http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/did-jesus-exist-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/

'In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself thinks the Jesus stories were built on a historical kernel): “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. ... In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind.'

Ehrman believes firmly that Jesus existed and is based on more than a "kernal." He deals with the list of reasons to believe Jeus was not historical in his book,"Did Jesus Exist?"As for the increasing number of scholars, there are three.The other mythicists are not scholars-at least not in any relevant fields such as history.

Dang, I was going to guess 1 hour before bona posted this short of post.

Didn't take long before Bona pops in to claim the scholars she believes in are the only true scholars.

I know this is a waste of time, but do show evidence that there are only three scholars that believe Jesus did not exist.

No, your word is not good enough. Evidence, Bona, Evidence.


Oh, and do show us where Ehrman explains his views in a document meant for and submitted for peer review.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 12:01AM by MJ.

Scholars overwhelmingly believe that Jesus existed.

Biblical scholars tend to agree; history scholars tend not to.

No, we go over this over and over on this site. Scholars generally believe that Jesus existed. Here's a summary from Wikipedia:

Existence

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][27][28][29] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[30][31] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Existence

And every time people bring that article up and every time it is pointed out that these are just claims by individuals that believe in a biblical Jesus but there is no evidence to back up that claim.

There does seem to be an increasing number of articles stating that Jesus might not have existed.

No, MJ, this is the scholarly consensus. You may not believe these conclusions, which is your perogative, but your views are not generally shared by scholars.

SHOW THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not CLAIMS of individuals.

Where is the actual surveys that show HISTORIANS (not so called biblical historians), that show this consensus? If there is empirical evidence for a consensus,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 10:49AM by MJ.

MJ, we go over this over and over again, and it never serves a purpose. First, you're obviously unfamiliar with how religious studies is conducted based upon your notion of "Biblical scholars" but not "historians" believing in the historicity of Jesus. The Wikipedia quote tends to refute such a distinction. Second, you're also unfamiliar with how academic scholarship is conducted based on your calls for "surveys" to support or refute claims.

Yes, I am familiar with the fact that people that want to believe in a historic Jesus made up special methods that are not accepted out side of if the so called realm of religious studies. Why do that other than to get the results they want? Your own link showed that the methodology has been called into question.

I see no reason why religious study of history would need to be separated out and use different methodology than any other historical study.

Your insistence on "religious study" being different from "historic study" is just more evidence that makes me disbelieve biblical scholars.

Again, show me the EVIDENCE that HISTORIANS would accept.

Anything other than actual empirical evidence, I will take as an admission YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That you have only the claims of those that want to believe.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 10:57AM by MJ.

No, MJ, you still don't understand. Historians of religion in religious studies departments are historians. They often have Ph.D.'s in history. They use the same techniques that are used in history departments. They are not theologians. In this case, they are scholars of religious history in classical antiquity.

Since you did not suply evidence that HISTORIANS, not just the religious historians agree, I take that as an admission that you have no such thing. You can not provide the empirical evidence that religious scholars agree.

Then let's take a closer look at your link to see:

"The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned,[21][22][23] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[58][59][60]"

The methodology uses by your religious scholars is not all that accepted by historians doing historic research.

Again, why would biblical scholars have to use methods not accepted by regular history scholars other than to get the results biblical scholars want?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:05AM by MJ.

"do show evidence that there are only three scholars that believe Jesus did not exist."

That would be proving a negative, right?

I think the burden of proof would be to identify MORE than three scholars who DO believe that Jesus did not exist.

An interesting theory but apparently not one that is easy for our group to discuss rationally today.

seekyr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "do show evidence that there are only three
> scholars that believe Jesus did not exist."
>
> That would be proving a negative, right?
>


Um, no. Stating the number of people that believe something is a positive assertions that could be proven by interviewing the finite number of people.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> seekyr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "do show evidence that there are only three
> > scholars that believe Jesus did not exist."
> >
> > That would be proving a negative, right?
> >
>
>
> Um, no. Stating the number of people that believe
> something is a positive assertions that could be
> proven by interviewing the finite number of
> people.

