt. But at the moment we have none. So with no hints at all, we can only let rest the question if there is some historical core in the stories of Moses and Krishna. You would make a bad historian, if you are not interested in how and why the sources you are using developed the way they did. It may help to estimate the measure of reliability of your sources. This raises an excellent question. Perhaps, if ol' Nessie or large foot were credited with the creation of everything past, present, and future, people might actually be more accepting. This is so naive. Historians do not ask you to believe in something supernatural. They just think that the best explanation for the early rise of Christianity is that a apocalyptic preacher called Jesus really existed in Palestine in those days. This comparison is empty as it can be.

No. He was a time traveller from the nearby future. Late night edit: here is another account von Jesus as time traveller. They are not very reliable. But they are the best we have. And as I said a few times before: you must compare two theories: in this case one that says he existed (based on what hints (we have no evidence for anything in the far past)), or he did not (based on what hints). Nobody here gave any historical hints that it would be a kind of conspiracy. Together with other things historians know about Judea and Galilee in those days and what happened afterwards, the most probable hypothesis is that Jesus existed. Not the magical son of God, but a charismatic apocalyptic preacher.It is the best possible explanation for the historical continuity. Read Ehrman.

Well, good luck. Historians do not give you more than this 'charismatic apocalyptic preacher'. And in case the mythicists would be right even less. If you are a honest searcher for truth, then you should admit that we only have very unreliable sources, and you have to live with it. You can believe what you want, but personally, I would not build the house of my life on quicksand. Don't make the meaning of your life dependent on some assumed truths that might turn out wrong. Yes, there were more apocalyptic preachers in those days. Jesus had a cultural background in which he grew up. But he might have been the most charismatic, or the one that was just at the wrong place at the wrong time (Jerusalem during Pesach, in political restless times) and got executed. Then they could have done a better job. It is obvious from the Gospels that many facts of Jesus' life did not fit the views of what the Messiah had to be, and the evangelists reacted with different ways on it. So the history was bent by one evangelist but not by the other. E.g. Luke places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herodes (37 - 4 BCE) in Judea and of Quirinius in Syria (6 - 12 CE); but they did not reign in the same time! But Luke needed Quirinius census to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem (which is according the prophesies in the old testament), even that he really was from Nazareth. People had to travel to the place where their family came from to register (also a stupid unbelievable idea). Why would intentional fictitious texts do this? Why not just say Jesus was from Bethlehem? Simple answer: because in fact Jesus was from Nazareth and this was a well known fact, and Luke hat to bend the truth to make it fit the prophesies.

Read Ehrman. I will not make an outline for you. I read Acharia S and it was just bad history. Spoiled a few dollars under the Motto 'give them a chance'. I hoped she would be right, but she simply isn't. (Yes, it would really have been fun if one can convincingly argue that Jesus did not exist. She couldn't. Then I bought Ehrman. Et voila, here I am, and the better argument has won.) That is a nice rhetorical argument, which can immediately turned in its opposite: people choose to believe he did not exist at all. And there is no evidence either way: but there are hints, that if you take them all together points to the fact that it is more probable that he existed the he did not. I am still waiting for positive hints that it was all thought out by some Christian group. Where are the reliable hints that the 'Protocols of the Elders of Jerusalem/Rome' really existed to build up a new church? You forget that you must have an alternative theory, with historical hints. You have given none. Only an opinion that the hints pro Jesus' existence are all unreliable (also all taken together). The comparison with alien abductions is just absurd. Historians don't state that there was a water-into-wine-and-walking-on-water-and-resurrected-son-of-God existed. The comparison between a highly improbable opinion that aliens are abducting people, to which better theoretical alternatives (sleep paralysis) exist, and the historical idea that a new sect around a preacher grew to a worldwide religion misses every ground.

Not quite. I think the direct followers of Jesus followed a charismatic apocalyptic preacher. I don't know what Jesus let them belief exactly concerning his 'miracles', but after people telling that they heard that people told that somebody who has seen as apostle was telling that ... stories might be greatly exaggerated. You, and my mythicist discussion partners, make the same error: why should all the gospels be completely true or complete fantasy? Couldn't there be a historical core, with a lot of fantasy around it?

