Did the man "Jesus" exist?

[ant]

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.

This passage quoted by ant is the most significant comment I've seen related to this discussion. Those of us who don't have this experience of immersion need to be very careful about what we claim. I would not be able to judge whether Earl Doherty may be an amateur who is out of his depth. That's what Robert and ant are debating.

Doherty, with all due respect to his impressive writing ability, must be considered an armature as it directly relates to the highly complex field of the study of ancient history. Appropriate credentials carry meaning to them. I'm not saying everyone that has credentials is competent. What I'm saying is that they do have relevance attached to them.

I agree with what I quoted earlier; a highly skilled writer can make you believe something that is not a fact.

[lady of shallot]

This thread of course is about the historical Jesus and I don't believe there was one. However it doesn't matter really to an atheist like me whether there was or not. In the same way it does not matter to millions of Christians that there is even a question of the historicity of Jesus. Their belief is solely from what they hear in their churches and what they know of the Bible. They are deaf and blind to anything that would cast any doubt on their own particular brand and sect of Christianity.

They are very far from knowing who Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny are. But none of this really matters because their belief in any kind of a Jesus is just a convention and you might say a convenience. They go along to get along. They like the ritual, the sociability, the acceptance, the feeling of one up manship (my version is so superior to your version!)

The same is true of those who no longer attend any kind of church service. They don't question the historicity of Jesus because they spend very little time thinking of Jesus or God or any belief at all.

There are very few Ant's out there.

It was of some interest to me that both my mother and my mother-in-law; life long devoted Christians, made no mention at all of their faith, a life hereafter, Jesus, God or anything to do with religion as they lay dying. My mother knew she was dying to the extent that she told the nurses to call her daughters and yet she was totally silent about anything else.

[ant]

They go along to get along. They like the ritual, the sociability, the acceptance, the feeling of one up manship (my version is so superior to your version!)

I tend to agree with most of the above. Not all of it, but most of it.

The same is true of those who no longer attend any kind of church service. They don't question the historicity of Jesus because they spend very little time thinking of Jesus or God or any belief at all.

I have never attended church.
I have deeply considered the historicity of Jesus, in my simple and limited way.
I often think about the existence or non existence of a universal intelligence.
I believe there is an agent of first cause behind creation.

There are very few Ant's out there

.

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but, okay.

It was of some interest to me that both my mother and my mother-in-law; life long devoted Christians, made no mention at all of their faith, a life hereafter, Jesus, God or anything to do with religion as they lay dying. My mother knew she was dying to the extent that she told the nurses to call her daughters and yet she was totally silent about anything else

Thank you for sharing that, LoS. That was personal and deep.

[youkrst]

did the man jesus exist?

hehehehehe

well the literalist might quote

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

but a mythicist might quote

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

and

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

an evemerist might not quote anything

and i might quote

Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

hehehehe

to my mind

literalists are reading metaphor as literal history and should stop it before they go blind (doh! too late)
evemerists are missing the point (you cant have your cake and eat it)
and mythicists are well on the way to untangling the tangled mess once woven (it is obvious mythical symbolism conforming to ALL the ancient patterns and symbols)

[ant]

Frankly that idea is like saying Darwin was out of his depth in Genesis studies or Galileo was out of his depth in Ptolemaic astrology. These apologists are slandering a great scholar in order to conceal from the public the simple facts he explains in his books and on his Jesus Puzzle website.

I just noticed the above comment.

That is quite a comparison!
You feel comfortable comparing Doherty to Charles Darwin and Galileo??

I don't know what to say.

[Interbane]

The remaining portion of the above quote is entirely speculative. It is "what if" reasoning in its purest form, Robert. It makes for a fascinating story line but is not conducive to the examination of hard evidence to determine if Christ existed or not.

