Such as?
I’ve heard that about Spartacus and about Alexander the great. But, I assume, people mean their are no primary sources for either of those two.
Are you serious?
Separate but hardly independent.
Which is NOT the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is wether or not the man existed or not - not what his followers do, not what they should,should not believe, not if he was a god, not if god existed, not if he walked on water, not the power of prayer - nothing about spiderman.
Just whether or not the central figure of the gospels existed or if it was all made up of whole cloth.
So - we see what you mean - but you’re in the wrong thread for that discussion.
So -
[QUOTE=Robert163]
1- I’ve said that I think Jesus/preacher - probably - existed.
2- As I’ve said before the first step to a christian saying gay marriage is “Wrong” is proving Jesus “existed”.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve answered the OP - thank you.
If you want to discuss #2 - take it down the fucking hall already - but since you’ve answered #1 in the affirmative, seems you’ve got your fucking answer.
I wasn’t trying to start a debate on gay marriage. TonyStClair asked me twice why I wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer.
I’m not really sure what all the hostility is about. Have I cussed at anyone, insulted anyone? No.
Please don’t act like I am the only one with an agenda. Do you really think that people would spend several days and 9 pages of threads discussing the “historical” Jesus if they didn’t have some type of agenda? At least I’m honest enough to admit I have an agenda.
If your agenda is derailing threads - you win at it.
There is an interesting discussion to be had about this subject - you seem to miss that point with your ‘agenda’.
Have a pleasant day -
What has he won other than recognition?
When confronted by such ‘victories’ I’m often reminded of Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist. As he notes …
The deniers approach the subject with eyes wide shut. So be it.
No, it’s more like taking FOX news at their word that Obama existed in real life.*
A better analogy would be to say that future historians taking Fox news as source for Obama being a socialist is more like taking the Bible’s word that Jesus walked on water. The story is exagerated in each case. but believers base their exagerations on a kernel of basic facts.
(*and, just as in the Bible, some of his true believers really did expect him to walk on water while he saved us all-- with his blessings and beatitudes speaking of hope and change :).
Remember, he earned a Nobel prize for just going to sleep in the same bed as George Bush, without even doing anything.
Okay…I apologize. But, aside from my snark, there is a more serious lesson here: people’s willingness to bestow super-powers on a charismatic leader. If it happens in the modern world, it was even more likely in the ancient world. But first, you need a real, tangible ,charismatic leader to set the story in motion.
True, but not particularly relevant. No one questions “people’s willingness to bestow super-powers on a charismatic leader.” At issue is whether or not ‘Jesus’ is a case in point.
You quoted one sentence from my post, but ignored the next one:
" first, you need a real, tangible ,charismatic leader to set the story in motion."
This thread has already gone on too long, and you’re not going to let yourself be convinced by the few bits of historical evidence that exist. So let’s try ignoring physical evidence, and talk about human behavior:
You keep comparing the "fictional"Jesus to the fictional Spiderman, and historical Jerusalem/Nazateth to modern New York City, etc…
So let’s look at how large crowds of people behave in New York, and try to use that as evidence for how they behaved in Jerusalem.
It’s easy to imagine a scene like this happening today(well, not today in 2016, the era of youtube, so let’s say it happened in 1972 or so): A professional stuntman wearing a red shirt climbs up a tower in NY. He’ll draw a huge crowd of people to watch, right? . Then rumors will start spreading the next day, exagerating everything: what he was wearing (a red shirt, or a full spiderman costume?)the size of the crowd, how tall the building was, the speed of the climber, the number of police who were waiting to arrest him at the top, whether he resisted arrest, and how tough he was, etc.
He could easily become a folk hero, and the stories about him will spread by word of mouth.
But for the rumor to spread, you first need a central kernal of believable facts.
That’s just human nature. It’s true today, and it was true 2 thousand years ago.
Compare it to today’s rumors about aliens from outer space, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster, or rumors of rock stars holding sex orgies backstage. Lots of people will believe in them, but first you need something to start the story–bright lights over the city seen by lots of witnesses, or a fuzzy,out-of-focus picture of a monster, or a report about a loud party after a rock concert.
With all the details given in the Bible and non-biblical sources, it just makes logical sense that a lot of people saw something that impressed them:
A Charismatic speaker; maybe even a guy who knew how to do “miracles”— a guy with enough medical knowledge to and cure somebody;or a guy who had enough organizational ability to know that he needed to prepare in advance , so he arranged to have some loaves and fishes available, to feed the multitude of people following him around that day.
Then, just like a rock star, he attracted a lot of groupies.
And the stories kept on growing.
John is an eyewitness.
And there’s Tacitus also, not just Josephus.
Only if one accepts the idea that John the Apostle was John the Evangelist–a perspective that few Christian scripture scholars hold, today.
You seem to have mistaken Jaywalker for Robert163. So much for the reliability of eyewitnesses.
You’re not ridiculously wrong, but you underestimate the ability of people to believe what they want to believe. For example, AFAIK all non-Mormons agree that several major actors (and all of the western hemisphere events) in the Mormon scriptures were completely made up.
