Why do people believe that Jesus was a real person?

[Frank 013]

Quote:NiallFrank, as you have pointed out, a lot of people you've quoted actually believe that Jesus existed.True, but their quotes suggest that when it really comes down to it, even they have to admit they have no good reason to.Quote:NiallI mean seriously, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John might not have written their gospels? Stop the presses!I guess you don't realize that the historic Jesus theory is largely based off of information from those writings, which are being more and more heavily scrutinized. Thus putting the historic Jesus theory on weaker and weaker footing.Historians are beginning to think that the scripture has been given way to much credit concerning its historic content. The above quotes show this without question. Quote:Niall As for the older works you've cited, like I said, the debate was settled over 100 years ago really, around the time the people you're quoting proposed their theories.Maybe it is settled in your mind, but the questions raised then and the ones being raised now are not being answered satisfactorily by the historical Jesus theory. Do you know what the current reasoning for the absence of detail concerning Jesus' life in the earliest works is? Lack of interest by the writers.This is the best theory that the historical Jesus camp could come up with. It is not only ridiculously unbelievable but shows just how weak their theory is.The historic Jesus camp cannot answer many questions satisfactorily, among them are... Why are there so many differing beliefs about the nature of Jesus (spiritual/human/half and half) among the earliest believers? Why did the ancient church not use some historical evidence to prove Jesus was historic and not completely spiritual as so many people believed? Why were they forced to use doctrine and political pressure to get their view established? How did a marginal Jew go from unknown teacher to god in a mere generation? Why do the events in the Jesus character's life exactly duplicate the other allegories of earlier Jewish writings, with the only differences being the name of the character and the method of death?Why does the Jesus character get less detailed as we get closer to the source of the original writings?Not only does a mythical Jesus character answer all these questions but it also explains why he is so conspicuously missing from history. But most people want/need to believe; so they do not read the counter material (as you haven't) which answers every question and answers them better than what the historic theories suggest. Quote:Niall I really don't care what somebody from Minnesota Atheists thinks about anything, That's too bad because when the topic of religious fraud comes up it is the atheists that will offer the truth, not the badly embarrassed church. You apparently don't care that you have likely been fooled all your life, but that's ok, it's normal for the faithful to hide their head in the sand. Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"Edited by: Frank 013 at: 7/31/07 11:23 am

[Frank 013]

I found myself with a few moments this weekend so I thought I would address a few of the most obvious misconceptions of Mad's argument here.Quote:MadAs for knowing who Josephus' specific audience was, all you have to do is read the second section of "The Antiquities of the Jews". He spells it out right there: he's writing specifically to the Greek reading public, which was the Roman reading public since Greek was the literary language of choice, Yes it was, but not of the Romans, it was in fact the literary choice of most Jews of that time. The Romans used Latin first and foremost. This is also shown to be true because all of the oldest surviving gospels are written in Greek but were likely written by Jews that had converted to Christianity.Quote:MadFine; but by your own standards, that leaves us no reason to suppose that the original was meant as allegory. There's no particular evidence from which to conclude either way. So that part of the theory is left without any firm basis in fact.You seem to forget (or ignore) that there are still segments of those texts that reflect the allegory format. Quote:MeThat is exactly correct and actually falls right in line with what we would expect to see if the Jesus character was not initially viewed as a real person.MadIt could, but we would expect the same result if early Christianity were secretive for some reason, like say, if they were being persecuted by some imperial government. We might equally expect it if early Christianity had some characteristic features that tended to focus its efforts on community, oral tradition or spirituality rather than monuments, or if the early traditions sought some form of contrast to the monumental religion of the status quo. All of which is true. The cult of place, in fact, tends to be equated with imperial powers and state-recognized religions, not with sects or cults within such contexts, and there are a hundred reasons why early Christianity would not have developed a cult of place, and why medieval Christianity would have. Either way, the fact that the Christianity of the Dark Ages or later Imperial period had no such cult of place would seem to indicate that it developed specifically within medieval Christendom, and has nothing to do with your theory of a late fabrication of the Jesus story -- unless you're willing to assert that Jesus wasn't fabricated until around 800 CE. Dude, you really need to pay closer attention to the details.First of all a "cult of place" would have been important to the early Christians because they were really Jewish and their old religion had a "cult of place" so maintaining those shrines and temples would have been important to the earliest believers. Second, Christianity did not immediately draw negative attention from the Roman government, so there should have been some form of place established prior to the Imperial persecution. There is not even a record of such places existing. Quote:MadWhat are these "earliest texts" you keep talking about? I get the feeling that you're talking about something that I'm not aware of or that we don't have a clear consensus about. If you're talking about Paul, the fact that those details don't appear is probably because Paul doesn't even attempt to provide a narrative about Jesus. It's a bit like saying, "The dialogues of Plato make no mention of Leonidas' Spartan reform, so we're justified in thinking that there was no such person as Leonidas." If Plato's dialogues make no effort at talking about Spartan social reform, then why would the non-appearance of Leonidas in the dialogues make any difference? Yes I am referring to the Pauline documents as the oldest surviving texts, and your comparisons are faulty because we have corroborating historical evidence to support those stories.Quote:MadIf Paul's letters had ever said, "Okay, let's review the facts we know about the life of Jesus," and had then omitted the crucifixion or the Sanhedrin, then we might have good reason to suppose that they were later additions. But none of the surviving Pauline letters ever attempt to spell out the life of Jesus, though it's quite clear that they speak of him as someone who actually existed. Do they? In most instances the Pauline texts make more sense if we begin with a mythical figure as their basis; and in point of fact Paul never claims to have met an earthy Jesus, but saw him as a vision like many of the original apostles. I quote rationalrevolution.net:Quote:According to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the GentilesWhy would Paul refer to ancient writings if Jesus had just spoken of such things to thousands of people? Quote:1 Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.Here Paul is calling Jesus Christ, "and him crucified," a mystery of God.Ephesians 3:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles

