Was Jesus a real person?

[John Cuthber]

The difference it would make; it would change the way I study and consider things moving forward. The scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If the history I have been taught is not accurate I need to adjust which sources I trust and what conclusions I have taken for granted. The way history is taught has real impacts on decisions people make today. Politicians campaign on their versions of who the founding fathers were and what the founding fathers wanted. People get elected to office and make decisions about our way of life based on claims about religion and history. In my opinion it matters. It isn't the most important thing in the world but it does matter.

Did you make those changes?

Did they change the way they teach history?

Has politics been re-written?

 

No?

Why not?

Is it because we don't know if he was real or not?

Well- that's the point I was making.

 

The only sensible answer to this thread is "we don't know".

And after 38 pages it's getting a bit silly.

[Sriman Dutta]

Jesus. Who is Jesus ? GOD, that's according to Hinduism Generator, Operator and Destructor. In every religion around the world, we find God. But, who is God? Does he have a real existence? Perhaps, man from the first Palaeolithic Age thought nature as bleak and unknown - and early humans started formulating the theory of God. However, nobody (except the god-like people) has experienced Him. So is there any God at all? Perhaps no. Science is God. Science is what drives this universe. From scientific hypothesis and theories, we have come to know our generation, our operation and our destruction.

[Ten oz]

Did you make those changes?

Did they change the way they teach history?

Has politics been re-written?

 

No?

Why not?

Is it because we don't know if he was real or not?

Well- that's the point I was making.

 

The only sensible answer to this thread is "we don't know".

And after 38 pages it's getting a bit silly.

I agree

[Tampitump]

This really isn't the discussion I had hoped for. One where people just claim a concensus has already resolved the matter followed by no definitive support but loads of demands.

What do you expect us to do? The only thing most of us can do is read what the experts have written and talk about what has been said on the subject. Do you want us to go dig up some new evidence so we can talk about it on the thread? There is no real evidence of Jesus' existence that is extra-biblical or non-textual. My opinion (which I'm not confident in) is that there was a historical Jesus. This is based on what I perceive as a relatively high number of experts who agree that this is most likely the case.

 

I also never claimed the concensus was a matter of fact. I said I was not very firm in my position, so I'd like it if the people of this forum would try to stop ascribing positions, intent, and motivations to me that don't exist. I'm not a biblical or antiquity scholar, so I cannot really say much on this topic other than my rather uninformed opinion (which I guess means that I should probably stop contributing to this thread).

[Ten oz]

What do you expect us to do? The only thing most of us can do is read what the experts have written and talk about what has been said on the subject. Do you want us to go dig up some new evidence so we can talk about it on the thread? There is no real evidence of Jesus' existence that is extra-biblical or non-textual. My opinion (which I'm not confident in) is that there was a historical Jesus. This is based on what I perceive as a relatively high number of experts who agree that this is most likely the case.

 

I also never claimed the concensus was a matter of fact. I said I was not very firm in my position, so I'd like it if the people of this forum would try to stop ascribing positions, intent, and motivations to me that don't exist. I'm not a biblical or antiquity scholar, so I cannot really say much on this topic other than my rather uninformed opinion (which I guess means that I should probably stop contributing to this thread).

What experts have you read? Only a few posters in this thread have cited specific scholars and qouted their work.

[Memammal]

I.m.o. there exist sufficient circumstantial evidence to maintain the status quo (or null hypothesis) that an historical Jesus figure PROBABLY did exist and that the life and times of said historical Jesus had SOME resemblance to what is being portrayed in parts of the synoptic gospels. There seems little to no credible evidence to support the non-existence of-, or to point to some sort of fictional/fabricated Jesus. All these arguments have already been presented and there seem to be little new information that could shed some light on it. No need to argue about it in circles any longer. If the OP, or any reader comes to a different conclusion or is happy with WE DON'T KNOW, so be it.

[Tim88]

Bold emphasis mine:

The difference it would make; it would change the way I study and consider things moving forward. The scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If the history I have been taught is not accurate I need to adjust which sources I trust and what conclusions I have taken for granted. The way history is taught has real impacts on decisions people make today. Politicians campaign on their versions of who the founding fathers were and what the founding fathers wanted. People get elected to office and make decisions about our way of life based on claims about religion and history. In my opinion it matters. It isn't the most important thing in the world but it does matter.

 

Yes, exactly! The parts in bold are what happened to me many years ago.

 

Much of the information that we get dished up through the media is inherently unreliable and often manipulated; but I used to trust supposed facts of science and history. Also, I used to be a Christian.

 

As happens to so many scientists my faith dwindled over the years, and upon verification of many arguments, no evidence seemed to be hard evidence. Still, one argument of Christians is that Christianity could not have taken off if there had not been a Jesus who did miracles and whose resurrection motivated his followers to continue despite persecution. Consequently it may have relevance now to know what of the Jesus narrative is verifiable.

