Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

You're right.  Free's whole purpose is to try to derail threads as soon as he can with his arrogant bullshit.  At this point he is just a troll.

And to continue your thought, not only can we not know, it doesn't fucking matter if there was or wasn't.  If jesus was invented in the 1st century or the 4th it is irrelevant.  At some point the story was cobbled together and the dolts were ordered to believe it or die.  That's how it always goes with religion.

[Free]

To answer the original question I say we just don't know, it's possible maybe probable there was a man or two 2000 years ago called Jesus Ben Joseph but a  jesus of the gospels I doubt greatly, its not impossible I guess but its certainly not likely in my view in fact I'd go so far as to say its unknowable. I personally don't have any problem believing the jesus of the gospels was completely made up the ancients were pretty inventive look at the OT.

The Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is impossible. No one walks on water, sticks ears on people's heads, or flys up into the sky like some kind of Jewish Superman. My position, and the position of virtually all scholars, is that the Jesus of Gospels is not so much as a composite of various persons, but merely a greatly exaggerated version of an ordinary man who got his ass crucified, and as per the result of that we get a bunch of tall tales about him.

Therefore, as atheists we don't need to say we "doubt greatly," but rather deny it completely for the ridiculous nonsense it actually is. It defies reason and rationality, lacks evidence, and is an insult to our intellect.

Whoever the fuck Jesus was, it certainly wasn't whoever the fuck they're talking about in the Gospels and Acts. The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

[Minimalist]

The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Oh, and you were doing so good up until then.

[Free]

The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Oh, and you were doing so good up until then.

It was good all the way through. And the only reason that last part was good is because it's the best explanation for the origin of Christianity. It focused on an ordinary man, and then turned him into a monster.

[Phaedrus]

The best explanation is still not evidence of being an accurate explanation.

[Free]

The best explanation is still not evidence of being an accurate explanation.

That is neither required, nor does it negate the fact. The truth may never be known, but it's best approximation of the truth we can come up with.

Some idiot got his ass fried by the Romans, and then more idiots turned him into some kind of a teen idol.

[Phaedrus]

Then you might want to reconsider your personal qualifications for what a fact is.

[Free]

Then you might want to reconsider your personal qualifications for what a fact is.

Nope, not required.

[Minimalist]

The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Oh, and you were doing so good up until then.

It was good all the way through. And the only reason that last part was good is because it's the best explanation for the origin of Christianity. It focused on an ordinary man, and then turned him into a monster.

My point is that you have exactly the same evidence for all the miracle horseshit that you correctly dismiss but cherry pick that one item and declare it a fact.  Why that one?  "Paul" (assuming for the moment that the church tale is true) knows nothing about the jesus tale which later developed.  Never heard of Pilate, Caiaphas, Mary, Joseph, Calvary, Joseph of Arimathea, Nazareth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, etc., etc. 

If ( I know, BIG "IF") the paul tale is true then he is running around founding churches without an actual dead jesus to hang his hat on.  If paul could do it why would anyone need a real jesus when a story about one was apparently sufficient?

[Free]

Oh, and you were doing so good up until then.

It was good all the way through. And the only reason that last part was good is because it's the best explanation for the origin of Christianity. It focused on an ordinary man, and then turned him into a monster.

My point is that you have exactly the same evidence for all the miracle horseshit that you correctly dismiss but cherry pick that one item and declare it a fact.  Why that one?  "Paul" (assuming for the moment that the church tale is true) knows nothing about the jesus tale which later developed.  Never heard of Pilate, Caiaphas, Mary, Joseph, Calvary, Joseph of Arimathea, Nazareth, walking on water, loaves and fishes, etc., etc. 

If ( I know, BIG "IF") the paul tale is true then he is running around founding churches without an actual dead jesus to hang his hat on.  If paul could do it why would anyone need a real jesus when a story about one was apparently sufficient?

I don't declare anything factual. I declare it the best probability.

[Phaedrus]

Nope, not required.

I guess it is true what they say, can't fix stupid.

[Free]

Nope, not required.

I guess it is true what they say, can't fix stupid.

If you really believe that, why would you be so stupid to try?

[Minimalist]

I don't declare anything factual. I declare it the best probability.

"Paul" doesn't seem to agree.

[Free]

I don't declare anything factual. I declare it the best probability.

"Paul" doesn't seem to agree.

That's Paul. Not me.