[MadArchitect]

Frank: Yes it was, but not of the Romans, it was in fact the literary choice of most Jews of that time. The Romans used Latin first and foremost.I think you're mistaken on that point. The Jews may very well have used it also, but the Romans certainly revered Greek and the upper echelon's of literary society, and particularly the Imperial elite, make a practice of both reading and writing in Greek. Of course, if you have some citation that clarifies this point, I'd be glad to take a look, provided it's reputable.You seem to forget (or ignore) that there are still segments of those texts that reflect the allegory format.I haven't seen any particular segment that was convincingly and exclusively allegorical in format. Even if isolate passages could be shown to have a strongly allegorical character to them, that does nothing to demonstrate that the intent of the entire gospel was allegorical, nor that those particular passages weren't co-opting allegorical usage for some other purpose, a fairly common practice in the literatures of just about every era.First of all a "cult of place" would have been important to the early Christians because they were really Jewish and their old religion had a "cult of place" so maintaining those shrines and temples would have been important to the earliest believers.A) Not all early Christian were Jewish; a great many of them were Gentile converts, and the more that Christianity grew, the more Gentile it became. B) The Hebrew "cult of place" of the time was focussed on a place that had been destroyed. Israelite religion had a very definite cult of place, localized in the temple, but the Judaism of Imperial Rome had transmuted the "cult of place" into a "cult of history", which is far more in keeping with the character of early Christianity, focussing as it did on Christ as a turning point in history. C) Any consideration of the presumed existence of a "cult of place" is pitifully lacking until confirmed by some archaeological evidence that would suggest that such a cult existence. So far as I know, there is no such evidence until the Middle Ages, when a very legitimate cult of place began to form around "the Holy Land". But rather than turning up any evidence of a cult of place, what archaeology has shown us about early Christianity is that it tended to form into communes of sorts, entirely utilitarian micro-societies with almost no ideological or ritual tie to any particular location. Even the "churches" of early Christianity were simply associations of people, closer to the Greek thymos, than actual structures of places. If you can point me to some evidence that there actually was a cult of place, I'll reconsider my position, but until then -- and the extant evidence militates against that conclusion -- it looks as though your enthusiasm for the idea of an early Christian cult of place is rooted in your desire to demonstrate that we ought to expect early Christians to have preserved and venerated the tomb of Christ because it supports your larger argument. That's clearly begging the question.Second, Christianity did not immediately draw negative attention from the Roman government, so there should have been some form of place established prior to the Imperial persecution. There is not even a record of such places existing."Cult of place" is not an invarible characteristic of religion. Even if the Romans had never persecuted the Christians, there's no particular reason to suppose that pre-medieval Christianity would have developed a veneration of particular sites.... and your comparisons are faulty because we have corroborating historical evidence to support those stories.Do we? What is the corroborating evidence for Spartan social reform under Leonidas?me: If Paul's letters had ever said, "Okay, let's review the facts we know about the life of Jesus," and had then omitted the crucifixion or the Sanhedrin, then we might have good reason to suppose that they were later additions. But none of the surviving Pauline letters ever attempt to spell out the life of Jesus, though it's quite clear that they speak of him as someone who actually existed.Frank: Do they? In most instances the Pauline texts make more sense if we begin with a mythical figure as their basis; and in point of fact Paul never claims to have met an earthy Jesus, but saw him as a vision like many of the original apostWhat precisely do you mean by "mythical figure". The Greeks thought regarded Hercules as a figure of myth, but that doesn't mean they didn't also believe him to have had a historical existence.At any rate, Paul definitely makes reference to the crucifixion and burial of Christ, and he gives no indication that he means this any way but literally. The incarnation of God as Christ is already expressed in Pauline literature, making explicit the historical (rather than purely ontological or ahistorical) conception of Jesus; to that we may add the temptation of Christ in the flesh. In fact, the whole importance of Christ for Paul seems to be that Christ was the divine incarnated as a human, and thus subject to all of the temptations and suffering of humanity -- an importance that seems to presuppose the historicality of the person. He also situates Jesus as the contemporary equivalent of the prophets, and that association does little to support the really curious notion that Paul could have spent so much time talking about a person he did not suppose to have actually existed.Why would Paul refer to ancient writings if Jesus had just spoken of such things to thousands of people?Which writing, specifically, was Paul referring to? Throughout the Pauline letters, Paul makes reference to Jesus as the culmination of prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures, so it would, by no means, be out of keeping for him to refer to ancient writings. That cross-reference is, in fact, at the basis of Paul's eschatological interpretation of Christ's life.There is uncertainly as to whether or not Ephesians is an authentic letter from Paul, but regardless, how could a statement such as this be made if Jesus Christ had just been here on earth? This states that Christ is a mystery, and that the mystery of Christ has, "been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." It would not be said that Jesus was revealed to his apostles by