 

But the facts which I discovered by digging deeper -deeper than ever before- showed that the existence of Christianity does not imply the existence of such a Jesus; and a non-miraculous Jesus who was killed in Jerusalem is less useful but not needed to explain the rise of Christianity. With that the question about a historical Jesus was sufficiently answered for me: I discovered that I had allowed myself to be fooled by religion and religion-based historians.

 

When that had sunk in, I understood that I had to significantly adjust my method of verifying information. My approach to knowledge is indifferent to the topic, and the human nature of scientists is similar to the human nature of religious people.

 

With my newly enhanced skepticism and with a little cynicism I thus verified much of my physics education and found that I had similarly been fooled by physics textbooks, which commonly distort history in order to dish up a narrative that the author finds pleasing - to the detriment of physics students.

 

I would perhaps never have realised that I had been seriously misinformed in multiple areas because my method of information gathering was too "light", if I had not tried to answer the question about Jesus.

[Memammal]

Still, one argument of Christians is that Christianity could not have taken off if there had not been a Jesus who did miracles and whose resurrection motivated his followers to continue despite persecution. Consequently it may have relevance now to know what of the Jesus narrative is verifiable.

 

But the facts which I discovered by digging deeper -deeper than ever before- showed that the existence of Christianity does not imply the existence of such a Jesus; and a non-miraculous Jesus who was killed in Jerusalem is less useful but not needed to explain the rise of Christianity. With that the question about a historical Jesus was sufficiently answered for me: I discovered that I had allowed myself to be fooled by religion and religion-based historians.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion in context of this thread. We are not discussing the merits of a supernatural Jesus, or Christianity. Furthermore, the historians and Biblical scholars who have researched the topic of a historical Jesus were not all religious or Christian. Having an informed opinion that it is more likely for a historical Jesus to have existed than not, does not necessarily imply that one is a Christian. I am not a Christian. I am not sure why my previous post was voted down. I merely repeated my earlier opinion, one that I had already motivated, and I did so in support of Tampitump's opinion above and to a lesser degree, John Guthber and others who argued that there is little point to continue the debate without new information.

[Tim88]

I respectfully disagree with your assertion in context of this thread. We are not discussing the merits of a supernatural Jesus, or Christianity. Furthermore, the historians and Biblical scholars who have researched the topic of a historical Jesus were not all religious or Christian. [..]

 

You respectfully disagreed with what I did not say; but that's OK.

I did not discuss the merits of a supernatural Jesus or Christianity and I was probably helped by the writings of and discussions with non-religious scholars.

 

In reply to the OP's motivation as expressed in one of his last posts (which I cited with emphasis), I explained why and how the fact finding at that time had a big effect on me, exactly as he suggested.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

Fair enough...I must have read too much into this "With that the question about a historical Jesus was sufficiently answered for me: I discovered that I had allowed myself to be fooled by religion and religion-based historians."

[Tim88]

Yes, I effectively meant the contrary with my precision: "religion-based historians" does not include historians who don't suffer from religious bias.

 

PS. And I certainly do hope that in discussions here I won't have to always state the obvious, such as here that with "religion-based historians" I don't mean all religion-based historians!

Edited October 4, 2016 by Tim88

[Tampitump]

I.m.o. there exist sufficient circumstantial evidence to maintain the status quo (or null hypothesis) that an historical Jesus figure PROBABLY did exist and that the life and times of said historical Jesus had SOME resemblance to what is being portrayed in parts of the synoptic gospels. There seems little to no credible evidence to support the non-existence of-, or to point to some sort of fictional/fabricated Jesus. All these arguments have already been presented and there seem to be little new information that could shed some light on it. No need to argue about it in circles any longer. If the OP, or any reader comes to a different conclusion or is happy with WE DON'T KNOW, so be it.

This is pretty much my position stated better than I could have stated it. No certainty exists within me. It just seems more likely than not. If he really was poor in iron age judea, then its likely there was never any good evidence preserved for him. But I'm just speculating.

[Sriman Dutta]

Simple answer: We don't know.

Complex answer: We don't know what the truth is.

Compound answer: We don't know and we can't answer.

[Tim88]

I.m.o. there exist sufficient circumstantial evidence to maintain the status quo (or null hypothesis) that an historical Jesus figure PROBABLY did exist and that the life and times of said historical Jesus had SOME resemblance to what is being portrayed in parts of the synoptic gospels. There seems little to no credible evidence to support the non-existence of-, or to point to some sort of fictional/fabricated Jesus. All these arguments have already been presented and there seem to be little new information that could shed some light on it. No need to argue about it in circles any longer. If the OP, or any reader comes to a different conclusion or is happy with WE DON'T KNOW, so be it.

 

I see that some people pressed the "negative reputation" button under that reasoning; I think that it's more useful to briefly comment on the probable cause, which is the one-sided view of that post which doesn't fairly reflect the discussion.

 

The OP video clarified that we are facing two hypotheses: that of a man who was a bit like most other people of that time, to which the god concept was added; and that of a god who like most other gods of that time had a human aspect, with a historical narrative added to it. The hypothesis that the OP chose for discussion here is the second one; a "null-hypothesis" approach would consist of trying to disprove that hypothesis.

