[ol]
[li]Does the unknown historicity of Jesus of Nazareth serve to aid or detract from Christianity’s message?[/li][*]Should ineffable proof of Jesus the Christ be discovered, how would the various churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, etc.) of Christianity be affected? Would membership increase, decrease, or remain unchanged?[/ol]
I doubt it would change much if at all. Pretty much every Christian I know is sure that Jesus existed.
Hell, I’m an atheist and it wouldn’t change anything for me either.
I’m not sure how much it would change, if at all.
Most Christians and non-Christians take it as a given that Jesus existed. What would be interesting would be if there were proof of Jesus’ existence that contradicted the official story, like if there were strong evidence he died of poisoning or lived to be 60.
Inarguable proof is a tool of Satan’s Science, and is nothing compared to THE TRUTH.
I don’t see it as having much effect if any, unless as a side effect it disproves his supposed resurrection somehow. And you’d need something like a “time viewer” to produce good enough proof to shake the faith of people who believe in such a thing in the first place.
I don’t see how it would change anything for Christians, unless it contradicted details of their beliefs – e.g., Jesus married and had children. Similarly, I don’t think it changes much for non-Christians and atheists. For example, we have very evidence that the Prophet Muhammad lived: that’s not enough to convert nonbelievers to Islam.
:dubious: Some believers would change their tune if science proved something they wanted it to. If carbon dating were involved in the proof we’re discussing, it would create an interesting problem for people who say we can’t trust carbon dating as evidence for something like evolution.
It would probably depend on which Jesus. Are you talking proof that there was a preacher named יֵשׁוּעַ in Jerusalem who was executed at about the right time? Or proof that he rose from the grave?
Just vague proof that there was a religious leader by that name would not have much effect. What would have an effect, at least for a while would be some proof of one of the following:
-
That Jesus was known to be a fictional character at the time.
-
That Jesus died and stayed dead.
-
That there were two (or more) separate religious leaders that were latter combined into one by their followers.
You would need something that would require a change from the status quo. Right now, I would bet that the majority of Christians believe that the Jesus’ existence is as well established as it can be.
You got me there. There are those that will claim that faith is to be trusted over science, and yet with the same breath grab ahold of anything even vaguely sciencey that seems to support their position. What would probably happen is that the sect that aligns most with whatever is discovered about Jesus will gladly embrace the science(even if they formerly were a “Faith over Fact” church prior to this), and those that differ with the scientific findings will condemn it.
This. For me, there is enough objective evidence to accept the former and none at all for the latter.
I guess the “hidden question” in my OP would then be: Does the lack of evidence for or against the existence of Jesus aid in Christianity’s teachings about his miracles and resurrection? In other words, since we don’t know for sure he existed, his resurrection can’t be refuted?
The trouble with your OP is that you don’t tell us what has been revealed about Jesus. Give us the details, and we can respond with more than vague guesses.
Doubtful. People who actually believe will generally adapt their beliefs to justify them. A thousand years ago, people actually believed that the world was created in 6/7 days.
Today, we have objective proof that it wasn’t, and most people have adapted their beliefs to compensate - Genesis is an allegory or metaphor, etc. Some people haven’t, instead dismissing the evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.
If we could objectively prove that Jesus lived to 90 and is still buried in some Nazarene cemetery, people would mostly start saying that the Resurrection wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Others would simply choose to believe that the body wasn’t really Jesus’.
Miracles don’t happen and people don’t “resurrect”, so his existence is irrelevant to the question of whether or not such things happened. They can’t happen, so they didn’t. If I said my friend Bob can fly by flapping his arms, you wouldn’t need to know if Bob was real or not to know that I was lying.
I agree with that. Some of them would probably insist the science doesn’t matter at all, but many would be happy to use whatever scientific evidence they could (and ignore the rest).
As Marley23 said, virtually everyone – Christian or otherwise – acknowledges that Jesus existed. The notion that he did not exist has received virtually no support whatsoever from modern historians, Richard Carrier notwithstanding. This theory has only gained traction among certain sensationalist writers and some laypeople who don’t know any better. Heck, even G.A. Wells, one of the most prominent advocates of the “Jesus never existed” theory, has long since abandoned that position.
Unknown historicity? Not to any reasonable person who knows history.
The lack of independent evidence for the existence of Jesus is entirely a function of the fact that he lived thousands of years ago. Yeah, the evidence for him is sketchy, but then, the evidence for anyone at all from that time, other than monarchs, is similarly sketchy. If anything, the fact that we have any independent evidence for him at all is a bit remarkable.
I think it’s easier to presuppose that Jesus existed, since it’s easier to explain the start of Christianity that way. That said, I don’t think there’s a tremendous amount of evidence for his existence. The fact is, Jesus didn’t leave a huge mark during his time. It was decades later that people noticed Christians and their beliefs that Christianity became huge.
I’d say that Jesus’ existence is perhaps slightly better attested then Robin Hood, King Arthur, or other legendary people.
What does help is the lack of detail. Outside of the Bible, we have no real details of his life and death. Everything we know about him (where he was born, what he did, who his parents were, etc.) comes from writings of his followers.
Compare that to Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. We have records of what they did in their lives, even when it contradicts what their follows want to believe.
Of course, they still do have followers.