the Spirit if he had just recently been on earth as a walking, talking, human being.Historians regard Christianity as having gone through a crisis period early on, and Paul's epistles show evidence of an attempt to reconcile faith in the message of the new religion with the apparant failure of Christ's mission on earth. Part of the way in which Paul resolves that apparant disparity is by interpreting Jesus' life as an episode in a larger eschatological vision of history. Most of the references to the mystery of Christ are easily comprehended as pointing to a secret meaning behind the historical level -- ie. Christ's humiliation and death have a positive meaning that is only comprehended by viewing them in the broader perview of eschatology. The revelation to the apostles is not conceived by Paul as the revelation of the fact of Christ's existence, but rather the revelation of why the crucifixion had to take place and what it means on a historical, spiritual and cosmological scale. In fact, the most basic function of the Holy Spirit within Christianity seems to have been, from the beginning, that of providing a foundation for this particular interpretation of Christ's death.If Jesus Christ had just been on earth some 15 to 25 years prior to the writing of this letter by Paul (presumably to present his message), then why is it that the first person to write about the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is someone who never witnessed his existence and who neither received his message from him while he was on earth, nor received it from of any of his supposed followers?Probably because Paul had a specifically evangelical and administrative approach to his newfound religion, whereas most Christians of the era tended to congregate in small, isolate, and -- in most instances -- secret communities, to whom oral communication would have been a more natural form. Paul's modus operandi, however, required distant communication in order to maintain some influence over the numerous churches organized around his instruction, and that meant written letters. Which is to say, the fact that Paul's letters are the earliest extant contributions to the specifically Christian canon may very well be little more than an accident of historical circumstance.Walter Burkert, for example, has commented on the lack -- noted by Cumont -- of any contemporary texts explaining the theology of most Greco-Roman mystery cults, suggesting that the reason we don't see any such texts is that there never were any. The practicioners of the mystery cults had no need for such works, so they didn't produce them. Paul produced a certain kind of text about Christianity because he saw a certain kind of need. That previous texts aren't available doesn't mean that there weren't Christians to write them; only that no one saw need of a text.Furthermore, if Jesus had just been here then why would Paul be so adamant about saying that he received his gospel from revelation? If Jesus were just here then the gospel from the mouth of Jesus should have been seen as the most legitimate and authoritative, yet Paul presents his message as more authoritative because it hasn't come from anyone else.Mostly because Paul's message wasn't part of the contemporarily accepted gospel of Christ. The fact that Paul was at pains to substantiate his interpretation of Christianity by citing the authority of post-mortem divine revelation would actually seem to suggest that there was a pre-existing gospel attributed to Jesus, and that it had taken on sufficient authority that Paul would be wary of making any direct endemnations. In fact, practitioners of Dionysaic religion had interpolated and attributed writings to Orpheus for hundreds of years already, and without serious criticism; but then, no authoritative version of the sayings of Orpheus had ever found wide usage, so there was little basis for discrediting forgeries of that sort. The question isn't "If Jesus had actually lived 15 years earlier, why cite divine revelation?" but rather "Why cite divine revelation when it would be just as easy to put the words directly into Jesus' mouth, regardless of whether or not he had actually existed?" The easiest, most rational answer is that Paul was writing in a time when an authoritative sayings of Jesus already had a circulation sufficiently broad that the disparate churches of Christianity could question any attempt to attribute further sayings to the character of Jesus.Of course, the whole idea that Jesus had come to earth and spread his message is not presented until the Gospels are written, some 10 to 60 years after the evangelism of Paul.You're confusing extant texts with first presentation. The extant gospels aren't likely the first presentation of the incarnation story; they may not even be the first time that story found print. Textual criticism has lead to the conclusion that the gospels were probably all based on earlier forms of gospel story that were circulating, either orally or in written form. And, at any rate, Paul had already spoken in unambiguous terms of Jesus as the earthly incarnation of God.I also think that it is noteworthy to (again) mention that the details of Jesus' life and death are not mentioned in any early writings and seem to have been manufactured later by who knows who, where did these writers get the details?Re-read Corinthians. Or, for that matter, just about any of Paul's epistles. He makes constant reference to the death of Jesus. There are also scattered references to crucifixion and humiliation. By your criterion, these are part of the earliest written testimony about the supposedly historical figure of Christ.If a Jesus person did exist then he was the unluckiest historical character to have ever walked the earth, because at every turn all records of his existence were completely erased.How that would make him the unluckiest is beyond me. Probably less than 1/10th of a percent of all the people who have ever lived have left behind archaeological evidence that can be specifically connected to them. A great many more historical figures than you seem to recognize are incredibly difficult to substantiate in any evidence but second hand records. We don't routinely call their existence into question, but mostly because we don't have a polemical reason to do so in most cases.