That is an unfair comparison. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary proof. To proof alien abduction much more is needed than just some vague feelings of people seeing lights and fear during their half sleep. It would also need extraordinary evidence for a Son of God walking on earth doing miracles and resurrect 3 days after his death. But for the proposition that somebody called Jesus existed, who was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary. If we apply historical criteria to such historical events, then we can safely assume (not be 100% sure!) that such a person existed. On the other side, there is no proof at all that it all is just a conspiracy to ground a new religion. Supposed lack of proof for Jesus' existence is not automatically proof of a Christ Conspiracy: it is lack of proof. What agenda? If I see an agenda it is with people like Carrier and Acharya S. These are military anti-theists, that will use every rumour as proof that Christianity is wrong. It explains also their anger against opponents, which is reflected in this thread. (OK, one point less again...) Evidence? Please repeat it here, because I haven't seen any evidence of Jesus' none-existence. This is a straw man: Ehrman does not think that Jesus performed miracles. As apocalyptic preacher Jesus might also not be very special in the eyes of Pilate. Just another rebel. Pilate was known for executing people without much process. Why should Jesus' crucifixion be documented? And Jesus is mentioned in the Pauline epistles, written only 20 years after his death, and the earliest gospel (Mark) is written only 40 years after Jesus' execution.

No. Please give me the page number. But I assume it is in one of the last chapters, where Ehrman, beyond what historians generally accept as facts, give his best educated guess as historian about how he sees Jesus' life. He is very clear that this is his subjective view, and that many other historian might not agree. But it has not much to do with your dogmatic view.

Hi Ten oz, OK, I understand your point about mathematical truth and Thales now. Yes there is no reason to believe the miracle stories about Jesus. However, in the three points I mentioned above, on which most historians agree that these are historical facts, not much is left of these 'amazing stories'. What you must see however is that there is a clear development in Christian scriptures: the more recent they are, the more fantastic they are. From the other side, the older the texts, the more difficult it is to fit the life of Jesus as it described in the ideal of a Messiah figure. Simply said: the life of Jesus was not what one would expect of a saviour of the Jews. The simplest explanation is: Jesus really existed, and his life story had to be bended and reinterpreted so that it would be acceptable for Christians. If everything was made up from the beginning then they could have done a much better job. And again: you do not find politicians or historians in antiquity that deny that Jesus existed. Add the fitting historical context to it (existence of apocalyptic beliefs in those days, Roman occupation of Palestine, existence of Pilate, John the Baptist), and the minimum facts about Jesus one can consider proven are the three I mentioned. For all the reasons why most historians think Jesus really existed, read Ehrman, Did Jesus exist?.

That is very one-sided. If you take e.g. Seneca's fragment about Thales: it is only a sneer to Thales' position that everything is made of water. And he just could have read that in the same fragment we have from Aristotle. And also his mathematical proof is disputed. Of course, not that the proof would not be correct, but if he really was the discoverer of it.So your idea of the truth of Thales' Theorem does not add anything to the question if he existed or not. Here you are comparing apples and oranges: mathematical truth and historical truth. Compare this with the gigantic body of texts we have about Jesus. The problem is that you sweep away with one stroke everything that is written by Christians. The historian approach would be to ask: is it possible to find historical facts in these stories? With all the insecurities that historians have to live with, they conclude in an overwhelming majority that he existed. Jesus' existence fits to the historical and cultural background in Palestine as we know from other sources. It fits to what happened afterwards: lot of Christians spreading out in Asia-minor, Greece and Rome. Even antique critics of the new sect never disputed the existence of Jesus. And based on the research of all the sources, historians accept following facts: - Jesus was baptised by John the baptist - He was a wandering preacher in the tradition of apocalyptics - He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. That's it. It is not much. But I wonder what would be left of Thales if we would apply the same hard criteria as the mythicists do with the question of Jesus' existence.

It is not true. I looked it up. We have 18 pieces of text concerning Thales (Die Vorsokratiker, Jaap Mansfeld, Suhrkamp 1983), who lived from circa 624 – 546 BCE. Some text are just one single line, others are complete paragraphs, most are in between. The sources are: Herodot (484–425 BCE, 62 years later): 4 fragments Plato (428 - 347 BCE, 118 years later: 1 fragment), Aristotle: (384–322, 162 years later): 5 fragments Seneca (4 BCE - 65 CE, 542 years later): 1 fragment Hippolytus (170–235 CE, 734 years later!): 1 fragment Diogenes Laertius (3rd centrury CE, i.e. 800 years later!): 3 fragments Proclus (412 - 485 CE, 958 years later!): 3 fragments Some of them of course just repeat what others have said ('The world is made of water'). We do not find a continuity from Thales himself (a gap of 62 years, more than Jesus) to his first mentioning, or from writings about him (several versions of the same writings so we can track at least a little of the history of the 'scriptures'). So the situation looks in my eyes much worse than for Jesus. The only difference I see is that there is not so much at stake with Thales for modern day people. For Jesus the criteria for historicity are artificially made much stronger by the mythicists.