How many people do or don't "believe" something has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not what they "believe" is "true." That's an appeal to popularity fallacy (or its converse).

And that would apply to all the people claiming that there is condenses that there was a historic Jesus.

Bona mad a statement of fact in claiming the number of scholars. I was asking for evidence regarding the number she claimed and made no assertion that the number actually proved the existence of Jesus one way or the other.

I am simply asking were bona got the number 3.

bonadea unregisteted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ehrman believes firmly that Jesus existed...

With "believes" being the important word there.
Even Ehrman, who firmly "believes," can't (and won't) state that the existence of an actual Jesus is an established fact -- because it isn't. It's a belief.

What the *evidence* (and lack thereof) can establish for us is that it's possible -- even likely -- that there was a real person who, at some point, was the basis for the bible "Jesus" stories. But that the bible "Jesus" stories are not historical, nor accurate, nor factual. As to who this real person who may have been the basis for the bible stories was -- we cannot say anything at all about such a person, as we have NO details of any kind about that person.

Evidence cannot establish than an actual historical "Jesus" existed. Those who claim otherwise are being dishonest. Those who claim that, given the evidence we have, we "know" that an actual person the stories were based on *didn't* exist are also being dishonest. We don't know if there was an actual person the stories were based on or not. If there was such a person, we know nothing about them. The rest is all "belief."

And the thing is, even if you believe in a historical Jesus, the question must be asked if there are enough of his surviving teachings to form a coherent body of work to "hang your hat on." I would argue that there are, but I understand those who feel that he is too vague of a figure to follow.

If you care, which you don't, read Ehrman's book and look up the credentials of the scholars mentioned. You will find there are three who have degrees in relevant fields. I am not going to bother arguing with you since you have two MOs when it comes to me.1. You assume you know what I am going to say without bothering to read my posts. 2. You either misunderstand or misrepresent everything I say if you do read them. I am not playing your game. Sorry. I do not need the aggravation.

I take that as an admission you have no proof of anything.

I will read the document Ehrman submits for peer review. WHERE IS IT? Why does he not summit his ideas for critical review?

Claiming that his credentials are enough is an appeal to authority logical fallacy that you, a person that claims to be so educated should REJECT not EMBRACE.

BTW, didn't you refuse to read peer reviewed books that were anti-bona's claim that scholars agree.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP, here is your evidence that there are only 3 scholars that agree there is not historic Jesus.

Please show us your high level of education by presenting arguments that would be accepted in academia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 12:08AM by MJ.

Take it as evidence that I do not have the time or patience for yet another ridiculous and pointless discussion with you. Good night.

I have never seen you present any evidence at all to back up your claims on this issue.

Evidence, bona, if you have the education you claim, you would have NO PROBLEM with people asking you for it. If you have the education you claim, you would know how poorly your arguments would be accepted by LEGITIMATE scholars.

If you knew a source for your claims about the number of scholars that believe Jesus was not a real person, it should be easy for you to find.

I do kike you you have time to post over and over that you do not have time to find evidence, makes me laugh.

I guess I am one, too, only I challenge the group-think ideas that often get bandwagoned.

The people that are engaging in group speak are the people asserting claims with no evidence to back them up.

You never produce any evidence. A high school history teacher does not anyone an authority on the subject.

You believe in the myth of historical Jesus and feel the need to defend that myth...that is fine but please defend it with evidence and not tantrums

Even is a high school teacher was an authority, trying to claim she is right because she is a high school teacher is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

I also saw a program on the history channel where the all knowing scholar said that there was no evidence for the existance of David or Solomon until they unearthed some rock that said "David" on it. And that's suppose to prove he existed.

The simplest explanation is probably the right conclusion to take. Therefore O.T. N.T. people were historic people. I don't see how the story of Jesus could possibly be made up. It happened infront of too many people. Some people also say the Halocost never happened, man never went to the moon, and the trade tower collapse was some kind of hoax.

