Was Jesus a real person?

[Robittybob1]

 

Jesus selfie on instagram or it didn't happen...

...

What the Shroud of Turin not good enough for you?

 

All from one source.

 

(See what I mean about herding cats?)

No plenty of other non NT tales as well.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

What the Shroud of Turin not good enough for you?

 

Of course not. It was created (by someone) several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

 

 

No plenty of other non NT tales as well.

 

Good grief. Name one other contemporary source.

[Skeptic134]

What the Shroud of Turin not good enough for you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

More "evidence" that is so questionable even the vatican won't make any claims on authenticity.

 

Of course not. It was created (by someone) several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

 

 

Potentially a thousand years later...

[Phi for All]

Annnd... whose fault is that? How many logical fallacies have been pointed out here and to what end? Where's the integrity in promoting such 'discussion', let alone letting it run on like this?

 

It must be my fault.

 

What the Shroud of Turin not good enough for you?

No plenty of other non NT tales as well.

 

I'm going to assume that the shroud was mentioned as evidence earlier, so no, it's not good enough to keep bringing up arguments that have been refuted.

 

As for the "other non NT tales", you haven't provided any. You seem to use Jesus' humble origins and his popularity as it pleases you, depending on what you're arguing for. I must conclude that, for you, no amount of supportive evidence will ever be good enough to qualify as a good argument against Jesus being a real person.

 

Most of the members have shown extreme amounts of patience with your discussion style. In the end, if we're weighing the preponderance of evidence of both arguments, it's clear that the scales tip undeniably in favor of Jesus being just a story. Giving us the finger on your side of the scale really doesn't balance, it just makes this discussion pointless.

[Robittybob1]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

More "evidence" that is so questionable even the vatican won't make any claims on authenticity.

 

Potentially a thousand years later...

So you wouldn't accept a "Jesus selfie on instagram" either.

 

Of course not. It was created (by someone) several hundred years after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

 

 

Good grief. Name one other contemporary source.

Was is "contemporary" in the context of this discussion? When oral tales finally get written down, is that still contemporary?

 

It must be my fault.

 

 

I'm going to assume that the shroud was mentioned as evidence earlier, so no, it's not good enough to keep bringing up arguments that have been refuted.

 

As for the "other non NT tales", you haven't provided any. You seem to use Jesus' humble origins and his popularity as it pleases you, depending on what you're arguing for. I must conclude that, for you, no amount of supportive evidence will ever be good enough to qualify as a good argument against Jesus being a real person.

 

Most of the members have shown extreme amounts of patience with your discussion style. In the end, if we're weighing the preponderance of evidence of both arguments, it's clear that the scales tip undeniably in favor of Jesus being just a story. Giving us the finger on your side of the scale really doesn't balance, it just makes this discussion pointless.

I certainly don't feel as if I'm winning the argument, if that is what you mean. But there is humour as well as serious discussion so keep it lighthearted.

The Shroud is mentioned as a way of getting Skeptic a Jesus selfie.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

It must be my fault.

Then consider rectifying it.

 

As for the "other non NT tales", you haven't provided any. You seem to use Jesus' humble origins and his popularity as it pleases you, depending on what you're arguing for. I must conclude that, for you, no amount of supportive evidence will ever be good enough to qualify as a good argument against Jesus being a real person.

Exactly. And at the risk of censure, dare I say that is specifically forbidden in the rules for this section?

[Strange]

Was is "contemporary" in the context of this discussion?

 

Within or immediately after his lifetime.

 

How many more times are you willing to go round this same loop?

[Phi for All]

I certainly don't feel as if I'm winning the argument, if that is what you mean.

 

It's more like no argument will change your mind on this issue. It's one thing if we can't show support for our arguments, or make bad arguments that don't persuade anybody, and it's a whole different thing if the person you're discussing whether Jesus was a real person or not with would never listen to the best possible argument you could ever have.

 

An idea must be capable of being false in order to discuss it rationally. I don't think you're being rational, and a look at the last several pages of this thread tells me it's in a circular nosedive. Though it's been reported a few times now, I was hoping I could find out as a member (rather than staff) if the thread needed to be closed or not. I don't think anyone wants to continue if it's pointless, but I could be wrong.

[KenBrace]

As far as I am concerned Jesus Christ is no different than Homer, Nebuchadnezzar, or Genghis Khan. They were real figures that walked the earth. They were not, however, gods or the son of a god.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I am concerned ...

Reality may not be concerned with your opinion.