[Frank 013]

This will be my last post in this thread, I have less and less time on the weekends as I get closer to graduation and I still have three weeks left.My conclusion on the Jesus was real theory is this: It is simply another belief with no factual basis. Even Jesus as the poor, unpopular, Jewish teacher as the basis of the religion holds little weight with me. Not because it is impossible but because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a person ever existed, and the religion did not need that person to attain the status that it did. The only reason that that theory seems to be accepted at all is because people want to believe that there was a Jesus and that is the only theory that has not been completely disproved yet. But that's ok, at least historical records show that the written story of Jesus and his disciples as portrayed in the bible is complete and utter hogwash; whatever a person wants to believe aside from that is cool with me.And Mad, about your rant that began shortly after I left for the academy... Not only did I predict the type of attack you would use, I also predicted the time which you would do it. I posted my prediction in the private areas of the site before I left, so many people do know that I am telling the truth.It's too bad that you would resort to attacking a defenseless opponent, but that's really fine, it does tell me and others something about your character. Anyway since my time is short I will give you the final word here, don't bother asking any questions I will not be answering them.Later Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a wellpreserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

[MadArchitect]

Frank: But that's ok, at least historical records show that the written story of Jesus and his disciples as portrayed in the bible is complete and utter hogwashIt's seemed completely clear to me that you didn't want anything it to turn out any other way. I don't think it's any secret around here that you're opposed to Christian belief, and I doubt anyone is surprised that you've concluded that it's invalid.And Mad, about your rant that began shortly after I left for the academy... Not only did I predict the type of attack you would use, I also predicted the time which you would do it.My rant? Oooo-kay. I don't really have time at the moment to scan back through this thread, but I don't recall having varied my approach all that much. The fact of the matter is, I'm not the only person who's called you on your use of sources, or on the way you've situated your arguments. I've responded to the points you've made -- that doesn't seem at all out of line, given that this is a discussion forum. I suppose it should be somewhat flattering, though, that you're using the private areas of the site to talk about how I've responded. I would have preferred to have kept everything above board, but ah well, I can only take responsibility for one side of the discussion.It's too bad that you would resort to attacking a defenseless opponent, but that's really fine, it does tell me and others something about your character.Defenseless in what sense? My impression was that you'd always be returning to the site. If that wasn't the case, then I assure you that my intention wasn't to get the last word in on a person who literally could not respond. You know nothing about my character, and given the role that bias confirmation has played in your part of this discussion, I wouldn't trust you to derive any solid conclusions from what you do know about me.Congratulations on your graduation, though. I hope your time at academy has been enjoyable.

[Niall001]

http://winnie-the-pooh.ru/online/lib/stud.html

Something you guys might appreciate.

[Dissident Heart]

One reason that people believe Jesus was a real person involves the notion of incarnation: the enfleshment of God...the Creator of heaven and earth becomes a flesh and blood body with a particular history in a particular part of the world within a particular social structure...a human being in the midst of familial ties, political turbulence, ethnic strife, religious conflict, and imperial occupation...intimately linked to friends and loved ones and subject to all the joys and tragedies that follow from relationships among men, women, and children.

Incarnation means that God is not simply a belief or notion or concept, no matter how foundational or fundamental or ultimate...God embodied says something about the importance of bodies: the value of flesh and blood and the everyday life of everyday people...real and actual people with a history.

God's incarnation in Jesus tells us about the value of certain kinds of people: the outcast, occupied, oppressed...the sick, lame, otherwise unacceptable and rejected...God enfleshed in Jesus is what it means to love the unlovable and hope for the hopeless: and not simply theoretically or intellectually, but really and actually with real people immersed in actual histories.