Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 1827

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would think a critical thinker would be eager to know that their assertions are more than likely false.

At the least, I would think a person entering a discussion would be interested in "discussing" their contribution to a, discussion. If you're posting under the context of a simple survey, understand that this thread has become far more than the survey of the original post, and please understand why your assertions were challenged in that context. Please do not feel as if you're being attacked for no other reason than to argue.
If 900 prior posts haven't convinced you that every element of christianity is recycled from other religions, I don't expect that anything will. Do you believe that his miracles and divinity are literally true? What about his parables and sermons?

You did defend a position: you said that he was "most likely" an amalgamation of different religions and different people. We're all rationalists here, so we'd like to see your reasons for believing as you do.

"If 900 prior posts haven't convinced you that every element of christianity is recycled from other religions, I don't expect that anything will."

Oh well, you can at least give it a try. Let's take the crucifixion. From what religion do you think this is 'recycled'?
Tread carefuly.

"Do you believe that his miracles and divinity are literally true?"

We're on an atheist networking site here, so I wonder why you even bother to ask.

"What about his parables and sermons?"

Those certainly wouldn't have been preserved "literally", but yes, most of the parables and sermons seem to come from oral traditions (and from the Q document) so many of them are most likely accurate.

@D R Hosie: I don't mind swatting flies :P It's not like this takes more than two minutes.
"Although I follow this thread with interest since I know only a little about the period and some of the contributors seem to have done a lot of research on it, for various reasons of their own, the question remains, what does it matter? It kinda surprises me this debate hasn't just run its course."

I think this topic is a fascinating subject and a common debate central to the heart of atheism that has to be examined with logic and a balanced mind, so let's all remember to play Devil's Advocate when the time comes and challenge what we think, if nothing more than for the sake of the challenge. Belief leads to the stagnation of the mind, yes?

We are supposed to be espousing critical thinking, and to be accused of fallacy and bias in this topic by a Christian is an irony best avoided.

I'd say the only reason it hasn't run it's course stems from the constant addition of newcomers who enter the thread with feedback without reading the arguments already presented.
Sure Nick, and in the past I've been one of those contributors who've blundered into this debate without previewing all of what's been said here and not fully cognizant of the established research, but as David Martinson pointed out, 85 pages of meandering theoretical discussion is a big ask, unless you have some vested interest in the topic like preparing a book or formal thesis on it. I've managed to plough through quite a lot of it now, actually.

I'm also curious to understand, Matt, if you're reading, your vehement opposition to the amalgam hypothesis. Concerning the actual lifespan of Christ, we're dealing with conjecture, not facts, and it just seems to me one of several possibilities. OK, we have no data on any self-styled contemporary prophets, but we have no data on Christ either apart from the later secondary accounts.

If you take the things from the gospels he was supposed to have said - the parables for example, or the sermon on the mount, if it ever took place, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the pronouncements of others may have been woven in to the general message.

The parables may have been embellished versions of established Hebrew folk tales, or initiated by rivals (or followers). The sermon on the mount contains populist notions that were not entirely new - we are talking about events that occurred centuries later than the work of the classical Greek philosophers. The Great Library of Alexandria was still functioning, containing much of the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the western world. Not that the illiterate goatherders of Judea would have had access to it, but populist ideas have a way of proliferating among the poor and dispossessed. And the subjects of Rome certainly knew they were being oppressed. Radical ideas and dissent, to the extent that they could get away with it, would have been attractive to them.

You've cited 'Occam's razor' in defence of your argument. In the absence of relevant data, we must take the simpler explanation, in this case of one originator of the Christian legend. Yet this is no more than a deductive tool, helpful for reaching a tenable conclusion. It doesn't make anything into reality. And tenable conclusions are not possible on this issue anyway, which might explain to some extent why we have 85 pages of opinion and conjecture.

To me, amalgamation seems to be the stuff of legends. King Arthur, Robin Hood, William Wallace, Rob Roy, Che Guevara, Al Capone, all the stuff you read about them, some of which may have been true, some of which may have been embellished, some of which attributable to others but not proveable, and some of which may have been pure fantasy. I realize that of the examples I used, only some of them are actually historical people. My point is that this process could just as easily have occurred with Christ.

Your thoughts?
Sure, Occam's Razor is but a tool, and it's not always true. But it is a very practical and straightforward way of determining what is more practical and what is not. The theory that relies on the least amount of assumptions is the one you should take. If I hear the sound of hooves on the street outside my house, then the idea that it is a zebra takes much more suppositions than if I think it is a horse; but much less supposition than that it is a unicorn. So the reasonable conclusion is (in the absence of visual confirmation) that it is a horse.
Now, that doesn't mean that Occam's Razor always gets you the right answer. Maybe it really was a zebra. But the point is simply that unless you have evidence that it actually is, it is unreasonable to assume so.