Ant, that is evidence. The hypothesis is that men were telling a story. Much as a lot of modern fiction is a spin off, a recombination of other previous stories. You see this often in TV as well. If there is enough of a similarity, it's a likely conclusion that men borrowed the ideas. The question is, how much is "enough of a similarity"? Must it be perfectly identical? That wouldn't survive, if you understand "survive" in the sense of differential selection leading to popular belief systems becoming dominant.

Look again at the quote. There are a large number of similarities not only with symbolism from astrology/astronomy, but from prior myth as well. In fact, the similarities are abundant enough to fill entire books. To me, that is enough of a similarity. The mistaken assessment that it's cherry picking overlooks the fact that it's an analysis of cherry picking; more specifically, the cherry picking that the authors of the bible were guilty of. It may bristle your neck hairs, but it's a sound hypothesis supported by countless examples of similar cherry-picking all throughout the domain of human fiction.

If you're asking for hard evidence that would lead to certainty, I would throw that back at you. Show us the hard evidence that would make you certain Christ existed. "Certainty" is a powerful word, which you're well aware of as a critical thinker. "In these matters the only certainty is that there is nothing certain." Pliny The Elder. If you already believe much of the bible is similar fiction, what makes you so resistant to the idea that other parts are?

Just a note that everything in this post is regarding only one half of the Jesus question; the half that proposes an alternative explanation for the character of Jesus. The other half is dismantling the incumbent explanation. I'm still not familiar enough with the problems in the writings of Josephus to say much about that half. But what I do know is that a similar hypothesis applies also. That men write things that aren't true for any number of reasons. Perhaps it was a later author writing what he understood to be a truth - that Jesus was the brother of Joseph. In his mind, he was clarifying rather than telling a lie, which can easily be justified in spite of rules against alterations.

[ant]

Ant, that is evidence

No, it is creative speculation.

Remember, we are attempting to establish the existence of the historical Jesus based strictly on accounts extracted from sources that either directly or indirectly (off the cuff) document his person.

If you are taking pieces of information from entirely different sources that do not directly or indirectly mention Jesus, you are conflating unrelated and related sources to construct a hypothesis that goes beyond the direct evidence previously discussed (canonical, non canonical gospels, pagan, etc) . That is bridge building, par excellence. It distorts the meaning of the H J and his context. It's analogous to mixing your puzzle pieces with my puzzle pieces and trying to get one picture out of both. It is an approach that adds further complexity and obfuscation to the H J. It also is in direct conflict with the principle of Occams Razor.

Look again at the quote. There are a large number of similarities not only with symbolism from astrology/astronomy, but from prior myth as well. In fact, the similarities are abundant enough to fill entire books. To me, that is enough of a similarity

These rich additives of astronomy and astrology to the examination of the existence of the H J speaks to the essence of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern

This fallacy is often found in modern-day interpretations of the quatrains of Nostradamus. Nostradamus' quatrains are often liberally translated from the original (archaic) French, stripped of their historical context, and then applied to support the conclusion that Nostradamus predicted a given modern-day event, after the event actually occurred. For instance, the Nostradamus lines that supposedly predicted 9/11 were taken from three separate and unrelated passages and a fictional line was added

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

These claims of astrological similarities are liberal interpretation attempts to build preferred conclusions and brand them as facts.
Claims of clandestine plots, suppression of evidence, and other sensational theories require extraordinary evidence.
I am astounded that critical minds continue to refuse to recognize this. They certainly do when it comes to the pseudo science that is Creationism.

The elements of Pseudo Science have lead me to wonder what the elements of Pseudo History are:

Atheist Michael Shermer says Pseudohistory is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes"

Atheist/Philosopher Robert Todd Carroll setsforth the criteria for a topic to warrant the term PseudoHistory. They are as follows:

That the work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism.
That the work has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda.
That a work is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed.
That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is:
selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away; or
speculative; or
controversial; or
not correctly or adequately sourced; or
interpreted in an unjustifiable way; or
given undue weight; or
taken out of context; or
distorted, either innocently, accidentally, or fraudulently.
That competing (and simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, have not been addressed.
That the work relies on one or more conspiracy theories or hidden-hand explanations, when the principle of Occam's razor would recommend a simpler, more prosaic and more plausible explanation of the same fact pattern.

