Sorry. I missed this one.
An interesting discussion.
I’d just like to point out, what I assume is understood by all, but as yet has not been said clearly here.
Some people have presented their arguments why it is they consider it “likely” or “probable” that Jesus - the man - existed. I guess we could debate the degree of that probability.
But it strikes me as amusing that, given that Jesus’ very existence is less than certain, so many people have no difficulty maintaining unwavering belief in the accuracy and reliability of a complex story and belief system, with hugely supernatural elements and implications. They maintain that this tremendously involved and unprovable story must be accepted as “true” based on nothing more than their “belief.” Tho the protagonist’s very existence is somewhat less than definite fact, they are willing to kill and die over such technicalities as whether or not this possibly fictional character’s mom was “assumed” into heaven.
Strikes me as grossly irrational and, therefore, undesireable. Yet, I am obviously in the minority.
I am curious. If you do not believe in Jesus then why do you spend so much time studing about if he is real or not. I do not believe in Santa Claus but I also do not waste my time researching him.
Is curiosity a good enough reason?
Silly question, and I’m sure you know it. Jesus, whatever may be the true facts of his life, regardless of whether he even existed or not, is much more worthy of study than Santa Claus because he is a figure of much greater historical and cultural importance and his influence, or the influence of various belief-systems invoking his name, continues to be of worldwide importance to this day, and none of that appears likely to change in the next hundred years. There is no Church of Santa. (There is, however, an Institute of Scientific Santa Clausism – see http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/encyclomn/encycappend15.html.)
What do you mean by “believe in Jesus?” is it necessary to believe that Jesus was God in order to be interested in whatever historical facts may be recoverable about his life?
Personally, I am fascinated by great religious figures of the past such as Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed and I have an intense curiosity about what really happened and who those people really were.
If a majority of the adult US population and 1/3 of the world population belived in Santa Clause despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise, then I ‘waste’ just as much time researching him.
Also a deep interest in general history and different interpretations of it also fuels my interest for religious history.
Come to think of it, even if I did ‘believe in Jesus’(whatever that means) I would still ‘waste’ my time researching other religions in which I did not believe just to make sure I was right, and to reinforce my own religious convictions.
Besides which, Santa Claus has been researched. There’s a great Straight Dope article on Santa Claus. Fascinating reading. I’d provide a link, but this TRS-80 computer I have at work starts smoking every time I try to search something.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I am a Christian and I have researched both Jesus and other religions but honestly it seems that the non-believers research it so much more. Instead of Santa Claus maybe I should have said Hercules, Buddha, or Muhammad. Jesus was mentioned in some of Pilate’s and Caesar’s Journals, I read books years ago that stated that. I forget what the names of the books were. But honestly I just wondered why it was interesting to you and I actually like the answers you gave. I was expecting to hear “to prove he did not exist or was not God’s son to Christians” and that would be a waste of time. If you believe that Jesus is God’s son, You believe in your heart by faith.
Dannell, I think maybe I can answer your question. If a person truly wants to call himself a skeptic, he can’t just dismiss things out of hand. While you say that you believe in Jesus out of faith (and it’s my personal opinion that that’s really what Christianity was originally supposed to be about), there is a VERY vocal group of Christians who believe that Jesus the savior is an incontrovertable fact that is supported by ironclad historical evidence. I run into this position constantly. Well, what kind of a skeptic would I be if I simply dismissed this contention out-of-hand? I wouldn’t be any better than creationists who dismiss evolution out-of-hand, would I? I have a very close Christian friend who is convinced that there is overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus the son of God and everything that he is purported to have said and done. So at one point in my life, I felt that I ought to at least look into it a little, before I just reject the idea completely.
So I think that’s one reason why skeptics want to know the truth about Jesus, in order to be well-informed on a topic that is obviously of great interest to a large segment of our society. Having said that, I have to admit that compared to Diogenes and others in this thread, I know next to nothing about the historical Jesus; I am truly awed by the extent that some of these people have researched the matter.
Now that we’re a little off the original topic I feel safe asking a potential hijack question.
I have never heard anything about Jesus being mentioned in Pilate’s and Caesar’s journals. Is this true??
I suspect you are remembering the apocryphalLetter of Pilate to Tiberius.
It’s a fiction, part of a collection of pseudepigraphical writings from the 3rd and 4th centuries.
There are no surviving “journals” from Pontius Pilate but there were a number of spurious writings about his supposed conversion to Christianity written around the Late 3rd Century (The Apocryphal “Acts of Pilate” as well as the "Acts of Peter and Paul.
Once again, though, I think that Jesus was a real person and I am extremely curious about him and the origins of Christianity.
No. See above.
To expand on that a bit, the author of Luke as much as admits that he was not an eyewitness (claiming that his information comes from those who were).
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are a two-part work by the same author.
Note that the Gospel of Luke is written in the third person, whereas portions of the Book of Acts are written in the first person (“we” did this, or “we” arrived here, etc.).
