Eise

Tell me what do we know independently about the time that Moses could have existed. How could we even start to answer the question? Yes, they can, as I said before. But you must not treat the NT just as the truth, but as documents that have a history. If you would do the same with The Lord Of The Rings you would soon find out that it is a made up story. It is very consistent in style, utterly consistent in its story line (does somebody know about an inconsistency in The Lord Of The Rings? I don't.). And then we have an awful lot of literature around The Lord Of The Rings that shows how the book grew from previous ideas from just one single author, like elements in the ever changing history of the Silmarillion; we have letters of Tolkien in which he describes his writing etc etc. If you look at the history of the NT, you find completely other things: inconsistencies in the stories, in the kind of theology, in the original language; different styles, but still elements that come back in the different scriptures. We have different versions of scriptures that show us how they were changed in time etc etc. Everything points to the assumption that Jesus really existed, but that lots of people only had second hand information, that was changed in time because of errors, ideological preconceptions of Christian authors etc etc. And yes, add the mentionings of the none-Christian authors, then it all fits more or less together. However to expect absolute confirmation or evidence is a too high expectation.

Well, at least the kind of answers people give on such questions reveal if they think only in terms of consequences, or also of allowed actions in itself. A lot of more questions arise when only this first aspect of moral thinking is handled. How does one compare consequences (an old woman is worth 10 points, y young one 30?). Do human lives have intrinsic value? Animals? etc etc. No, philosophy cannot solve these questions. But it can clarify our way of thinking, and this might influence how we think about such cases in the future. I would say, it can increase the quality of the decisions, not their contents. As you say: that is not useless.

The point is good, your refutation isn't. Who are Muslim terrorists dying for? We can safely assume that the Christians during Nero's time did not make Jesus up, but thought that he really existed. However, if he was a product of fantasy, then this fantasy was made up by only one generation. That might be a nearly impossible job in times without mass communication. It is more probable that Jesus really existed. So it is the short time in which Christianity became an 'international movement' that speaks for the assumption that Jesus existed.

Agree, partially. Depends a little on what you mean with 'wider implications'. But by asking this question, I have already gone full into ethics. Do you mean consequences for our acting, based on out moral thoughts. Or do you mean on how we think about similar choices based on our actual thinking? To give an example of the second idea: we can reason completely in terms of the good and/or bad consequences of our actions (consequentialism); or we can have at least some moral norms that we apply whatever the consequences (deontology). But if we are consequentialists, one can still think about the wider implications: say the consequences on the long term, involving everybody who is influenced by the action in question, or only the direct implications.

It should be clear that philosophy does not solve any scientific problem. If it did, then it would be part of a science. If it solves any problem, then it could be called an intelligibility problem. That means that philosophical problems can arise everywhere where people think. Obviously, normally thinking is no problem. Science was already progressing before philosophy tried to find out how, and why science progresses. But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory. Such questions become important when people, or society in general, ask themselves what they should accept as truth. Methodologically philosophy is hardly important for the scientists themselves. It partly explains the disdain scientists have for philosophy. They think that philosophy thinks that it says to scientists how they should do their work. Occasionally some philosophers also really do this, which is mostly distorting for philosophy's reputation. Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers. Again, not the sociological question, but the question which kind of thinking leads to a justified morality. This job is of course for ethics: to find and reflect on the criteria we use, or should use, in our moral thinking if we want to be consistent. There is also a class of problems that arise from our daily thinking. One example is the problem of free will. Where nearly all people experience they have free will, it seems that science, based on the idea that laws of nature are in general deterministic, denies that we have free will. It is a task for philosophers to show how the daily use of the concept of free will differs from the concept that scientists use, and show that there is in fact no such free will problem at all. It is all based on some wrong pre-concepts that confuse the discussion. So if there is some positive result from philosophy, it is intellectual clarity. If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'. But intellectual clarity definitely doesn't solve empirical or in general scientific problems. That is just a false expectation.

That's from Kraftwerk.

Somehow you seem to get me wrong. I say that, given the sources we have, it is reasonable to assume Jesus existed. As you refuse to dig into the history of the sources, and sweep them away in one stroke ('Written by believers, so no use'), you come to another conclusion than I do. You see, I don't say you must believe what the NT says. I say you must dig into the history of the sources, and try to explain the similarities and the differences, and so make the best possible reconstruction of their history. If you have that, then you can try to answer how this reconstruction can be explained best: by supposing some myths popping up in those days, or by assuming there was a real person Jesus, to who all these stories are attached. Again, I must charge you with or ill will or sloppy thinking. You seem to have something against interpreting texts, in this case the Wikipedia article. Most of the criticism mentioned, is about how the life of Jesus is interpreted, not about his mere existence. E.g. you can see that Bart Ehrman is mentioned as one of the critics. You must not. But you must reconstruct the history of the NT. See above. I am too. But I want to be an honest one. I am not 'Christian damaged', not by my past, and not by my environment. The quest for who the historical Jesus really was, might be mainly theological driven. The question if he really existed is answered also: unless we find more sources, the most reasonable assumption is that he existed. Ehrman clearly separates the last 2 Chapters of his 'Did Jesus exist' from the main part of his book. In the main part he just shows on what grounds the majority of historians suppose Jesus really existed. (He is not developing a theory of his own.) In the last two chapters he describes the best possible speculations a historian can make about who Jesus really was. But he is very clear that these are only his speculations, and that many historians might have a different view on this. The Jesus he pictures differs very much from the pictures that most Christians have, I can assure you. And if somebody has an agenda, then it is Richard Carrier. I seldom read such angry articles as he writes. Instead of a joined search for truth, he is combating, with religious zeal, the pretty broad consensus under historians.