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

You need to do some research here. Almost all of the above elements can be attributed to the product that Mythicists are currently promoting as being equal to or superior to modern historical scholarship. It simply does not have wings to fly - yet.

Notice again how Ocams Razor comes into play here. I believe it is apropos to this entire issue.

If you're asking for hard evidence that would lead to certainty, I would throw that back at you. Show us the hard evidence that would make you certain Christ existed. "Certainty" is a powerful word, which you're well aware of as a critical thinker.

Perhaps I was a bit too bold when I used the word "hard" to describe the available evidence. Fine, I will grant you that.
Please point out where I said Christs' existence has been established as certain. I believe I stated that the general consensus among historical scholars is that Christ more than likely was a true historical figure. I do not believe the existence of Christ is absolutely certain. I believe it is highly probable. I do not subscribe to any "When the moon is in the seventh house And Jupiter aligns with Mars" theories - as of yet.

Just a note that everything in this post is regarding only one half of the Jesus question; the half that proposes an alternative explanation for the character of Jesus. The other half is dismantling the incumbent explanation.

Fair enough, I guess.

[youkrst]

then there is "picnic jesus" so called because he was dead handy at picnics threatened by inclement weather

Mat 8:23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
Mat 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
Mat 8:25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
Mat 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
Mat 8:27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

then there is "making bacon jesus" who tells the demons that he chats with to "Go!" into pigs (you can take the messiah out of jewry but you cant take the jew out of the messiah)

Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Mat 8:30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
Mat 8:31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
Mat 8:32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
Mat 8:33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
Mat 8:34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

just a couple of "jesus" stories i was reading and not taking literally as i pondered the question "did the man jesus exist"

[Interbane]

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

These claims of astrological similarities are liberal interpretation attempts to build preferred conclusions and brand them as facts.
Claims of clandestine plots, suppression of evidence, and other sensational theories require extraordinary evidence.

You missed the point where the hypothesis is that elements were cherry picked. If anyone was committing the TSF, it would be the authors of the bible. The MP investigates that cherry picking. There is a difference. If you search through the forums, we've discussed the TSF in depth in another thread. I forget the name of it, sorry.

No, it is creative speculation.

Any hypothesis starts by being creative speculation, that is what a hypothesis is. You are correct. The points in the quote you posted are bits of evidence for that hypothesis. What started as nothing but creative speculation(most scientific theories are the same, at the core), has a large amount of evidence supporting it.

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

You need to do some research here. Almost all of the above elements can be attributed to the product that Mythicists are currently promoting as being equal to or superior to modern historical scholarship. It simply does not have wings to fly - yet.

Look through the list again. "That the work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism." That applies to those who think Jesus was a real person. Find me a room full of people where at least one person doesn't "uncritically accept the myth without skepticism".
"That the work has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda" - if we're speaking of motive, there are few other agendas more powerfully religious or ideological than to say Jesus existed, especially when there isn't sufficient evidence.
"That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is: selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away;" - Why would scholars ignore all the similarities between Jesus and previous myth? There are a large number.

Your list applies to the MP, but it applies even more to the claim that Jesus existed.

Remember, we are attempting to establish the existence of the historical Jesus based strictly on accounts extracted from sources that either directly or indirectly (off the cuff) document his person.

We are?

[lady of shallot]

Ant said:

"I believe I stated that the general consensus among historical scholars is that Christ more than likely was a true historical figure. "

(sorry I do not know how to "quote" using those boxes that the rest of you do!)

So Ant what would be necessary for you to change your view on the historical Jesus would be for the general consensus among historical scholars to revise their belief in a true historical Jesus?

What I meant by saying "there are very few Ants out there" is simply that very few Christians could or would argue the question of a historical Jesus as fervently and intensely as you have.