Sorry, I know you do not like this example. Well, maybe you don’t. Spiderman comic books take place in New York City. There are police men, and cabs, and hot dog salesmen, and all kinds of real life details in the stories of spiderman. The mutual backstory of spiderman and the Fantastic Four take place in the same city and share many characteristics and characters. But spiderman is still a work of fiction.
I do understand the definition between evidence and proof. I’m not sure you do.
The reference to Jesus via Josephus is a second hand account of someone he heard of 2 villages over from the previous decade. Josephus may actually - have - heard a story about Jesus the brother of James. That is not evidence that Jesus preacher existed. That is evidence that Josephus heard a story about some preacher type dude named Jesus who had a brother named James.
Same things with Josephus. It seems odd to include a brief mention of some dude named Jesus who had a brother named James. If the story was completely fabricated, either by Josephus or more likely by some other party, if the story was completely fabricated, why make so and so the brother of so and so… just say, well, this dude from Bethlehem named Jesus did so and so on such and such a date…(as per the “brother”… you wouldn’t include it unless of course you were really really good at propaganda and lies…)
The point being what seems “logical” about the habit of some ancient historian is not the same as proof or evidence.
And again, I think it seems - reasonable- probable even, that a preacher type person named Jesus did exist. But you can’t say there is any proof, not even 1/2 of 1% that he existed.
But Matthew wanted to be able to say (Matthew 2:23) that he came from Nazareth to “fulfill the prophecy”. So he added that weird detail to his story. Of course he mixed up the “Nazareth” with “Nazarene” but he didn’t know that at the time. None of that would be there if the story was based on a real person.
Right. Show me weak evidence that the two main characters in HBO ROME were real life people, I’ll say ok. They are based upon the fact that only two people of the “lower ranks” were ever mentioned specifically by Cesar in his memoirs. (They were apparently outstanding soldiers). You want to tell me that based upon that, they actually existed. OK.
You want to tell me that one of them healed the sick and walked on water and that the fate of my eternal soul rests on their actual existence, I am going to need more than “weak” evidence before I accept that they actually lived/existed… much less that they were divine.
I am comfortable with the historical evidence for the existence of a person called Jesus or something like it who managed to annoy the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in and around Jerusalem. I am (obviously) comfortable with the historical evidence for a cult that sprang up around his worship later on. Beyond that, no.
Josephus was a Jew with no interest at all in Christian propaganda. So ascribing any such motive to him is silly.
This is silly. All gods are fictional yet many have “worldwide impact.” Muslims believe Muhammad wrote the Qu’ran as it was dictated to him by Gabriel. Islam certainly has “worldwide impact.” Does that mean Gabriel is not fictional?
Concerning Nazareth, on the hypothesis that Jesus began as a legend concerning a celestial figure, and only later had stories told about him as though he had been a human on Earth, the Nazareth thing is plausibly explained as the result of choosing the nearest-sounding place name to “Nazorian” or “Nazarene,” an original name for Christians which seems to have had its own basis in some scripture we don’t currently have access to (Matt 2:23).
I’m sorry, Robert163, I’m not trying to bag on you here. But these are bugging me just a little.
“As far as you know.” And yet, the Spider-Man might be Ben Reilly. He might be Otto Octavius, or he might be Gerry Drew. He might not be a hero. He might not live in New York. His parents might be alive, or they might not. His Aunt and Uncle might be alive, they might not. He might be a zombie. He might not have been bitten by a radioactive spider, or if he were, he might not have gained superpowers from it. There are a lot of versions of the Spider-Man you have not seen.
“Internal consistency” is a weird and very selective thing.
Also,
Not really. Just because it was back in the Dark Ages of the Twentieth Century doesn’t mean people were stupid. Fans of professional wrestling have always known it was about characters performing according to a script.
The collection of writings known as the New Testament exists. Some of these writings tell of Jesus himself. Others talk about the early Christian community/communities; and some or all of them were written to and for those communities.