Now, the reason why amalgamations are not very likely (and the reason why they almost never happen)...

Usually, when amalgamations do happen (such as is probably the case with Arthur) we are talking about oral traditions that have circulated for a century or more; more than enough time for any eye witness or even second or third hand accounts to have died out. Most of the legends around Arthur are several centuries after his (supposed) life. The legends around the Trojan war are probably written down 300-400 years after the events that inspired it. The earliest tales of Robin Hood we have are more than a hundred years after the fact too... you get my point. This is more than enough for all kinds of distortions and even amalgamations to occur.

The stories of Jesus, on the other hand, were already written down by 70 AD, and were in circulation (for example probably in Q) before that; and I'm not even talking about Paul. That means that these stories were circulating in a time where people who had known Jesus were still around. Now, do you recall the 1980's? I'm guessing you do. Imagine you were the devout follower of some chap wandering around your country. Now imagine someone else coming along, thirty years later, and trying to pollute the stories around this man with stories about someone else and sayings that didn't belong to him.
I think you can see where I am going with this. It is very hard to create amalgamations when the earliest followers of the guy who you're going to "amalgamate" with others, are still around. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense: if you're the devout follower of some guy and you think he was the Messiah, why would you start stealing stories about other people and attribute them to your Messiah? Devout believers think they already have all the fantastic stories and miracles they need (because they believe them themselves) so don't need much more.

Then there's the followers of the guy from whom you're stealing sayings and deeds and attributing them to Jesus. I'm guessing they won't be too happy with that. Why didn't they notice and rant about it?
What about the enemies a young sect inevitably has? Were they all too stupid to notice that this Jesus character was simply an amalgamation?

Then there's the context of the time. Jews were waiting for the apocalyps and they really believed it was coming soon. Why would a bunch of Jews then make up a Messiah? They thought it was going to happen real soon, so that's a bad time to be inventing a false prophet. Especially one that continuously bangs on about the end of the world and how you have to give away everything you own. That doesn't earn you many points or benefit. And it gets you persecuted. So why invent it? Why not invent a prophet that says more things that you can use to your advantage?

The whole idea is riddled with absurdities and supposition.
It's much more common with prophets and god men that embellishment, white-washing and exaggeration takes place. And that certainly happened. We can even see this process of embellishment occur throughout the gospels, as the later authors try to iron out the inconsistencies and awkward stories that the earlier ones had. And we also see them making up stuff that was never in the earlier gospels, which we can also disregard right off the bat.

So this amalgamation idea, while plausible on the surface, winds up looking like a zebra with yellow dots and a diving helmet compared to the much more plausible alternative.
Ow!! I believe we have a winner in the logical smack-down category! Band-aids are available on the way out.
Interesting example. But the fact that he was caught and exposed within a decade, kind of invalidates it ;)
Still, there are other problems too. This is just an example of some guy making up a story about what he has experienced in his life, out of a desire for personal gain. We know that that happens.
But as always, the worth of a hypothesis is only revealed once you look at the things that don't fit.

Was Castenada preaching in a closely knit community of 1,6 million people about quite rememberable historical events (crucifixion after causing disturbance in the temple, for example). No, he preaches about a nobody he met somewhere in a small town, and who did nothing rememberable.
Was Don Juan said to have flesh-and-blood brothers who were significant enough to be recorded by a historian? No.
Did inventing Don Juan get Castenada persecuted and socially isolated? No, it gave him large financial benefits.
Was Castenada preaching in an environment where rival sects had a vested interest in vilifying the character? No. (in fact, the moment he became famous enough to be noticed was also the moment he got caught).
Does the Don Juan story contain awkward scenarios that Castenada has to downplay or ignore in order to sell the story? No, the whole thing is built for easy consumption.

I could go on, but I think you catch my drift by now.

"Gnostics wrote many scripts that presented their version of who Christ is. Some of them used the name Jesus too but that Jesus was rather different from the canonized Jesus."

And those "scripts" were usually written in the late Second Century. Your point?
All kidding aside, by now the point should be Don't Mess With Matt.
I learned a long time ago:
Never bet on another man's game.

And at this table, Matt rules with a velvet glove.
I've never heard that expression before.

It seems to mean that I'm a polite douchebag.
If so, I really like it :p
Matt, I simply meant you're at the head of the class, and at the top of your game.

Why anyone would want to do anything other than pay attention to what you're saying - maybe screw-up and actually learn something about the subject - is beyond me.

Otherwise, what good are these discussions - where everybody is simply committed to going tit for tat?

Sometimes one person's learned position is worth far more than anyone else's second-hand opinion. Personally, I appreciate the education.

I really like Melody's attitude - thank you Melody: She asks thoughtfully framed, reasonably informed questions of you, and then appears to have actually listened to your answers. Practically unique!


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service