Was Jesus a real person?

[freekundli]

Jesus probably did exist in first century Palestine, but beyond that there's not a whole lot we can say with any real confidence.

[Ten oz]

Jesus probably did exist in first century Palestine, but beyond that there's not a whole lot we can say with any real confidence.

Then why say he probably did?

[iNow]

^what is your criticism, exactly? lacking confidence in an assertion and describing it as probable are not mutually exclusive like you're suggesting

[Sensei]

I met Jesus year ago.. While waking street at night. Person said is Jesus.

 

I was not angry, or anything like that, rather humorously asked him:

- Jesus, what is mass of electron?

He started staring at me, unable to answer, and said "go away!".

So I said to him,

Mass of electron is 9.11*10^-31 kg. But it's not exact. More exact is 510998.928 eV/c^2.

Then I had to explain him what is electron Volt energy unit and how to derive it from Joule energy unit, and what is speed of light....

and then further quantum physics....

 

He kept staring at me for a while astonished....

 

I never saw him again.. Disappeared.

Prior this "accident" I was seeing him every day, always on the same bench, the closest bench to the main country bishop's/cardinal's apartments.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

^what is your criticism, exactly? lacking confidence in an assertion and describing it as probable are not mutually exclusive like you're suggesting

It seems to me the saying that Jesus probably did exist is more often than not the side people error on. I have even heard arguments made that basically cite the fact that so many error he probably lived as evidence that he probably did. The idea that Jesus probably was a real person is a self perpetuating notion in many respects. Many people assume it simple because it is so broadly assumed. The purpose of this thread is to get beyond that.

[Willie71]

It seems to me the saying that Jesus probably did exist is more often than not the side people error on. I have even heard arguments made that basically cite the fact that so many error he probably lived as evidence that he probably did. The idea that Jesus probably was a real person is a self perpetuating notion in many respects. Many people assume it simple because it is so broadly assumed. The purpose of this thread is to get beyond that.

This is much of the point of the Richard Carrier book. When establishing the evidence from the literature base, there was an assumption that Jesus probably lived, without really looking at the evidence. This error perpetuated from published work to published work. When the evidence is examined with fresh eyes, the evidence is simply lacking.this is not "proof" that there wasn't a historical Jesus, but there is no "proof" there was.

 

Now the issue of the Jesus story is even less convincing. There are numerous mythical figures following the Lord Raglan hero myth. The Jesus story and Christian rituals also follow pagan mythology, and are basically plagiarized.

[freekundli]

Yes, a "jesus" was here, as far as the Romans have documented.

I should be most grateful if you would share those document with us.

[Endy0816]

Tacitus briefly mentions him.

[Ten oz]

Tacitus briefly mentions him.

True, however it was over a hundreds years after Jesus is said to have lived and the mention was done as a means to name the group which had set fire to Rome 50 some odd years prior. The mention is a description of who Christians were. Nero had blamed Chistians for the Great Fire of Rome and that is all Tacitus is basically saying.

[Endy0816]

True, however it was over a hundreds years after Jesus is said to have lived and the mention was done as a means to name the group which had set fire to Rome 50 some odd years prior. The mention is a description of who Christians were. Nero had blamed Chistians for the Great Fire of Rome and that is all Tacitus is basically saying.

 

He mentions a cult leader. I agree not the greatest sources are available.

 

Self publishing cost money. The official records were largely lost.

 

Hopefully doesn't repeat or we could well have a group debating Joseph Smith's historicity and using the fact that over a century has passed to decide that he may not have because no earlier records of his existence were found before this.

[Sophie Lux]

No, there is no credible evidence that he is anything more than a fictional character.

 

It is irrelevant either way because the god claimed to represent/be, the god of abraham, does not exist. Without god, all the stories, including ones about the "prophets", are meaningless.

[Prometheus]

Without god, all the stories, including ones about the "prophets", are meaningless.

 

Only as meaningless as Harry Potter. I am informed Harry Potter is extremely meaningful to many people. His existence, or otherwise, is irrelevant to the meaning people find in the stories.