No, of course not. There should be proof that he really was the 'Son of men', 'Son of God' or the 'Messiah'. There is no way to proof that. Based on present day scientific knowledge it is also very hard to believe in Jesus' miracles. As usual in (skeptical) science: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I am sure we will never have that about Jesus. You should also realise that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher: he believed that God's kingdom would come in his lifetime, on earth. In this respect he was just as wrong as so many sects that predict the end of the world again and again. He also might have identified himself as the Jewish long expected Messiah. But this Jewish Messiah was thought of as a man of worldly power, that would throw out the Romans of Palestine, and restore the relation between the Jews and God. In Christianity that was turned into the Kingdom of God as a place not on earth.

Hi Ten oz, Well, at least we agree on the point that we are both not sure if Jesus really existed. One small point of misunderstanding: I wrote that Christians appeared in Rome, with which I really meant that Christians traveled to Rome, not that Romans became Christian (which of course happened too). The importance for me lies in the fact that people coming from Syria, Lebanon or Israel to Rome in the first century were possibly only 1 or 2 'communication generations' away from the actual witnesses of Jesus. That is short enough that the stories they told had a historical core. And that is my main point: the easiest explanation for the continuity between an occupied area in which apocalyptic beliefs existed (a Messias would come, a great King like David, and he would throw the Romans out, and God would care about the people of Israel again) and the growing Christian belief is that a charismatic person existed that was put to death by the Romans. Together with the many writings that at least agree on a few points (Jesus existed, he was a religious teacher, and he was crucified), and the possible authentic mentionings of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus, the most probable is that he actually existed. You correctly say that he must have been special. I think he was, but we know of special people. I think that, in the wrong way, Hitler was special. And I have another, smaller, example: the philosopher Leonard Nelson (1882- 1927). As you see from the small Wikipedia article, as a philosopher he is not very important. But he was a charismatic person. Just as an example: he gave a talk about his Socratic method, and a physicist (Gustav Heckmann, promoted with Max Born) changed his life plan: he left physics and started to learn this method. The movement of the Socratic dialogue still exists, and is growing. Sometimes it needs such a charismatic person to start a movement. If it will continue to exist depends then on many historical accidents. Jesus' miraculous birth is of course not that miraculous. The 'virgin stuff' can easily explained by some wrong translations of the Hebrew word 'ha-almah', which means 'maid', not 'virgin'. Dreams and Angels prophesying Jesus' birth can always easily added. pippo is of course right. The reason I care is that I think that what historians have to say about Jesus is so deconstructing for the 'God man' Jesus, that there is not much left: a preacher who believed that God's dominion would be renewed in his lifetime and thought that only the moral righteous would live in God's earthy domain. I think the truth, in this case that Jesus probably existed, but seeing who he really was, is a much better antidote against Christianity's silly beliefs than heated debates about his existence sec.

English is not my native language, but afaik 'few events' means that, well, there are at least some events that are universally accepted. That means that the historicity of Jesus is accepted, but that it is close to impossible to make a reliable reconstruction about his life. Sure. And from exactly that article: . You cannot compare Joseph Smith and Mohammed with Jesus. Both Smith and Mohammed were clearly historical persons, who claimed to have gotten insights in the 'true teachings of God'. And the difference between stories about Moses, Noah and Krishna on one side and Jesus on the other, is that the stories about Jesus are placed in a historical context we know of: the occupation of Jewish territory by the Romans. And then you can take as a fact that the first Christian appeared in Rome already in the first century. If Jesus would not have existed at all, his existence would already have been disputed in those days (see citation above). And don't forget: in the 19th and 20th century old documents were discovered that perfectly fit in the picture that present day historians have. So it is not just a question of interpreting the same old stuff again and again.

Ah, forgot about this great web page on reddit. Lifelong atheist with a PhD in New Testament and Early Christianity: AMA. I think that nearly all your objections are discussed there.

1. I backed up my claims in my first posting in this thread. 2. Of course the magical stories are made up. Did I say otherwise? 3. Obvious you do not know how the sciences physics and history differ. 4. I violate no rule: in the first place this is the philosophy forum. In philosophy there is not necessary evidence; but there is rational investigation. In the second place I backed up my assertions with sources, I mentioned a book of a well know scholar in new testamentical history (who is not a christian but an agnostic). And in the third place, in the case of antiquity we often have not the kind of evidence you are asking for. And one other thing: a rational discussion is only possible when you read what others wrote, and do not just repeat view points that were countered already in postings before.