Exactly. We have many references to Caesar. But having less references does not mean 'non-existence'. Of course, in the case of Jesus the base is small. But it is not zero. Yes. And pretty short after his death. Estimates of the first sources are only about 10 years after his death. Taken into account that most followers of Jesus were peasants and fishermen who of course were illiterates, that is not too bad. The problem is that you refuse to look at the new testament. The question is how to explain in what way these scriptures have developed. With philological analysis it is possible to distinguish several distinct sources of the gospels and of the pauline epistles. Most of the NT is written in Greek, but at some places it can be recognised that there were also Aramaic sources. So these must be older than their translations, namely from Palestine, where there were Aramaic speaking people. The opposite is also interesting: there is somewhere a misunderstanding, because in a discussion a homonym is used. Jesus corrects the wrong understanding of the listener. However, the word is only a homonym in Greek. So this was later addition that cannot go back to an Aramaic speaking Jesus. This is an example of how you treat ancient texts. You look at them, and analyse them as good as possible to find out something about their history. You do not sweep them away in one stroke. If we worked with the same prejudices in physics we would not have got very far. ("The earth a sphere? Then the people at the other side would fall off!".) If one puts all these kinds of analysis together, you get a pretty nice overview of the history of this texts. And based on this, the assumption that Jesus was a real person is the most probable. No. The first thing is to admit that we cannot be 100% sure, because the sources are too vague. The next is to weigh the different options, and take the most probable assumption. It is true: we can be nearly 100% sure that Caesar existed, the situation with Jesus is definitely worse.

Because he was just a preacher, like many others, who had a few more followers, and was not really the son of God with a responsibility for all of humanity. He just warned his audience that they should prepare for the kingdom of God, that would come soon. Historians assume he could not write, but he possibly could read, because he knew the Jewish scriptures. Jesus was not planning a world religion, he was preaching his 'insights' to everybody who wanted to hear it, that's all.

C'mon, Ten oz. You are really disqualifying yourself. Caesar fought a war, conquered France, got dictator of Rome, and was killed in the senate, etc etc. And Jesus was a 'guru' of a small sect, that afterwards happened to grow out to a huge religion. A preacher having whatever pretensions (I don't think you find in the early gospels that Jesus calls himself God), why should a non Christian historian be interested in such a person?

Again so silly. Caesar was Emperor of Rome. And why would a huge movement could not have a small beginning? In the time Jesus lived nearly anybody found it interesting. It only became really interesting some time afterwards. Then people started writing down what they had heard about Jesus. Much exaggeration, more and more during time. So of course we nearly only have Christian sources. What could we expect otherwise? But you reject the Pauline letters and the gospels, without even knowing how historians treat these texts, how they conclude that there is a historical core in it. With one sweeping 'it was written by believers, so there are of no historical value at all' you refuse to have a closer look. Is that a scientific attitude? Why not study them as an historian, and see what one gets? Surely: not the son of God changing water into wine. But a person who some people found so fascinating that they continued to believe in his teachings.

You seem much more relaxed about the question if Buddha existed then if Jesus existed. 'Much written' is not worth much. There is more written about Frodo than about Jesus. But that does not mean Frodo existed. The question is if we understand the history of early Christianity better assuming Jesus exists or not. That has nothing to do with how many is written about them. Yes of course that is possible. The question is if in the case of Jesus this is more probable than assuming that it was all thought out by a few early church fathers. But as I said before: if that is the case they could have done better. Yes. And all this the church had also could have done with a historical Jesus. It is ridiculous to connect the later growth from the church with the question of Jesus' existence. But we know several things about how the sources grew, and changed. This development points to the fact that Jesus existed. Scribes had to change scriptures when they did not fit their theological assumptions. The later the scriptures, the bigger the amount of changes. Discussions in the early church fit to the different interpretations of Jesus' message one can find in the bible: the evangelist Mark does not fit to the position Paul takes. But Paul assumes Jesus existed, he knows a few details we find in the gospels. Why are there contradicting texts in the NT? Why did the early Church fathers put all this in their bible? And you keep dismissing Josephus and Tacitus. It is clear that they both did not doubt that Jesus existed. And Josephus does not refer just to the Christians, as Tacitus does, but to Jewish history itself. Josephus refers to Jesus, to John the baptist, to Herodes, to Jesus' brother (with the same name as in the NT: James). Put this all together and you get a quite consistent history. And again: read Ehrman. He explains on what grounds most historians assume that Jesus' existed. I have read Acharya S. Before Ehrman. she did not convince me. Exactly. Just mentioning a known town does not suffice.

I don't understand this. Do you think that Buddha existed or not. Or is it just unclear? You must stop this, Ten oz. Asking this again and again is ill will or stupidity. I answered that already: What do we know about the times that Moses or Krishna were supposed to live? Independent sources of the time before and after? No, we simply haven't. Right. It doesn't need this necessarily. I do agree. But putting all together, it is the easiest explanation. As long as you have no indication who the Mormon, Muhammad, or Hubbard of Christianity was, as long as you have no indication that it was all setup, your theory is worth nothing. Yes, it was. And it was put together from different sources. Even if the gospel might not have been written by the authors that are connected with it, it clearly shows from their different styles that they were written in different times by different people. Really, you argue like a hammer. No nuances. That is just not true. By textual analysis modern historians (and theologians), have a quite clear picture which parts are forgeries. It is just that it is not known by the general public, not by most Christians themselves. Fundamentalist Christians think the bible is of one piece, as you do. Not even serious theologians see it that way.

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.