[Tampitump]

I think most biblical scholars, both secular and religious, agree that Jesus was a historical person. Bart Ehrman has written quite extensively about it. I generally accept that the myths of Jesus are based on a real person who actually existed. But I don't have a great deal of confidence in this position. I tend to think that scholars have their reasons for accepting that Jesus or "Yeshua" was a real person. I can't say for sure.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Tampitump

[Sensei]

No, there is no credible evidence that he is anything more than a fictional character.

The all human history is known only from the books that remained millennia and centuries,

from remaining sculptures, graves, rocks used to be somebody house in the past, from remaining cinders of ancient cities..

It does not render automatically the all people who built them not existing persons..

 

Without god, all the stories, including ones about the "prophets", are meaningless.

Prophets can be self-made. Which does not render them not existing physically persons.

Somebody read prophecy, and found himself/herself fitting in the story, and acting accordingly to prophecy.

 

How ISIS called their newspaper? Dabiq. From prophecy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq,_Syria

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786039/The-1-300-year-old-apocalyptic-prophecy-predicted-war-Islamic-army-infidel-horde-Syria-fuelling-ISIS-s-brutal-killers.html

[Ten oz]

I think most biblical scholars, both secular and religious, agree that Jesus was a historical person. Bart Ehrman has written quite extensively about it. I generally accept that the myths of Jesus are based on a real person who actually existed. But I don't have a great deal of confidence in this position. I tend to think that scholars have their reasons for accepting that Jesus or "Yeshua" was a real person. I can't say for sure.

Bat Erhman's argument for Jesus having existed basically comes down to 3 things: a low bar for evidence, Paul is believed to have known James (brother of Jesus), and the criterion of embarrassment.

 

Low bar - Erhman argues that the amount of tangible evidence for any figure in history that wasn't royalty of someone of hug importance during their life times is normally lackings. So we shouldn't expect their to be a lot of evidence. That argue while true is not evidence of anything in itself. It just serves to prepare one to accept what little evidence there might be as normal.

 

Paul might have known James - This in itselfs requires its own debate. There is no evidence for Paul beyond bibical texts however Acts and the Gospel of Luke are believed to have been written by the same person do to style and information contained in the works. So Paul (even if by another name) was probably a real person. However there are believed to have been more than one Pauline figure since not all Pauline works share style and narrative. So while Paul probably was a real person and a significant source of scholarly work confusion about his narrative and description of events make him an ambiguous figure to use as a means of proving the another even more ambiguous figure. Also it is important to note that Paul was not contemporary to Jesus. Paul never interacted with a living Jesus. Rather, Paul wrote of a vision he had of a resurrected Jesus. As for Paul knowing James, Paul wrote of Jesus being crucified but did not write of a time, place, or other details contained in the gospels. Surely James knew all the details so had their been a Paul James connection one might expect to see that influence in Paul's work and we don't.

 

criterion of embarrassment - To notion that one would write embarrassing things about a figure they were seeking to glorify. That because Jesus had such a humble life and be beaten and killed he must have been real because one would not fictionalize a messiah is such a manner. A philosophical concept more so than evidence of anything. While it may be true for many it is far from true for all.

 

Bart EHrman himself has a PhD in Theology. He is a great mind on all things bibical but he is not a historian. No doubt he knows a great deal of history because bibical works demand that it is still important to understand he is not a historian. Richard Carrier, his work is noted in this thread's OP, breaks down Bart Ehrman's work far better than I:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10134

[Willie71]

Re: the embarrassment argument:

 

Lord Raglan describes a pattern to the hero myth. Jesus shares the majority of the traits with other fictional heroes, but isn't even the top of the last. The probability of a real person having the majority of these traits is vanishingly small.

 

The list:

 

The Hero Pattern

 

This pattern is based upon The Hero: A study in Tradition, Myth and Dreams by Lord Raglan

 

Incidents which occur with regularity in hero-myths of all cultures:

 

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;

2. His father is a king, and

3. Often a near relative of his mother, but

4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and

5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.

6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but

7. he is spirited away, and

8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.

11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and

13. And becomes king.

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and

15. Prescribes laws, but

16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and

17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which

18. He meets with a mysterious death,

19. Often at the top of a hill,

20. His children, if any do not succeed him.

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless

22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.