And Jesus walked on water, right? If you are going to say the people are real, it sort of follows that the events were real as well.

BTW, the history channel buts out programs that treat alian abductions are real.

Who were these people this happened in front of? The best evidence for a historical Jesus are the gospels and they were written decades after his death by anonymous writers who believed in magic.

poopstone2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also saw a program on the history channel where
> the all knowing scholar said that there was no
> evidence for the existance of David or Solomon
> until they unearthed some rock that said "David"
> on it. And that's suppose to prove he existed.

That actually makes a very important point; until there WAS evidence of an actual "David," there was no reason to assume there WAS an actual David. Now we have a little evidence to show an actual David existed. Other evidence shows the "kingdom of David" was NOT as grand, large, powerful, or rich as the bible stories claim. The point, though, is that NOW there is no evidence to support a factual claim of the existence of bible Jesus. If and when such evidence is discovered, it will be reasonable to accept an actual Jesus existed. Right now it is not reasonable to do so.


> The simplest explanation is probably the right
> conclusion to take. Therefore O.T. N.T. people
> were historic people. I don't see how the story of
> Jesus could possibly be made up. It happened
> infront of too many people. Some people also say
> the Halocost never happened, man never went to the
> moon, and the trade tower collapse was some kind
> of hoax.

There is massive evidence to support the holocaust. The Jesus stories, though, could easily have been made up. Mithras, the object of cult worship of millions in the same era, was made up. All of the Egyptian "gods" (most of whom were believed to have actually existed "long ago") were made up. El and Marduk and Thor and thousands of other man-gods were made up. Religions based on actual man-gods (like Buddhism) are the exception rather than the rule.
"It happened in front of too many people..."
None of which wrote about it. Not a single one.
Oops.

all characteristics of the fake jesus character were stolen from earlier religions.

I got your "historical kernal" right here *grabs crotch*

I am texting from a phone so I have a limited ability to write very much. But I can tell you that I have heard the exact opposite of your contention. That is, that fewer and fewer historians dispute his existence. I guess it depends on your source?

Accepting that evidence, that is debatable.

I've heard Bigfoot and Santa are real, should I believe what I heard?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 12:25AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Accepting that evidence, that is debatable.
>
> I've heard Bigfoot and Santa are real, should I
> believe what I heard?


By all means. If you want to believe in Bigfoot and Santa, go right ahead. Just don't include me.

Wooosh, the sound of a point going over your head.

Have you ever heard that Bigfoot was real? Likely, yes. But you dismissed it.

Thus, what you claim to have heard is not reliable evidence to discern the truth.

I was referring to legitimate historians. That puts the whoosh on you. Google is your friend, friend. Try it every now and then with a fair query. You could learn something.

and show the evidence that they have that supports your original claim?

Or are you just arrogantly expecting us to take your word for it? I know a lot of places where people claimed that they prayed and God helped them find their keys. Do you take them at their word like you expect me to take you for your word?

The evidence you have presented so far is hearsay thus even less reliable than the testimony given at an LDS testimony meeting.

BTW, there have been many legitimate historians that were WRONG.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 12:59AM by MJ.

Hearsay evidence from a legitimate source is often trustworthy. It can very often be used in a court of law. Conversely, direct testimony from an unreliable source has no probative value and should be discarded. Your sources are unreliable.

Hearsay from people you CLAIM to be legitimate sources is bull shit. Since you REFUSE to show evidence of the so called authorities you claim to have heard, I have no idea if they are legitimate or not, or even it they exist at all.

You are trying to use an appeal to authority logical fallacy without ever giving the authority you are appealing to. Complete nonsense.

You do, at least know what a logical fallacy is, right? You can step away from your faith to learn that much, right?

You are coming across as if you are lying for the lord.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 02:10AM by MJ.