We cannot possibly compare the mindset of modern humans to those living 2000 years ago. When you understand that the religious culture of that period would be roughly the same as how we view radical Islamists today, you'll be just at the beginning of understanding anything.

Atheism was heresy in every culture in that area, and worthy of death. God was as real to them as your own face is to you. There was absolutely no doubt. Those who we see as a believers never thought of themselves as merely believers like we do. The existence of God was a bonafide fact. Miracles were a bonafide fact. The one-upsman between rival sects was rampant, and if one sect said Jesus walked on the water, another said, "I can do you one better! He flew up into the fucking sky!"

And the thing is they all believed it. It was real to them. There was no doubt at all. Where you see one Gospel, you will see another with something new added to it and you have a second gospel, and so on. That's the one-upsman at work. They continued this practice until near the end of the 1st century when there was no one else alive from the time of Jesus to add anything new. The end result is what you see in the Bible; a horrible mess of fucked up religious ideologies constantly at war with each other. That's why you see so many contradictions.

That's how this crazy shit goes down. We see it time and again with other religions and other sects. There's no mystery to any of this. It's child's play for anyone to understand.

It doesn't really matter if a Jesus actually existed, and that he was crucified by Pilate, or if Tacitus mentioned him or not, or Josephus, or any other sources. His existence or non existence won't change anything because the big elephant in the room is right there staring us in the face; Christianity.

The only question we really have is, why is it there?

The best answer is ... some asshole got crucified.

[Phaedrus]

Fallacy of composition.

[Minimalist]

We cannot possibly compare the mindset of modern humans to those living 2000 years ago.

Then there is no point in ever studying history of any kind.  I cannot accept that.

When you understand that the religious culture of that period would be roughly the same as how we view radical Islamists today, you'll be just at the beginning of understanding anything.

Which period?  The Romans were notoriously tolerant and had a tendency to incorporate local gods into their own pantheon as part of their assimilation of other cultures.  Sectarian violence seems to be a problem with monotheistic types judging from today's islamists.... and xtians if they thought they could get away with it.

It doesn't really matter if a Jesus actually existed, and that he was crucified by Pilate, or if Tacitus mentioned him or not, or Josephus, or any other sources. His existence or non existence won't change anything because the big elephant in the room is right there staring us in the face; Christianity.

The only question we really have is, why is it there?

The best answer is ... some asshole got crucified.

Again, we are really not that far apart.  I don't know if that is the "best" answer.  It's "an" answer.  That someone made the whole thing up is an answer, too.  Is it a better answer?  I don't know.  It has the advantage of not being reliant on a pile of shit which has been largely discredited for reasons which are best stated by Bart Ehrman, not me. 

And here we sit.... watching jesusism fail in the west while it thrives in less educated parts of the world.  And I think there is a major lesson to be learned there.

[adey67]

To answer the original question I say we just don't know, it's possible maybe probable there was a man or two 2000 years ago called Jesus Ben Joseph but a  jesus of the gospels I doubt greatly, its not impossible I guess but its certainly not likely in my view in fact I'd go so far as to say its unknowable. I personally don't have any problem believing the jesus of the gospels was completely made up the ancients were pretty inventive look at the OT.

The Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is impossible. No one walks on water, sticks ears on people's heads, or flys up into the sky like some kind of Jewish Superman. My position, and the position of virtually all scholars, is that the Jesus of Gospels is not so much as a composite of various persons, but merely a greatly exaggerated version of an ordinary man who got his ass crucified, and as per the result of that we get a bunch of tall tales about him.

Therefore, as atheists we don't need to say we "doubt greatly," but rather deny it completely for the ridiculous nonsense it actually is. It defies reason and rationality, lacks evidence, and is an insult to our intellect.

Whoever the fuck Jesus was, it certainly wasn't whoever the fuck they're talking about in the Gospels and Acts. The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Thanks for explaining. Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

[Alan V]

Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

Biblical scholars have argued that certain historical facts can be teased out of the Gospels accounts themselves.  They maintain that if Jesus was entirely mythical, his story in the Gospels would be a lot cleaner -- i.e., it would not offer so many unusual specifics which don't really work within the overall narrative.  For instance, if Jesus was really supposed to be the Messiah, would he have been crucified at all? 