[Willie71]

 

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long-dead leader of those churches. The only known possible contemporaneous (c. 6 BCE through c. 36 CE) source regarding Jesus is Paul of Tarsus who expressly states that he got his information through revelation, not any human being.^[1]

The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".^[2] Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesus" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.^[3][4] Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, ^[5][6][7] these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions.

A small minority, past^[8] and present,^[9] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief. It should be noted that at least one anthropology paper states in both its abstract and main text "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived".^[10] In June 2014, Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2 became "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review".^[11]

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

This sums up the past 27 pages. There is little evidence of a historical jesus, especially a singular character. A conglomeration of several figures and application of Lord Raglan's hero is extremely probable.

[Robittybob1]

Then consider rectifying it.

 

Exactly. And at the risk of censure, dare I say that is specifically forbidden in the rules for this section?

What is forbidden?

[Phi for All]

What is forbidden?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=103

Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

 

Why else come to a science discussion forum, if not to discuss topics using rational thinking based on the best available evidence? Ignoring evidence indicates there is nothing rational about this discussion.

[Ten oz]

What is forbidden?

@ Robittybob1, I think it has been made clear that your current line of debate in both subject matter on tone has exhausted itself. I would prefer this thread not be locked. I honestly believe there are quality arguments that could be made that have not yet been made. I would like the thread to conitune for that reason. Not to perpetuate an ongoing argument with you.

Poster Eise made several good posts earlier in this thread supporting Jesus as a real person. I was not convinced but they were well written, on topic, and followed a basic standard used by many theologians. If you wish to continue this discussion I hope you will read back through what has already been debated and select an argument that has not yet been considered ad nauseam.

[Robittybob1]

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=103

 

Why else come to a science discussion forum, if not to discuss topics using rational thinking based on the best available evidence? Ignoring evidence indicates there is nothing rational about this discussion.

Wouldn't that apply to everyone. I find the people with the skeptical view highly unlikely to accept another view.

"Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates."

It must be applied both ways. No convincing arguments showing Jesus as not being a real person have been put forth in my opinion. I have been looking forward to the killer blow but it hasn't come.

[Phi for All]

Wouldn't that apply to everyone. I find the people with the skeptical view highly unlikely to accept another view.

"Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates."

It must be applied both ways. No convincing arguments showing Jesus as not being a real person have been put forth in my opinion. I have been looking forward to the killer blow but it hasn't come.

 

Except everyone else is backing up their arguments with more than hand-waving. Personally, while I'm not a religious follower and don't believe in divine beings, the question of whether Jesus was a real person or completely cobbled together from many histories seems to be one science could provide an explanation for. I can look at the objective evidence presented and decide based on that and skip the emotional appeal of the popularity of the religion.

 

You could persuade me that there really was a Jesus, but you can't do it without any evidence at all, because there's a lot of evidence that there wasn't.

[Robittybob1]

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

This sums up the past 27 pages. There is little evidence of a historical jesus, especially a singular character. A conglomeration of several figures and application of Lord Raglan's hero is extremely probable.

I read that as the majority view was that Jesus did exist.

 

The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".[2

There were other views as well but they were in the minority.

 

Except everyone else is backing up their arguments with more than hand-waving. Personally, while I'm not a religious follower and don't believe in divine beings, the question of whether Jesus was a real person or completely cobbled together from many histories seems to be one science could provide an explanation for. I can look at the objective evidence presented and decide based on that and skip the emotional appeal of the popularity of the religion.

 

You could persuade me that there really was a Jesus, but you can't do it without any evidence at all, because there's a lot of evidence that there wasn't.

"There's a lot of evidence that there wasn't" well that is surely wrong, for it is the lack of evidence which is the problem.

[Ten oz]

I started this thread thinking there was a 50/50 chance that Jesus may have been a real person. I vaguely assumed that because I am not an expert in antiquities or a theologian that there may be compelling evidence I wasn't aware of. Twenty Four pages in and I am starting to think it is more likely that Jesus was entirely made up.

 

It must be applied both ways. No convincing arguments showing Jesus as not being a real person have been put forth in my opinion. I have been looking forward to the killer blow but it hasn't come.

Read my previous post above. I am not claiming I can prove there wasn't a Jesus. If you have information that implies Jesus was more than likely real I would enjoy reviewing it. However you have exhausted your current line on thinking. It is not useful to proceed merely to be contradictory.

[Robittybob1]

Read my previous post above. I am not claiming I can prove there wasn't a Jesus. If you have information that implies Jesus was more than likely real I would enjoy reviewing it. However you have exhausted your current line on thinking. It is not useful to proceed merely to be contradictory.