I was trying to clear up your mistaken belief that hearsay is always inferior to direct evidence. Whoosh on you again. Eg: Joseph Smith could testify in a court hearing that he was a true prophet but it would be of no value because he is a liar and hence provides unreliable testimony that has no value. Ditto the tbm'rs that testify they know something is true about LDS when they do not even know the true history of the church. Their testimony is of no value. It is a false religion from the pit of hell. But I digress. Believe as you wish. But it is absurd to think the weight of evidence is in your favor.

For objective truths "Direct evidence" is never wrong. It is what it is. People, even scholars, misinterpret the evidence, or do not collect all the evidence for analysis thus misrepresent the evidence. Then people mistake what they hear from scholars...

And thanks for admitting that your "evidence" could have come from someone that lied and you could be repeating the lie, making mistakes when doing so.

JS testifying that he was a prophet is still better evidence than a Mormon saying that he heard JS claim he was a prophet.

And how do you know JS is a liar? Because you have direct evidence that shows that his claims are not true. Then if someone repeats the lies that JS said, they are repeating lies and likely making mistakes in doing so.

The evidence you present still shows that hearsay is not better evidence that direct evidence. In deed your evidence confirms that hearsay and UNSUPPORTED claims (as your original claim was) are not as good as direct evidence.

Ditto the TBMs that CLAIM there church is true, we have direct evidence that proves them wrong.

Regarding objective truths, "Direct evidence" is always better than a personal claim and a personal claim is better evidence than claiming that you heard someone say something.

Yet another JS example: JS testifies he is a prophet, the person repeating what JS mistakenly testifies that he is a profit.

Oh, and here is yet more evidence that Hearsay is never as good as "Direct evidence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

Try it. Get 20 people together. Have the first person write a 10 line "story" (the story can be a lie). Then have the first person whisper the story exactly as it was written to the next person. Then, without reading or seeing the written story, each person whispers the story to the next. At the end, what is better evidence of what was originally said, the paper with the story on it, or the 20th person? Does this change if the original story was a lie? NO.

Bottom line, Hearing what JS said directly is better evidence of what JS said than hearing it as hearsay. That is true if JS is telling a lie or the truth. You have the lie as originally told, the hearsay is the lie that likely will have mistakes. Your examples show people that lie and are wrong, but do not actually show how hearing what they said was better than hearing what they said via hearsay.

This is a serious question, do you think about what you say before you say it?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 04:52AM by MJ.

The best evidence for your historical Jesus comes from anonymous writers decades after his death.

Sure is convenient they know the details of conversations that occurred before they actually were born

The best evidence they have for a historical Jesus ie. The gospels...

Just is not good evidence

If others are freaking out emotionally and despairing and you keep mentally focused and above it all, you are "walking on water"...the stormy sea that is sinking others' boats. And if you calm them and bring them to their higher senses, you are "calming the(ir) storm." Water = the astral plane.

Stretch Armstrong has nothing on you, does he?

WTF is "astral plane" ?

Sounds like asshole plane.

As a spiritualist it is easier to find out whether the "Jesus Christ/God incarnate" existed. Just charge up your pendulum or meditate and ask God or spirit guides. Short answer no such person/god.

The evidence is pretty weak that Jesus existed. Funny that no secular historians from His time ever mentioned Him.

The best historical evidence we have that Jesus existed are a couple of mentions in Josephus, written like a generation after Jesus is said to have lived. But alas, one reference is vague and seems to refer to a different person than Christ, and scholars think that Christians tampered with the text in both cases.

The best we can glean from Josephus is: That he believed the stories he heard. That is assuming that he actually wrote what was attributed to him.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 12:54AM by MJ.

Of course Jesus existed. His life story is told in canonized scripture, which is an accurate source of historic fact. Of himself, he is quoted as saying, I am the way. So not only did Jesus exist, he was, and is, the sole conduit to paradise. Only through Christ can a human being be given eternal salvation, and eternity covers everything, so there won't be a later need for a salvation booster shot.

Jesus died for our sins, including those we have yet to commit. Sort of a post dated atonement. Every son of God is gonna have mad foresight.

Add to that the witness of Joseph Smith in the sacred grove and it is a done deal. The scriptures plus Joseph Smith=a firm foundation. Out of the mouths of 2 or witnesses... it is a done deal.