Accepted.

My nick is the first name of Eise Eisinga, my avatar is his picture. My father was born in Franeker, and Eisinga and I are very far relatives. You can guess my nationality now. So no Eisenhower, please. There are hints that Jesus has been a real existing person, but no more than hints. On the basis of these hints, a majority of historians think that the assumption that he existed is the most probable. The mythicists have no positive evidence that it was all a coverup. All the magical stories told about Jesus might just as well be explained by exaggeration and the drive of the authors of Gospels, of Paul and others, to give him a divine status. It seems nearly impossible to me to separate a complete coverup from a lot of projections on a real historical figure. I know there is no strict evidence that Jesus existed. I only say that there are hints that are strong enough that to assume he existed, and therefore the assumption that he existed is the most probable. I could be wrong. Just as you. I suggest you compare how historians decide if some historical or legendary person really existed, and compare the criteria they use with those they use for the question of the historicity of Jesus. But that is nice work for you, not for me. The topic is nearly not as hot as it is obviously for you. I am sorry you get so irritated by this, but for me the question is closed, unless new evidence for another viewpoint is found. We must agree to disagree, Ten Oz.

Ten Oz, You did not pick up anything from what I said, you are just repeating yourself, so going on with this discussion is meaningless. Being a science forum, you should take scientists' word for it, in this case historians. See how they reconstruct Jesus' life. And I can promise you, nobody will state that Jesus changed water into wine, walked on water, or resurrected. I don't believe that either. No. At least 3 sources, possibly 4, for Mark, Luke and Matthew. John is very much different, also written much later than the other ones. It is the gospel with the fewest anecdotes,parables etc, but very much about what Jesus is (Logos into the flesh and so...) Did you really read what I wrote? If there are sources that do hint to the idea that the historical Jesus is a coverup, then that would be highly interesting! But until now I only found arguments from mythicists that sources in favour of the existence of Jesus are totally unreliable. That would count for 'negative arguments'; against Jesus' existence, i.e. dismissing the evidence. But obviously the mythicists are harder than most scholars in their criteria what is reliable. You are making the same error as Ten Oz: I never referred to Paul's hallucinations, but to the few facts in his epistles that match with the gospels. (The chance is not big that the evangelists knew Paul's epistles.) Such matches increase the reliability of the mentioned facts. Which does not mean 'proof the reliability', or 'proof that Jesus existed'. It means 'hints that Jesus probably existed', i.e. an apocalyptic preacher, called Jesus, who was expecting the final day during his lifetime, and that the Jews should prepare for it.

You're kidding. The new testament is one source? There are 4 Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and a few documents. OK, Lukas and Matthew did pick a lot of Mark, but they also had other sources, partially shared (some stories are not in Mark, but both in Lukas and Matthew). From here. That's not a historical theory. That as at most a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? Do you have scripts in which Paul and Peter are discussing how they will make up a whole new religion? Do you understand: there is no positive evidence for the idea that it was all a setup. There are many sources of the life of Jesus, not very reliable, but taken altogether, they point in the direction that he existed.The mythicist position that it is all a mixup of previous existing legends cannot be proven either. And it is also perfectly possible that this mixup was projected on a real existing person, in order to make him divine afterwards. Paul also mentions that he met Peter and James. Acts and the epistle differ however about the question when Paul went to Jerusalem: immediately after his 'insight' or only three years later.

That's fine Ten Oz. Just about Thales: these are all contemporaries of Thales? And why should the non-contempary fragments of Heraclitus be more reliable than the different sources of mere existence of Jesus? From philological research it is already clear that there are different sources about Jesus. If we take those things together on which several independent sources agree we get a pretty clear about what he taught. It fits in the time in which he was living. And don't forget: do you have a better theory than that he really existed? Does this theory not need much more assumptions than the standpoint that he just existed, and many stories about him were exaggerated and fantasized afterwards? (There many great examples of these in apocryphical gospels.) I already said we are both not historians. If you want to have stronger hints for Jesus than are used for other persons, then go ahead. Let's agree that we do not agree.

Yes. And he talked with the people that really met Jesus, like Peter and James (brother of Jesus). And he refers to facts in Jesus' life that are also written in the gospels. Obviously he was referring to events that people knew in those days. I also mentioned Thales. Can you present me with the contemporary texts about Heraclitus and Thales? Thank you. You are right about Socrates: there are contemporary writings of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

That makes sense. It is exactly what a-theism describes. What they do not believe in. Some might be deists. Or Buddhists. Or humanists. Or nihilists.