 

List of "heroes" that fit this pattern. Note all are fictional, but we debate whether Jesus was real.

 

Mithradates VI of Pontus (22) / Krishna (21) / Moses (20) / Romulus (19) / King Arthur (19) / Perseus (18) / Jesus (18) / Watu Gunung of Java (18) / Heracles (17) Mohammad (17) / Beowulf (15) / Buddha (15) / Czar Nicholas II (14) / Zeus (14) / Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile (14) / Samson (13) / Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali (11) / Achilles (10) / Odysseus (8) / Harry Potter (8)

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Willie71

[freekundli]

Thats like you are asking, are we real?

[Memammal]

List of "heroes" that fit this pattern. Note all are fictional, but we debate whether Jesus was real.

Yes, I have read about this before and it is indeed very interesting. I assume you meant "Not all are fictional"...as the above implies that they are all fictional..?

 

Just as a side note - The question is akin to asking whether Romulus (whose name appears on that list of heroes) & Remus, who allegedly founded Rome after being abandoned by their she-wolf caretaker, had indeed existed? Rome (like Christianity) is indeed a reality... Secondly, it is worth noting that there are numerous gospels referring to Jesus beyond the four canonical works: List of Gospels. I have stated my opinion elsewhere already, which is that I consider Jesus of the Biblical narrative to refer to an Essene preacher of similar status than John The Baptist.

[Ten oz]

 

 

Yes, I have read about this before and it is indeed very interesting. I assume you meant "Not all are fictional"...as the above implies that they are all fictional..?

 

Just as a side note - The question is akin to asking whether Romulus (whose name appears on that list of heroes) & Remus, who allegedly founded Rome after being abandoned by their she-wolf caretaker, had indeed existed? Rome (like Christianity) is indeed a reality... Secondly, it is worth noting that there are numerous gospels referring to Jesus beyond the four canonical works: List of Gospels. I have stated my opinion elsewhere already, which is that I consider Jesus of the Biblical narrative to refer to an Essene preacher of similar status than John The Baptist.

Rome being real or Christianity being real doesn't specifically make individual persons real. The United States is real, Slavery was real, yet Huckleberry Finn is fiction. A fiction so nearly real that reading about him teaches a fairly true history. Surely there were many kids like Huck Finn who lived. "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" has enough details in it that had Mark Twain claimed it to be based on a true story many would argue that Huck Finn had been real. Huck Finn is fiction. His personality is based on Twain's impressions of a childhood friend.

 

Nurmerous gospels? Even amongst Theologians there is serious debate over who wrote which and inspired whom. The Pauline Epistles are the baseline that are believed to have been known to all other authors. Beyond that is it all up for debate. Matthew probably drew from Mark, Luke was written by Paul or an associate of Paul, John wasn't written by John the apostle, and etc, etc, etc. Using such source matrial alone to prove the existence of a individual person, even one that was merely an inspiration, simply can't be done.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Ten oz

[Willie71]

More evidence that Jesus was just a plagiarized version of previous mythical figures:

 

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

Re: the gospels.

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Incredible-Shrinking-Son-Man/dp/1591021219

 

Robert Price goes through the gospels in the order they were written, and notes the evolution of the story to better fit the hero motif. In Paul, the virgin birth was not present, a pretty important part of the myth to forget or leave out. Even with the most basic research, the Jesus Myth falls apart like a house of cards.

 

 

 

Re: Romulus and Remus: are you suggesting they were real people, born of virgin, impregnated by the god Mars?

 

Romulus /ˈrɒmjᵿləs/ and Remus /ˈriːməs/ were the twin brothers and main characters of Rome's foundation myth. (The pronunciation in English is different from the Latin original Rōmulus and Rĕmus). According to Roman tradition, of which Livy's account is now the earliest to survive in full, their mother was Rhea Silvia, daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa. Before their conception, Numitor's brother Amulius seized power, killed Numitor's male heirs and forced Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin, sworn to chastity. Rhea Silvia conceived the twins by the god Mars. Once the twins were born, Amulius had them abandoned to die in the Tiber river. They were saved by a series of miraculous interventions: the river carried them to safety, a she-wolf found and suckled them, and a woodpecker fed them. A shepherd and his wife found them and fostered them to manhood as simple shepherds. The twins, still ignorant of their true origins, proved to be natural leaders. Each acquired many followers. When they discovered the truth of their birth, they killed Amulius and restored Numitor to his throne. Rather than wait to inherit Alba Longa, they chose to found a new city.