I strongly recommend reading "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier. It contains very useful factual information, and unlike other authors Carrier does not use logical fallacies to support his position. As yet his work has been rejected by historicists like Bart Ehrman but not refuted.

In my opinion there are two paradigms: historicity and mythicism. If you are in the historicist paradigm you will interpret the data one way, if you are in the mythicist paradigm you will interpret the same data a different way. I think the only way to get to the truth is to look at the data from both angles and see which fits best.

The Invisible Green Potato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion there are two paradigms: historicity
> and mythicism. If you are in the historicist
> paradigm you will interpret the data one way, if
> you are in the mythicist paradigm you will
> interpret the same data a different way.

True, but the unerlying question is what people have riding on those paradigms. There is hardly any debate about the historical Baron Samedi. He may well be inspired by a person that actually existed and always wore black and smoked cigars.

Why not? Because there are no Voodoo theologians who are concerned with book sales or seminaries. Voodoo is part of a minor culture that has little influence in the world, no history to defend, no political-religious complex to sustain, little emotional investment, etc.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 09:22AM by rt.

I grew up in a church family but the first item on my shelf was in college was learning about ethnocentrism and that people in every cultural and religious group around the world believed exactly what I did, which is that only my beliefs were correct. The line " I am the way, the truth and the light; no man cometh unto the father except by me" that Jesus spoke. ( rough quote by memory ).

I started to wonder why God would condemn millions throughout history to hell when if it was so important for everyone to worship him, he might have shown himself around the world a little more.

Lots of years of these thoughts in the back of my mind and then read lots of books such as "guns, germs, and steel" and came to see that religion was man made, created to help people cope with life.

Don't feel any need to convert people to my point of view; if their beliefs help them, fine.

Pretty much most close friends same beliefs and we all raised happy and successful kids who are good parents themselves so am amused by posters who are budding exmos who are worried about raising moral children without a god belief. Although I don't raise this point especially with my kids, but think of ex husband who is only person in my close connections of my generation who stayed in the church and stole tens of thousands of dollars from elderly aunt and left her with bills unpaid and bill collectors phoning her. (Reported by his sister and aunt.). Know many moral religious people including parents but know that being religious has nothing to do with morality.

It is a fact that religion is created by society to meet its need for reinforcement.

Anyone who can read can pick up one of the many solid books on mythology or even world religions and see for themselves the number of Christs (saviors), the number of virgin births for gods, even the number of identical miracles. (If you are Christian a spoiler is following)

Krishna's parents are locked up in jail but are freed, like Peter, when the guards all fall asleep and the doors swing open. They walk out.

So it doesn't matter how many scholars believe Christ existed, no more than it does how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No matter how many of any category, you can still do your own thinking and figure it out yourself.

Define "exist." Christ has always existed in human spirituality down through the ages. We have always yearned for someone to pay for our sins, someone with supernatural power to help us deal with stuff, an invisible friend to "walk with"....

His actual existence and resurrection/yes/no is best understood if you just replace the words above with Joseph Smith is a prophet of God...

Most of us here on this board "know with every fiber of our being that he was not." Other people just as smart as we are, and indeed our very selves earlier in our lives, believed just as strongly with every fiber...etc, that he was.

It was our paradigm speaking, our ethnocentricity, our willingness to exercise extreme confirmation bias while looking at evidence.

In the end, if Christ did not exist, we would have made him up anyway, or someone like him, because that's what we've always done.

Arguing about this particular iteration of the savior myth is a fun exercise in critical thinking, especially for us who have so recently applied it to our own religious beliefs.

"Here here! I take your three scholars and raise you one Christologist...."


Kathleen Waters

PS. MJ, of course, is correct. Three scholars is discoverable.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:18AM by anagrammy.

Totally missed this Jesus-thread. Damn you, essays...