I just read a new poll (articlehere, full results IN PDF FORM here) about how impervious people are to facts, and I think it’s relevant to this debate.
Several people have argued here that if Jesus hadn’t existed, his cult couldn’t have survived, because there would be too many people from Nazareth or Jerusalem who knew that the stories about him weren’t true. In the wider world, apologists make the same argument about his miracles.
I think Jesus of Nazareth probably existed, but I think that this particular argument is specious, and this poll gives me some numbers to prove it.
Background: Any biography of Ted Cruz says that he was born in Canada, and Cruz himself freely admits it. More, Donald Trump has been pounding on the issue for some time, in the guise of trying to “help” Cruz by clearing up his eligibility for President before it’s too late. On the other hand, any biography of Obama says that he was born in the US, and he’s published his birth certificate, and the hospital and local newspaper have records of it, and the Bush Administration gave him millions of dollars worth of Secret Service protection after he became the nominee in the summer of 2008, so they presumably vetted him. Even more telling, Karl Rove didn’t even attempt an October surprise that year about Obama’s eligibility, which would surely have guaranteed a McCain win if it had had any plausibility.
So we have ironclad proof, easily available to anyone with a computer or a TV or a newspaper, that Obama was born in the US, and Cruz was born in Canada, and both facts have been prominent in the news during this election season.
And here are the results of a scientific poll from a highly respected polling service, published last week. For Iowa Republicans self-selected as interested enough in politics to respond to the survey:
Only 28% believe that Obama was born in the US.
Only 46% know that Cruz was not born in the US.
(And one has to wonder how many who “correctly” answered that Cruz was born outside the US, think that he was born in Cuba, rather than Canada.)
If over 70% of people with access to all sorts of instant information can ignore the truth, how much easier would it be in 1st-century Palestine, when virtually all you had was word of mouth from your neighbor, who likely was just as uninformed about events more than a few miles (or years) distant as you were? Or, possibly, the tales of a traveler who enjoyed the attention, and felt free to embellish, knowing that nobody could contradict him?
Related query: I spent a while googling, and I wasn’t able to find any estimate of what percentage of Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity during the lifetime of any possible eye-witnesses. I’m pretty sure it was less than 70%. I’m kind of sure it was less than 7%. Does anyone have a credible cite that gives the number?
No longer true. That was 19th century and early 20th century thought- and not always agreed upon.
*More recent criticism[edit]
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites – light and dark, truth and lies – which are themes within the Gospel. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.[citation needed]
The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863). The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.[citation needed]
*
The Gospel came out of Ephesus, when John lived out his last years, living until 90 or so. Certainly Johns disciples took his dictation and edited the Gospel, but the consensus is now that John had a great deal to do with it.
wiki:
While evidence regarding the author is slight, some scholars believe this gospel developed from a school or Johannine circle working at the end of the 1st century, possibly in Ephesus.[11]
Most 19th-century scholars[who?] denied historical value of the work,…Some 19th-century scholars, however, agreed with the traditional authorship view.[12]
In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are cited. John’s chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic, because the Synoptic Gospels would have the trial before the Sanhedrin occurring on the first day of the Passover, which was a day of rest. Schonfield agrees that the Gospel was the product of the Apostle’s great age, but further identifies him as the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper, and so believes that the Gospel is based on first hand witness, though decades later and perhaps through the assistance of a younger follower and writer, which may account for the mixture of Hebraicisms (from the Disciple) and Greek idiom (from the assistant).
Fredriksen sees the Fourth Gospel’s unique explanation for Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion as the most historically plausible: "The priests’ motivation is clear and commonsensical: ‘If we let [Jesus] go on… the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ Caiaphas continues, ‘It is expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation not perish’ (John 11:48,50).[13]
The matter of the Essenes was already finished before I was studying the topic and I have always viewed Gnostic associations as late attacks upon its authorship.
A hypothetical school of Johannine students removes it from the realm of eyewitness.
I do not insist that the Evangelist could not have been the Apostle, but a declaration that they are one is still a hypothetical and not a proven fact. (E.g., it still leaves the troubling persistent references to “the Jews” when even the Gentile authors were able to distinguish between the Pharisees and the Jewish people.)
Where do I do that?
It’s also early 21st century thought, at least by the previously mentioned scholars Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman, and your own cite says “Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,” and “evidence regarding the author is slight.” The few positive assertions speak more to the plausibility of the gospel’s chronology than its authorship.
The only time the word “consensus” is used in the article you cited, it says “citation needed.” I agree.
I don’t think so. Christians who are against gay marriage just assume that Jesus existed and wouldn’t listen to anyone who sees it differently.
There are a number of people on the thread who are atheist or agnostic and are arguing for a historical Jesus. What is our agenda?
I agree with this that people will believe what they want to.
As a former Mormon, it’s interesting to watch Mormons go through the process of losing their belief system and also coming to the conclusion that it was all made up.
I do have to admit that my experience with Mormonism adds to my acceptance of the likelihood of Jesus as a historical figure as that religion was founded by the charismatic Joseph Smith and then it was carried on by a more pragmatic Brigham Young. After Smith’s murder, the remaining members split up into a number of competing sects, with Young’s group as just one, albeit the largest one.