Do you believe Jesus existed?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on May 4, 2010 at 5:11am

The problem is that we don't know which of the Biblical aspects of "Jesus of Nazareth" belonged to a real person, or to several real people.

Another problem is that there is so little historical corroboration of an actual figure who lived at the stated time. Apparently he didn't make much of a stir outside his immediate circle until decades after his reputed death (or their deaths, if plural). If Saul/Paul of Tarsus had not had subjectively compelling visions of this figure we would probably never had heard of him. The Jerusalem Church, those who were supposed to have first hand knowledge of the figure, had little impact on the world. This version died out.

In other words, the original (or originals) were not terribly impressive during their lifetime/s.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 6:27am

I can see why you'd think that but unfortunately even that is stretching creduilty. Plenty of people who "made a stir" outside of their immediate circle were not recorded in ancient history until decades later.
Take Hannibal. Here's one of the single greatest generals of all times, rampaging through Italy for more than a decade and destroying countless Roman legions in the process. You might say that he did indeed cause quite a stir. And yet what's the first mentions we get of him? Decades after his death. Does that mean Hannibal wasn't important? Of course not: it means that (i) "historians" of the time were rarely focused on events happening in their lifetime; usually they were writing about either the glorious beginnings of their cities or about figures that (in hindsight) turned out by important and (ii) we've probably lost a crapload of ancient documents.

So if someone who brings the Roman Republic to the brink of extinction doesn't get any mentions by "an actual figure who lived at the state time", why expect it for Jesus, who lived in an obscure province of the Empire and who (by any standard) caused much less of a stir than Hannibal.

It's quite simply unreasonable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on May 4, 2010 at 6:55am

Interesting perspective.

To be Devil's Advocate: Are we sure Hannibal existed?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 8:54am

We're as certain as anyone would need to be: we have written records about him and his life (although, like Jesus, recorded quite a while after he died), and absolutely no reason to doubt that he existed. That's just what you get in ancient history.

However it might be the case that Hannibal never really existed at all and it might be that he's simply a corroboration of several generals rampaging Italy at various points during that time and this might have been concocted by the Romans as a tale to keep the population scared and timid and this might all have happened without leaving a trace (I think you can see the comparison I'm making). None of this is impossible; it's just not to be taken seriously.

No person in Ancient history (except the occasional Emperor and the like) can stand up to the kind of historical hyper-scepticism some want to apply to Jesus. If we were to use this exaggerated scepticism everywhere, we'd soon have to decide that the ancient world was completely depopulated. And then we'd all promptly disappear in a puff of smoke.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 5, 2010 at 11:03am

lol, youre so riled up youre imagining arguments and defending tidbits im not even questioning. no one is talking about what messiah has come to mean. you -- you, matt -- posted that the messiah was believed to be a "messenger of Jahweh," that is, of god, thus divine. and no, i never claimed "that if Jesus was divine, he would've been mentioned in history." youre confused, matt. articles of faith must be what youre basing your responses on; so far youve replied to about three points i didnt make, haha. seems the discussion is too emotionally charged for you, matt. take a breather.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 5, 2010 at 5:01pm

Chill, I'm perfectly relaxed. I'm drinking a delicious Leffe as I'm typing this so any "emotional charge" you think you're perceiving is false.

It's also perfectly possible that I misconstrued what you're saying, because to be honest, I'm finding it very hard to figure what on Earth you are saying.
Take this post, for example. You said that I said that the Messiah was believed to be a messenger of Yahweh. Yes, that's exactly what I said. And you're now claiming that this equals divinity.
Well, sorry pal, but that's not what divinity is. If God comes down from the clouds right now and says "Hi Matt, I just thought I'd let you know that I existed; now go tell everyone else" then that will certainly make a messenger of God but it will not make me divine, since that word entails being part of God.

You also said in response to my statement that holding on to Jesus Mythicism was a position of faith, that it is "more like an article of skepticism. warlords, rulers, etc. these have precedent to make ones perspective amenable to credence, and they dont connote divinity like jesus does. "
Now if that's not saying that Jesus' claims entail divinity (which is, again, different from being told something by God; it entails actually being God) I don't know what it is.

Please, what the hell are you saying? Why would you expect Roman aristocrat historians to mention a messenger from God in Galilee?

Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 5, 2010 at 7:01pm

chill, denial wont help you.

i know youre having a hard time figuring out what im saying, thats obvious -- thanks for your honesty anyway.

"sorry, pal," it is. the messenger of god is divine by definition; perhaps not the one you would prefer to use, but thats your problem. "entails being part of god," no... god tells you to announce his existence, thats a good analogy; you feel that would make you the messiah, im guessing.

actually, i wouldnt expect that. what im saying is, accounts of a figure like jesus are far more susceptible to falsehoods.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 6, 2010 at 2:37am

That's exactly what I'm saying ;)
Personally I think contrasting what the historical Jesus might have said to how he's been interpreted (i.e. Jewish Messiah to living God) gives us more than enough arguments Christianity as it is; no need to conjure imaginairy historical arguments for that. It lowers the overall standard of our arguments and diverts the attention from the real and valid criticism: that whatever Jesus said, his message has been altered by gospel writers and by Paul to suit Gentiles.

@Boris: Err, yup, that's nice. If ever you actually have some evidence to support that there are in fact irreversible falsehoods in the story of the historical Jesus, by all means present them. And send an e-mail to the scholars working in this field while you're at it.

Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 4, 2010 at 8:36pm

pesky dictionaries. i know messiah is compatible with divine in this century; this century being the context in which i use the word. i tend to adhere to present-day norms -- just cant be bothered to observe 1st century conventions im afraid. sorry. exclamation point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 5, 2010 at 2:55am

Except we're talking about a FIRST-CENTURY PERSON and how he was viewed IN THE FIRST CENTURY. It doesn't matter what Messiah has come to mean or how you've come to understand it.
Your claim was that if Jesus was divine, he would've been mentioned in history. This is false for about a hundred different reasons, but the most important one being that Jesus was not regarded as divine IN HIS TIME PERIOD. So for you to expect them to mention the divinity of Jesus even when this wasn't believed in Jesus' time period, is downright absurd.

This really is history 101: you can't protect modern beliefs and modern significance on ancient events.

Permalink Reply by nick altman on May 5, 2010 at 8:35pm

Matt, I don't think Boris is making any points, he never was but for his original post. His original post in this discussion was just another of the sort I talked about, someone chiming in their answer to the topic starter without paying any attention to the current discussion or evidence. He came in comparing Jesus to Jack and the Beanstalk.
You then challenged him about the evidence.

Since then, he has done nothing but defend himself by dancing about creating new arguments for every counter point you make, and making ad hominem attacks, there's no rational to it. He is just reacting, distorting any semblance of an actual debate or argument. And now that you seem to be calling him on it, he is actually pulling the old - " I know youre having a hard time figuring out what im saying, thats obvious -- thanks for your honesty anyway." -card.

In a way, I'd say you were trolled. But I think he actually thinks his continued points are valid and make sense in the context of your debate,(which they really don't).

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 6, 2010 at 2:39am

Yeah, well, at least I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 50
• 51
• 52
• 53
• 54
• …
• 94
• Next ›
• Page