It seems to me that the problem we have in this thread has very little to do with actual research and more to do with the inability or reluctance of people to engage in it in a meaningful way. Laymen, and that probably means almost everyone posting on RFM will suffer confirmation bias to a greater or lesser degree.

For those not aware of confirmation bias it simply means the very human tendency to actively seek out and give more weight to any evidence that tends to confirm their hypothesis while at the same time ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

As well as evidence for his non-existence there is also a great deal of evidence for the historical Jesus so what I would suggest is a little more genuine research and a little less arbitrary dogmatism. Oh, and in reply to the inevitable “why don’t you produce it then?” I say, produce it yourself it’s out there but needs looking for without the aforesaid confirmation bias.

Interested observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to me that the problem we have in this
> thread has very little to do with actual research
> and more to do with the inability or reluctance of
> people to engage in it in a meaningful way.

And by "people" you mean people who don't agree with you, I assume?


> Laymen, and that probably means almost everyone
> posting on RFM will suffer confirmation bias to a
> greater or lesser degree.

Well, I have shocking news for you: professionals suffer from the same biases as we simpletons do.


> For those not aware of confirmation bias it simply
> means the very human tendency to actively seek out
> and give more weight to any evidence that tends to
> confirm their hypothesis while at the same time
> ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Good to know, thanks for clearing that up!


> As well as evidence for his non-existence there is
> also a great deal of evidence for the historical
> Jesus so what I would suggest is a little more
> genuine research and a little less arbitrary
> dogmatism.

And by "dogmatism" you mean the opinion of people you don't agree with?

Nobody here does "genuine research". We all rely on the research of others. Your demand is ridiculous.


> Oh, and in reply to the inevitable
> “why don’t you produce it then?” I say,
> produce it yourself it’s out there but needs
> looking for without the aforesaid confirmation
> bias.

OK, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, then.

Hahahahaha....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 08:37AM by rt.

Engaging in a meaningful way would be to show evidence of one's claim. The best way to avoid confirmation bias would present the evidence that one uses to come to the conclusion so others could judge the evidence for them selves, that is the way science does it and that works out fairly well.

Because the Mormon Church completely scammed me and is a proven man-made organization, it turned me into a very skeptical person.

I'm not a cynic. I'm a skeptic, which for me means that I just can't call anything a belief until I've seen enough credible evidence to call that idea a belief.

When it comes to Jesus, I simply haven't seen enough evidence outside of the Bible, which isn't controversial, to say that I believe the guy actually existed.

Discovering that he actually did exist wouldn't make any difference in my life, because I'd never believe all of the miracle claims. Something like that would have been reported far and wide and we'd likely see it at others times in history - not just once.

I don't make the statement that he did not exist. I simply don't believe it, due to there not being enough clear evidence for me that he did.

If he did, he was one of many Messiah-wanna-be types living in those days. Because of that, I tend to think that someone just sort of put together a little bit of each one of them, mixed in a few myths and out came a religion out of it.

A religion came out of Mormon and Moroni, who didn't exist, so why not a Jesus as well? That church has just had a longer time to gain members and was boosted when an Emperor made that cult his kingdom's official religion.

+ a lot. You said it all perfectly for me.

"A religion came out of Mormon and Moroni, who didn't exist, so why not a Jesus as well?"

That is a great line. And, I'm so glad Mormonism never got the boost from an Emperor that christianity did. Great observation.

Interesting: those who deny that "a growing number of scholars" doubt the existence of Jesus have an easy time of it, since all they have to do is use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If anybody denies the existence of Jesus, he is not a "true scholar." A "true scholar" clearly believes that Jesus existed. Case closed.

I don't understand why some people find the issue so important. It can only be those whose lives are governed by a belief in Jesus' divinity, and that, of course, depends on Jesus having actually existed, lived, died, and rose again. Unless one wants to believe that, what difference does it make?

Interesting: those who deny that "scholars agree that there was a historic jesus" believing the existence of Jesus have an easy time of it, since all they have to do is use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If anybody professes the non-existence of Jesus, he is not a "true scholar." A "true scholar" clearly believes that Jesus never existed. Case closed.