In other words, such scholars don't have a problem with an itinerant preacher traveling to Jerusalem, stirring up trouble, and being crucified for disturbing the peace.  Nor do they have a problem with him being one among a number of apocalyptic preachers during Roman occupation.  Those assertions are not among the extraordinary claims which would require extraordinary proof.

[adey67]

Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

Biblical scholars have argued that certain historical facts can be teased out of the Gospels accounts themselves.  They maintain that if Jesus was entirely mythical, his story in the Gospels would be a lot cleaner -- i.e., it would not offer so many unusual specifics which don't really work within the overall narrative.  For instance, if Jesus was really the Messiah, would he have been crucified at all? 

In other words, such scholars don't really have a problem with the idea that an itinerant preacher came to Jerusalem, stirred up trouble, and was crucified for disturbing the peace.  Nor do they have a problem with him being one among a number of apocalyptic preachers during Roman occupation.  Those assertions are not among the extraordinary claims which would require extraordinary proof.

Thanks Alan, that makes sense. It's good to be learning stuff. 

[Free]

To answer the original question I say we just don't know, it's possible maybe probable there was a man or two 2000 years ago called Jesus Ben Joseph but a  jesus of the gospels I doubt greatly, its not impossible I guess but its certainly not likely in my view in fact I'd go so far as to say its unknowable. I personally don't have any problem believing the jesus of the gospels was completely made up the ancients were pretty inventive look at the OT.

The Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is impossible. No one walks on water, sticks ears on people's heads, or flys up into the sky like some kind of Jewish Superman. My position, and the position of virtually all scholars, is that the Jesus of Gospels is not so much as a composite of various persons, but merely a greatly exaggerated version of an ordinary man who got his ass crucified, and as per the result of that we get a bunch of tall tales about him.

Therefore, as atheists we don't need to say we "doubt greatly," but rather deny it completely for the ridiculous nonsense it actually is. It defies reason and rationality, lacks evidence, and is an insult to our intellect.

Whoever the fuck Jesus was, it certainly wasn't whoever the fuck they're talking about in the Gospels and Acts. The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Thanks for explaining. Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

It's the culmination of numerous sources. When we understand that every gospel, Acts, letters in the Bible were at one time separate documents, with the vast majority stating something to the effect of Jesus being crucified, and Pilate mentioned as the the one who did it, and add all that information to non-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, and numerous other documents, we end up with the best explanation of all that evidence as being that Pilate crucified Jesus.

Once all that info is processed through Occam's Razor, it becomes the best approximation of the truth far and away over anything else.

[Free]

Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

Biblical scholars have argued that certain historical facts can be teased out of the Gospels accounts themselves.  They maintain that if Jesus was entirely mythical, his story in the Gospels would be a lot cleaner -- i.e., it would not offer so many unusual specifics which don't really work within the overall narrative.  For instance, if Jesus was really the Messiah, would he have been crucified at all? 

In other words, such scholars don't really have a problem with the idea that an itinerant preacher came to Jerusalem, stirred up trouble, and was crucified for disturbing the peace.  Nor do they have a problem with him being one among a number of apocalyptic preachers during Roman occupation.  Those assertions are not among the extraordinary claims which would require extraordinary proof.

Thanks Alan, that makes sense. It's good to be learning stuff. 

What Alan has described to you is known as the "Criterion of Embarrassment" by historians. It's a very reasonable and logical inference.

[Alan V]

What Alan has described to you is known as the "Criterion of Embarrassment" by historians. It's a very reasonable and logical inference.

I didn't know it had a name.  

[adey67]

The Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is impossible. No one walks on water, sticks ears on people's heads, or flys up into the sky like some kind of Jewish Superman. My position, and the position of virtually all scholars, is that the Jesus of Gospels is not so much as a composite of various persons, but merely a greatly exaggerated version of an ordinary man who got his ass crucified, and as per the result of that we get a bunch of tall tales about him.

Therefore, as atheists we don't need to say we "doubt greatly," but rather deny it completely for the ridiculous nonsense it actually is. It defies reason and rationality, lacks evidence, and is an insult to our intellect.

Whoever the fuck Jesus was, it certainly wasn't whoever the fuck they're talking about in the Gospels and Acts. The one and only thing we can take from the Gospels in regards to a historical Jesus was that he was crucified by Pilate. That's it. Nothing else.