Did I say I have exhausted my line of inquiry? So how did you conclude that I have "exhausted (my) current line on thinking"?

It is a two way discussion so please don't lecture me on being contradictory. I only brought to the discussion the items that had been asked for.

The last being the reports of the relatives of Jesus (the grandchildren of his brother).

[Willie71]

I read that as the majority view was that Jesus did exist.

 

There were other views as well but they were in the minority.

"There's a lot of evidence that there wasn't" well that is surely wrong, for it is the lack of evidence which is the problem.

That is the difference between academia, and faithful people. You have just shown a great example of confirmation bias. You picked out a piece of information that fit your worldview, and ignored the rest. Historically, people went with the status quo, and lived with the assumption that there was a live jesus at some point. As scholars have looked at this with greater scrutiny, the view is changing, as it should when a field improves its fund of knowledge, technique, or new evidence comes forth. I ordered the Richard Carrier book today, after reviewing that wiki article. After reading Dundes and Price, looking specifically at the jesus myth, with the strong, almost irrefutable evidence it is a myth, I look forward to this take on the subject.

 

I suspect many academics have avoided controversy, especially in America, because of the power of the religious right, or never really felt strongly enough to take a stand. With the popularity of the new atheists, the four horsemen, it is acceptible to come out and say what is really felt on the topic.

[Robittybob1]

That is the difference between academia, and faithful people. You have just shown a great example of confirmation bias. You picked out a piece of information that fit your worldview, and ignored the rest. Historically, people went with the status quo, and lived with the assumption that there was a live jesus at some point. As scholars have looked at this with greater scrutiny, the view is changing, as it should when a field improves its fund of knowledge, technique, or new evidence comes forth. I ordered the Richard Carrier book today, after reviewing that wiki article. After reading Dundes and Price, looking specifically at the jesus myth, with the strong, almost irrefutable evidence it is a myth, I look forward to this take on the subject.

 

I suspect many academics have avoided controversy, especially in America, because of the power of the religious right, or never really felt strongly enough to take a stand. With the popularity of the new atheists, the four horsemen, it is acceptible to come out and say what is really felt on the topic.

So do I take it you are ignoring the words in the quote you posted (page 27) and now side with Richard Carrier?

Reminder

 

"historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".

That sentence can only make sense if the historical Jesus existed. Where is the confirmation bias in that? It is plain English to me.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

There were other views as well but they were in the minority.

 

That sentence says there may have been someone that Jesus was based on, but that person had little in common with the Jesus of the Bible.

 

Perhaps that shifts the discussion to the meaning of "real person" (which will probably be equally futile).

Did I say I have exhausted my line of inquiry?

 

It is clear that you are happy to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam.

That sentence can only make sense if the historical Jesus existed. Where is the confirmation bias in that? It is plain English to me.

 

Confirmation bias is you picking that one sentence to support your beliefs and ignoring 28 pages of argument.

[Robittybob1]

 

That sentence says there may have been someone that Jesus was based on, but that person had little in common with the Jesus of the Bible.

 

Perhaps that shifts the discussion to the meaning of "real person" (which will probably be equally futile).

 

It is clear that you are happy to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam.

 

Confirmation bias is you picking that one sentence to support your beliefs and ignoring 28 pages of argument.

Thanks, I think you have come the closest to understanding my point that there was a real person named "Jesus" or some variant of that name and from that person the Christian Church grew. We have insufficient reliable documented evidence to say much else.

If it seems I am arguing the same stuff ad nauseam it is always in response to someone else's point.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Thanks, I think you have come the closest to understanding my point that there was a real person named "Jesus" or some variant of that name and from that person the Christian Church grew.

 

There is little evidence to support that view, though. (And around we go again! Wheee!)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Historically, people went with the status quo, and lived with the assumption that there was a live jesus at some point. As scholars have looked at this with greater scrutiny, the view is changing, as it should when a field improves its fund of knowledge, technique, or new evidence comes forth.

 

I have nothing more to offer than what others have said, but I'll quote Willie71 here because this is one of the most powerful aspects of scientific methodology. When you reach your conclusions based on the best available explanations and evidence, it's surprisingly easy to change your conclusions when knowledge improves or more evidence is uncovered. If you reach a conclusion rationally, you can reach a better one the same way.

 

I didn't want to close the thread Ten oz started because of anyone else, I don't think that's fair. But I also don't think it's fair to others to set up conditions where reasonable evidence is ignored in favor of emotional appeal. And now it's clear to me that's what's happened here. It doesn't seem very fruitful to continue this way.