Of course I am not arguing that Jesus did not exist, only that the evidence presented for the existence of a historic Jesus does not come to the level that justify the claims that there was a historic Jesus. This is not the same as denying the existence of a historic Jesus.

One reason that I like the Gospel of Thomas is that it is a simple compilation of the sayings of Jesus and is almost entirely stripped of the mythology. Scholars believe that it is based on oral tradition and that the core of it, the earliest sayings, could go back as early as 30-60 A.D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

I have no trouble believing that there was a simple but powerful spiritual teacher of that era. I believe that there is adequate evidence of that. To me the confusion comes from the Messianic and mythic elements that were added on at a later time. Why Jesus was chosen (by people) for this particular role as savior of the world, I don't know. Right place, right time?

There were a lot of religious teachers of the era. To claim that means there was a historic Jesus is a bit of a stretch.

They could be related to a Joseph Smith (comparable to a Paul) claiming that Moroni (comparable to Jesus) actually existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:19AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were a lot of religious teachers of the era. To claim that means there was a historic Jesus is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, and for some reason he was the one who got stuck with the "Messiah" label. One wonders why. A professor of mine once stated that there was such a fever pitch of expectation for a Messiah at the time that it was nearly inevitable that a Messiah would appear (or be selected.) The question is, why him?

Nice cherry picking of my post. I made no assertions that there was an actual person to hang the Jesus label on. I made the statement that Jesus may have been made up just like Moroni, thus not an actual person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:36AM by MJ.

Well, if there were "a lot of religious teachers of the era," why couldn't a historical Jesus be one of them?

You bring up Joseph Smith. Why did Joseph Smith's religion predominate, and not that of any of the other restorationists? Because he had a critical mass of followers, perhaps? A certain level of charisma?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:38AM by summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if there were "a lot of religious teachers
> of the era," why couldn't a historical Jesus be
> one of them?
>

Again, I am not arguing that there was no historic Jesus only that the evidence the claim that there was an actual historic jesus The evidence also supports the idea that Jesus was made up by a single individual. Why the demand that everyone accept one explanation over over another equally valid explanation.

In other words, I can ask you the exact same question, why not my "Jesus is made up the same way Moroni was made up" explanation?

> You bring up Joseph Smith. Why did Joseph Smith's
> religion predominate, and not that of any of the
> other restorationists? Because he had a critical
> mass of followers, perhaps? A certain level of
> charisma?

I brought up JS because he is a figure that is well known to this board. His church still being in existence clearly shows that people will believe all sorts of made up stuff when they rely on faith. That was probably more true 2000 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 11:55AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, I am not arguing that there was no historic Jesus only that the evidence the claim that there was an actual historic Jesus

Again, I think there is sufficient evidence that there was one specific individual, but I understand that some will think there is not enough evidence.

> The evidence also supports the idea that Jesus was made up by a single individual.

I don't agree with that. For instance scholars feel that the Gospel of Thomas was compiled over a long period of time, with the earliest kernals being based on oral history. I think this would argue that more than one person was involved in compiling the accounts.

Joseph Smith's cult is the one that we can all relate to. He used the local myth of his region and era (Christianity) and changed it around to suit his own agenda.

This is what I think is likely to have happened in the development of the character of Jesus as well. Local preachers definitely existed. Yes, Jesus could have been one of them. I just personally believe that it's more likely that the character which became Jesus Christ was a compilation of local Messiahs and myths.

I don't state that as a fact, but only as my own personal belief. I'm happy to keep reading evidence wherever it is found. I just haven't read enough to convince me that the actual specific guy definitely existed.

Agenda is a good word. What was the agenda of those who converted Jesus the (possibly existing) teacher into Jesus the Messiah? It says more about them than it does about Jesus.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agenda is a good word. What was the agenda of
> those who converted Jesus the (possibly existing)
> teacher into Jesus the Messiah? It says more about
> them than it does about Jesus.

Definitely. Charlemagne certainly had a goal of unifying his kingdom.