Thanks for explaining. Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

It's the culmination of numerous sources. When we understand that every gospel, Acts, letters in the Bible were at one time separate documents, with the vast majority stating something to the effect of Jesus being crucified, and Pilate mentioned as the the one who did it, and add all that information to non-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, and numerous other documents, we end up with the best explanation of all that evidence as being that Pilate crucified Jesus.

Once all that info is processed through Occam's Razor, it becomes the best approximation of the truth far and away over anything else.

Thanks for explaining again mate and again occams razor etc makes sense, but isn't there still enough doubts so as not to make the mythicist position technically impossible? Not trying to be deliberately obtuse just trying to understand.

[Free]

We cannot possibly compare the mindset of modern humans to those living 2000 years ago.

Then there is no point in ever studying history of any kind.  I cannot accept that.

The lack of a comparison between how modern humankind thinks and how ancient humankind thinks has no effect on the study of history. In fact, history is what teaches you how to understand their ancient way of thinking. 

History is not something merely read, but rather it is lived in the mind of every great historian. For example, when I read Tacitus, part of the interpretation process involves understanding the idioms and lexicon of the Roman culture during the 1st century. Without that, the interpretation can be way off. Also, getting to know Tacitus himself is the biggest part of learning the history as his very personality is used as evidence in understanding the Roman mindset.

Any historian worth his salt has lived in 1st century Rome, and every historian worth his salt knows exactly what I mean by that.

When you understand that the religious culture of that period would be roughly the same as how we view radical Islamists today, you'll be just at the beginning of understanding anything.

Which period?  The Romans were notoriously tolerant and had a tendency to incorporate local gods into their own pantheon as part of their assimilation of other cultures.  Sectarian violence seems to be a problem with monotheistic types judging from today's islamists.... and xtians if they thought they could get away with it.

The period in question basically covers a span of about 350 years from around 75 BCE to 275 CE. Roman culture was still in the early stages in 75 BCE and drastically changing due to Christian influence by the end of the 3rd Century.

It doesn't really matter if a Jesus actually existed, and that he was crucified by Pilate, or if Tacitus mentioned him or not, or Josephus, or any other sources. His existence or non existence won't change anything because the big elephant in the room is right there staring us in the face; Christianity.

The only question we really have is, why is it there?

The best answer is ... some asshole got crucified.

Again, we are really not that far apart.  I don't know if that is the "best" answer.  It's "an" answer.  That someone made the whole thing up is an answer, too.  Is it a better answer?  I don't know.  It has the advantage of not being reliant on a pile of shit which has been largely discredited for reasons which are best stated by Bart Ehrman, not me. 

And here we sit.... watching jesusism fail in the west while it thrives in less educated parts of the world.  And I think there is a major lesson to be learned there.

What this proves, at least to me, is where education thrives, religion dies. In time, as the world draws closer together and becomes more educated, all these asshole religions will bite the dust.

[Free]

Thanks for explaining. Genuine question and please excuse my ignorance but how do we know a guy called Jesus was crucified by Pilate? I was under the impression that all the sources of historical information have problems attached that are enough to allow for doubt and the possibility that the mythicist position might be correct.

It's the culmination of numerous sources. When we understand that every gospel, Acts, letters in the Bible were at one time separate documents, with the vast majority stating something to the effect of Jesus being crucified, and Pilate mentioned as the the one who did it, and add all that information to non-biblical sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, and numerous other documents, we end up with the best explanation of all that evidence as being that Pilate crucified Jesus.

Once all that info is processed through Occam's Razor, it becomes the best approximation of the truth far and away over anything else.

Thanks for explaining again mate and again occams razor etc makes sense, but isn't there still enough doubts so as not to make the mythicist position technically impossible? Not trying to be deliberately obtuse just trying to understand.

I am not saying the Mythicist position is impossible, but only that the arguments to support it are insufficient to support credulity. For example, the best their arguments get are arguments from silence, and even most of those fall into the category of being logical fallacies as they fail to qualify them as being legitimate.

I would have no problem with Jesus being a total myth if some actual good evidence combined with a good argument was provided. It really makes no difference to me. All I am looking for is the best approximation of the truth to answer the question of "Why do we have that fucked up religion of Christianity?" 

To those of us who spend their lives pursuing history, the best approximation of the truth matters. When it comes to history, the best we can do is provide the best approximation of the truth and stand by it until/if any new evidence becomes available. History is not static, it's dynamic and can change with the discovery of a single line of text discovered in some cave somewhere.