I think these facts are far easier to explain if Jesus did exist than if he did not.
But the question here is not the one that corresponds to whether Spiderman is fiction or not - it’s whether or not there may have been an actual person that the writer was inspired to write the stories about. If Stan Lee (or whoever created Spiderman, I’m not a comic book fan) had mentioned that he created the character because he was inspired by some guy he knew when he was younger, who was very athletic, then that’s the kind of correspondence we’re discussing. Did Stan Lee’s friend actually exist? Maybe, we would have very little evidence to go on, but if Stan mentioned it, then it’s an easy claim to believe without requiring near-certainty.
Personally, yes. I believe there was a man who called himself Buddha and inspired a religion. There was a man named Confucius. Muhommed was a real person.
Of course, “based in reality” and “modern beliefs about them being historically accurate” are two entirely separate concepts. It’s hard to doubt that there was a thinker named Yeshua who told parables in the third and fourth decades AD. But, as someone said above, “all the things attributed to him”? Most of what is attributed to Jesus are miracles and resurrection. I don’t believe those happened.
So how do I answer the question in the OP? I think there was a person who inspired Paul to start a religion. He might have even been crucified. But the person Christians believe in did not exist. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that people have never been raised from the dead, and that water doesn’t turn into wine, etc.
Certainly superpowered Jesus didn’t exist. So why would it be important that mundane Jesus exist?
In antiquity, with ignorance and illiteracy being common, I have no trouble thinking that some huckster wandered in and made up a story about this guy named Jesus. Nothing was written about Jesus until decades after his death. There are no first-hand accounts.
And how do you think Josephus got the info to mention Jesus? Some guy told him about it. Well, 30 years after the death of Josepth Smith, do you think you could find someone who would tell you that Moroni the angel factually came down in the autumn of 1823 to talk to Smith?
People are stupid and gullible. They are still stupid and gullible today. And they talk about imaginary figures as if they are real all the time. I find it suspect that we’d even recognize the person the myths are attributed to, if they ever existed. And I’d assume most of what we have passed down are the creations of the men who wrote the gospels, as opposed to some particular preacher who got crucified.
I don’t think that’s accurate. The consensus on the Gospels was that they were written within thirty or forty years of Jesus’ death. Plenty of people who had been alive during Jesus’ lifetime would have still been around.
Look at John Lennon - he died thirty-five years ago but there are still plenty of people who were around during his lifetime. And now consider Forrest Gump - suppose there was a group of people claiming that Forrest Gump was a real person. It wouldn’t fly - there would be plenty of people who’d be around to say things like “Hey, I watched that episode of Dick Cavett and there was nobody named Gump on the show with Lennon. You just made that up.”
Yeah, but Joseph Smith existed, too. He was a fraud and a scoundrel, he lied about the Book of Mormon and treated women like shit. But there was a guy named Joseph Smith who started the Church of Latter Day Saints. There was an L. Ron Hubbard who started Scientology. These people weren’t fictional just because the things they wrote were.
It’s not important to me that Jesus existed. But it seems like Occam’s razor points towards him existing in some sense. Not that he performed miracles or was the son of God, but just that there was a guy this whole religion was based on, even if all the stories were bullshit.
Of course, I’m less convinced that Jesus existed than Muhommed or Joseph Smith, because Jesus didn’t write anything down. He’s more like the subject of the story than the author, in my opinion. But I still think it’s safe to say he existed as the default assumption, barring evidence that he didn’t.
To be clear, it wouldn’t surprise me nor upset me to find out Jesus was a myth, or an amalgam of several different people. But I just don’t think you can conclude that without a lot more evidence than we currently have.
Isn’t that sort of like saying that the lack of evidence that he is a fabrication can be used as evidence that he isn’t? What would such evidence consist of?
It is also very well documented and accepted that core contributors like Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Absolutely all of Paul’s stories came from “visions” that he had.