 

And of course, there are variants of each hypothesis.

 

As there is in the eyes of adherents of each hypothesis and variants of them credible or even strong evidence for their hypothesis without pertinent counter evidence, no consensus can be reached.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

 

I see that some people pressed the "negative reputation" button under that reasoning; I think that it's more useful to briefly comment on the probable cause, which is the one-sided view of that post which doesn't fairly reflect the discussion.

 

The OP video clarified that we are facing two hypotheses: that of a man who was a bit like most other people of that time, to which the god concept was added; and that of a god who like most other gods of that time had a human aspect, with a historical narrative added to it. The hypothesis that the OP chose for discussion here is the second one; a "null-hypothesis" approach would consist of trying to disprove that hypothesis.

Thank you Tim88, but I do not agree with your assessment as set out in the second paragraph above. Please read the OP again...and/or browse through the thread...and you will notice that the discussion here has focussed almost entirely on the first "hypothesis". The OP is welcome to clarify.

 

PS. The Jesus Myth Theory was the alternative option, which is the one that corresponds with your second "hypothesis". But the OP clearly asked about the actual historicity (i.e. whether he existed or not) of the man popularly known as Jesus (of the Bible, i.e. the one who was later elevated by virtue of early Christianity to the son of God who died for humanity's sins, etc.). Most historians, Biblical scholars and authors on the topic of a historical Jesus hold an opinion similar to the one that I articulated in the post that was met with a few thumb down votes.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

Thank you Tim88, but I do not agree with your assessment as set out in the second paragraph that I quoted. Please read the OP again...and/or browse through the thread...and you will notice that the discussion here has focussed almost entirely on the first "hypothesis". The OP is welcome to clarify.

 

OK, both hypotheses (a historical Jesus and a non-historical Jesus) are mentioned for discussion in the OP - thanks for the correction. I should have written "highlighted" instead of "chose". Although the OP puts the second hypothesis in the lime light ("Here is what I find to be a compelling explanation for why a historical Jesus most likely did not exist"), both hypotheses were to be discussed - as was done. That doesn't change my assessment of the likely causes of the negative votes on that post: they may have deemed it one-sided or unfair, and it's not hard to find why. But maybe one of them will clarify later.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

This in order to explain why I consider it to be the status quo and why I felt justified to put (null hypothesis) in brackets next to it:

 

Most historians, Biblical scholars and authors on the topic of a historical Jesus hold an opinion similar to the one that I articulated in the post that was met with a few thumb down votes.

 

For substantiation please read my post# 676 of this thread together with the parts that I quoted and commented on in said post. In another exchange (somewhere shortly before, or after that...I would have to search for it) an important principle of the so-called "myth theories" was debunked (something that you might have also touched on when you wrote "and that of a god who like most other gods of that time had a human aspect").

[Memammal]

In another exchange (somewhere shortly before, or after that...I would have to search for it) an important principle of the so-called "myth theories" was debunked.

For what it is worth, I was referring to the discussion on page 35 and in particular post # 693.

[Itoero]

Literally translated in Dutch, Jezus means 'Yoursister'...so Jezus was definitely a woman.

[Memammal]

^ Who is Jezus?

[DrKrettin]

...so Jezus was definitely a woman.

 

... but only in Holland. That's a miracle in itself.

[Sydney]

I'm not sure the evidence available allows for the conclusion that Jesus never existed. Then again, the gospels are fictions and Jesus is a character in them, so he would in fact be a fictional character. But this only makes him a fictional character to the extent that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter makes old Honest Abe a fictional character.

The gospels are not fiction. Those people thout the God himself wrote them! (Pun intended) They carefully copied them word for word and sent them to the different churches. All of the Gospel accounts we have are the same. So they didn't evolve overtime. Roman records showed his disciples all (except for John) died horrific deaths for claims about Jesus. I don't know anout you, but I wouldn't be crucified upsidown for something I didn't believe. And they didn't do it for fame either. They were less than famos back then, they were regarded as lunatics.

[Ten oz]

The gospels are not fiction. Those people thout the God himself wrote them! (Pun intended) They carefully copied them word for word and sent them to the different churches. All of the Gospel accounts we have are the same. So they didn't evolve overtime. Roman records showed his disciples all (except for John) died horrific deaths for claims about Jesus. I don't know anout you, but I wouldn't be crucified upsidown for something I didn't believe. And they didn't do it for fame either. They were less than famos back then, they were regarded as lunatics.

Who wrote The Gospel of Luke?

[Eise]

They carefully copied them word for word and sent them to the different churches. All of the Gospel accounts we have are the same.

 

This is plainly false. You obviously never read the gospels. Get informed.

 

Then you can go on, e.g. reading a few books of Bart Ehrman

 

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.

 

In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.

 

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and the broader phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world

 

[Itoero]

He was a real boy!