(From wikipidia)

Edited August 30, 2016 by Willie71

[Memammal]

Rome being real or Christianity being real doesn't specifically make individual persons real.

You misunderstood. That ^ was exactly what I implied, i.e. why is the mythical founder(s) really relevant...and your example of Huck Finn is very appropriate in the context of my opinion of the historical Jesus.

 

Nurmerous gospels?...

...Using such source matrial alone to prove the existence of a individual person, even one that was merely an inspiration, simply can't be done.

Again, read what I posted..."it is worth noting that there are numerous gospels referring to Jesus beyond the four canonical works". I was not

trying to prove anything.

 

Re: Romulus and Remus: are you suggesting they were real people, born of virgin, impregnated by the god Mars?

Not at all, quite the opposite. I was trying to draw parallels between the myth(s) surrounding them...I was clearly not very successful in doing that...

Edited August 30, 2016 by Memammal

[Ten oz]

@ Memamal, sorry I misunderstood the context of your statements.

[Willie71]

It appears I misunderstood too.

[Tor_Hershman]

Ovid created the character we know as Jesus Christ as a metaphoric response to Augustus becoming emperor, TADA!

 

 

 

 

[Tampitump]

Bat Erhman's argument for Jesus having existed basically comes down to 3 things: a low bar for evidence, Paul is believed to have known James (brother of Jesus), and the criterion of embarrassment.

 

Low bar - Erhman argues that the amount of tangible evidence for any figure in history that wasn't royalty of someone of hug importance during their life times is normally lackings. So we shouldn't expect their to be a lot of evidence. That argue while true is not evidence of anything in itself. It just serves to prepare one to accept what little evidence there might be as normal.

 

Paul might have known James - This in itselfs requires its own debate. There is no evidence for Paul beyond bibical texts however Acts and the Gospel of Luke are believed to have been written by the same person do to style and information contained in the works. So Paul (even if by another name) was probably a real person. However there are believed to have been more than one Pauline figure since not all Pauline works share style and narrative. So while Paul probably was a real person and a significant source of scholarly work confusion about his narrative and description of events make him an ambiguous figure to use as a means of proving the another even more ambiguous figure. Also it is important to note that Paul was not contemporary to Jesus. Paul never interacted with a living Jesus. Rather, Paul wrote of a vision he had of a resurrected Jesus. As for Paul knowing James, Paul wrote of Jesus being crucified but did not write of a time, place, or other details contained in the gospels. Surely James knew all the details so had their been a Paul James connection one might expect to see that influence in Paul's work and we don't.

 

criterion of embarrassment - To notion that one would write embarrassing things about a figure they were seeking to glorify. That because Jesus had such a humble life and be beaten and killed he must have been real because one would not fictionalize a messiah is such a manner. A philosophical concept more so than evidence of anything. While it may be true for many it is far from true for all.

 

Bart EHrman himself has a PhD in Theology. He is a great mind on all things bibical but he is not a historian. No doubt he knows a great deal of history because bibical works demand that it is still important to understand he is not a historian. Richard Carrier, his work is noted in this thread's OP, breaks down Bart Ehrman's work far better than I:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10134

Right, I personally have never read a single book or article by Ehrman. I've just watched some of his lectures on youtube which gives you the jist of his positions, reasons, arguments, etc. Nothing he cites is really evidence at all, but rather just anecdotal conjectures about what is likely to be the case based on a body of scriptural/canonical knowledge and what is understood about history (which is all any scholar or historian can really do on these matters). He doesn't claim this very strongly I don't believe, he just states that it is more likely than not that the mythical tales of Jesus in the gospels were based on a man who probably really lived- a charismatic 1st-century Jewish rabbi who preached apocalyptic prophecies etc. I would actually like to know whether or not the crucifixion actually happened. That is probably one of the most brutal climaxes in the entirety of the Bible, I'd like to know if a man really went through this kind of thing willingly and was really nailed up on a cross.