Conclusion: Luke and Acts were written by a companion of Paul who did not personally witness the ministry of Jesus.
By tradition, that companion is Luke the Physician, who is briefly mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Colossians:
There are no such things. There’s a gospel according to Pilate, and a letter written by Pilate to a roman emperor about Jesus, but both are very late documents, certainly not actually written by him. And Caesar was long dead when Jesus is suposed to have lived.
Its kind of interesting that no contemporary writers (that I’m aware of) actually wrote about Jesus or any of the events that took place. This isn’t conclusive proof of course that there wasn’t a real man who we now refer to as Jesus of course (I actually think there was a man or men at the core of this myth/story/event as I said earlier)…but it IS fairly interesting that, at the time, the events weren’t considered important enough, or weren’t widely known enough to have survived in writings by someone from the time.
Its also interesting to me that early Christians went to such lengths to create the appearence that contemporaries DID write about his…even going to the effort of forging works or modifying them like with Josephus. Why they would do that is a debate in itself, but it does thicken the plot…
-XT
If the non-believers researched it so much more, don’t you think that they have a stronger argument? If you concede that believers don’t bother to research it as much as non-believers, doesn’t that detract from your credibility?
As far as “proving he did not exist or was not God’s son to Christians,” why would that be a waste of time? Christians don’t seem to have a problem with trying to convince people that Jesus was God’s son. Some Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son by faith in their heart, and others believe it because they never thought to question what they were told since the day they were born.
I’m sure that you would agree that the truth is not a waste of time . . . and since there is vast evidence to support the theory that Jesus did not exist, then discussing such evidence is a fruitful use of time rather than a waste of time.
That is the first time I ever used the word “fruitful.”
It won’t be the last.
Nope. some unbelievers research it. Most don’t care that much. Of course, the ones who are the most interested are likely to post. Beside, if you really think that non-believers research more than believers about an issue which is so central to the life of the believers, I would say there’s a problem with the believers. Would you to have your life revolving around something you don’t know anything about?
There are plenty of reasons, and I’m interested in this for several of them :
-First and foremost christian beliefs is extremely pervasive in our lifes. We can’t ignore it. Plenty of people around are believers, we hear about him all the time, on the TV, with friends, in books, etc… Christianism is one of the main pillars of our culture. Christians push various agendas, for instance insisting on passing laws or prenventing them to pass on the basis of their beliefs. There’s no possible comparison with the belief inSanta Claus. If something you don’t believe for an instance (say, faeries) was so pervasive around you, I’m quite sure you would investigate it too.
-Second. The majority of us have a christian background. We have been taught about Jesus, so we can’t be wholefully ignorant. We have believed in him, so when ours eyes were opened, we already had knowledge and interest in this topic and wanted to know more in order to know what the truth is.
-Third. Indeed in order to fight back the propaganda which is dropped on us al the time. Each other day on this board, someone states that apart the gospels, there are plenty of other evidences about the life of Jesus, or about the actual existence of Moses, which is patently false. When you’re told lies (not that these people intend to lie, but they repeat the lies they have heard/read, etc…) on a regular basis to convince you of something, you generally begin searching counter-arguments.
-Fourth. Also, indeed to convince believers. I do think it’s important not to let the religious propaganda going unchecked. That’s plain myths. And unfortunately these myths impact on our life, these myths are taught to children, these myths, sometimes result in blood and death.
And let me add that despite you stating that christians can’t be convinced, there are plenty of people, who, when faced with arguments they ignored, investigate the topic, ponder again their beliefs and sometimes change their mind. Once again, most of us atheist used to be believers until we just couldn’t swallow the BS we were fed with anymore (which can happen at any age). .
You know, when you’re swimming into religion and are familiar with its concepts , there’s no major problem. But when you begin to look at your religion from the outside, all the contradictions, arbitrary interprations, misdeeds painted positively or just ignored, lack of evidences for the statements made and absurdities become so blatant that you just can’t ignore them anymore. Very few people not brought up in a christian environment would buy the story of a god who, as it is often stated, “sacrificed himself to himself in order to allow himself to suspend the punishment he had himself decided”, or would believe that the wine they’re drinking is actually that god’s blood, or would submit to a god who ordered his followers (according to the scriptures) to slaughter a whole nation, children included (except for the virgins, who could be kept for other uses), or would believe that a “good” god would have men suffering forever in hell for minor offenses, for instance. But for some reason, it makes sense when you’ve been told so often enough.
-Last but not least : I happen to be interested in religions (and more generally in myths and tales) and curious about them. That would include christianism as well as, say, zoroastrianism or the religion of ancient egypt (but since few people ever challenge me by trying to prove that Osiris actually lived and was resurected, as the story says, I’m less likely to try and search obscure facts about Osiris) .
Oh! And also : on this board, plenty of people just like to argue, and are going to search for infos to back their arguments. I remember another thread where I debatted also about the existence of Jesus with a regular poster. We ended up arguing about the floor tiles in a house discovered by archeologists close to the dead sea. That’s fun and you learn plenty of things.