Support NeoGAF

[Lister]

The majority of historians and scholars of antiquity generally agree that Jesus was a person that existed, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified. "Looking it up" will give you that exact answer.

I would say the majority of historians do not subscribe to the mythicist position, and I agree with them. Not sure about the consensus as to those sequence of events, but I wouldn't totally dismiss them either. I would add, probably born in Nazareth too (and here is another a little bit compellign reason why he probably existed).

A far cry from the myths decribed in the bible though.

 

[RoadHazard]

You aren't even backpedaling well, but at least you've moved away from calling him fictional I suppose.

I think he as a person who has existed is probably fictional, but of course I can't be sure of that. I am very certain he as a magical sorcerer is fictional.

Either way, the burden of evidence is on the person who claims he has existed, not on me.

 

[kswiston]

And how much more significant the number would it be than those who know Siddhartha Gautama (Aka, Buddha)? A man who shares history with the vast majority of Asia, and a name who the West shamelessly cop for their contortions.

I think that the major difference here is that Buddhism didn't really spread out of Asia. Buddhists make up about a percent of North America, maybe a fifth of that in Europe, and are virtually absent in South America, Africa, and the Middle East (maybe a million practitioners beween all of those regions combined).

I'm not sure if you are in South Korea, or are living in the west, but Buddhism is also one of the more invisible faiths in North America. Buddhists don't try to convert others or set up faith-based schools, community centers, and businesses in the same way that Catholics, Baptists, or Muslims do. At least not nearly to the same extent. People like faux Asian art, including depictions of Buddha statues. I'm not convinced most of them know how Siddhartha Gautama relates to said statues, or that Buddha was an actual person as opposed to an eastern god like Vishnu.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Science is really all you can go on if you want to claim anything with any believable certainty. We know evolution is real through science. We do not know whether Jesus ever existed. I'm not saying he definitely didn't - because I don't know! - I'm just saying there is no actual evidence for it.

With the same methodology though you could discount a lot of people from history though right?

I mean if your scientific method is going to dismiss all historical accounting of anyone that's written about anyone, as it could just be doctored or be a story.

So for example, with that logic, Plato didn't exist, neither did Socrates, right? Because how do we know, where's the scientific data to prove that they did exist, maybe they were just characters that people created and told each other in an open forum?

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I'm convinced these atheists who say Jesus didn't exist don't want him to have existed. I don't know why. Anyone have any ideas?

You are literally saying the entirety of the field of history is meaningless.

Get out of here with this positivistic garbage.

There are ways of knowing things besides science, which by the way derives its own legitimacy from a disciple outside of itself.

Let them jack off science.

 

[Cocaloch]

I am very certain he as a magical sorcerer is fictional.

Sure but no one in the thread made any claim about this.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Science is really all you can go on if you want to claim anything with any certainty. We know evolution is real through science. We do not know whether Jesus ever existed. I'm not saying he definitely didn't - because I don't know! - I'm just saying there is no actual evidence for it.

I'm not sure you know what the word "evidence" means. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't mean it's proof of something. There is tons of evidence to point towards Jesus being real. This is how all of non-modern history works. You look at all the evidence and make the most logical conclusion.

 

[Inferno313]

I think he as a person who has existed is probably fictional, but of course I can't be sure of that. I am very certain he as a magical sorcerer is fictional.

Either way, the burden of evidence is on the person who claims he has existed, not on me.

No one said otherwise.

 

[RoadHazard]

I'm convinced these atheists who say Jesus didn't exist don't want him to have existed. I don't know why. Anyone have any ideas?

I neither want nor don't want him to have existed. I simply don't think he did, since there is no evidence.

 

[Cocaloch]

With the same methodology though you could discount a lot of people from history though right?

I mean if your scientific method is going to dismiss all historical accounting of anyone that's written about anyone, as it could just be doctored or be a story.

So for example, with that logic, Plato didn't exist, neither did Socrates, right? Because how do we know, where's the scientific data to prove that they did exist, maybe they were just characters that people created and told each other in an open forum?

I mean his methodology rejects every discipline besides science entirely.

 

[Airola]

You do realize that all the history books written in ancient times were based on accounts from other people. They didn't witness everything first hand. So is all of non-modern history fake?

Yeah, even Socrates is kinda like that. We don't have any direct evidence of him. Only what others have said about him.

The thing with ancient times is that information was mostly handled with word of mouth. There weren't many people writing anything about anyone. And when things were written, they usually were way after the fact. Jesus is no different from that.

 

[Lan Dong Mik]

Yeah it's Jesus and I really don't even think it's close

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I neither want nor don't want him to have existed. I simply don't think he did, since there is no evidence.

Evidence that you deny, you mean.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

I'm convinced these atheists who say Jesus didn't exist don't want him to have existed. I don't know why. Anyone have any ideas?

He probably existed and he was an ordinary man, like me and you.

He managed to get a cult following after his death. Thats more than what I can say for me

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm not sure you know what the word "evidence" means. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't mean it's proof of something. There is tons of evidence to point towards Jesus being real. This is how all of non-modern history works. You look at all the evidence and make the most logical conclusion.

That is how all of history works, pre-modern, early-modern, and modern.History is not a science. It can't be, and, even if it could, it shouldn't be.

 

[RoadHazard]

Let them jack off science.

Lol, what does this even mean? Because it sure makes it sound like you don't think science is much to bother with. It's LITERALLY the only thing giving us actual facts about anything.

 

[Lister]

I'm convinced these atheists who say Jesus didn't exist don't want him to have existed. I don't know why. Anyone have any ideas?

Let them jack off science.

You sound upset. I love the "atheist" thrown in as though ti were some srot of slur. Classy.

Also, you don't have to be a beliver to find the evidence compelling, or an atheist to find the opposite.

Certainly, most archeologist do not find the myths about him persuasive in any way shape or form. We are tlaking about historicity here, not religious perceptions of him.

 

[Skellig Gra]

That is how all of history works, pre-modern, early-modern, and modern.History is not a science. It can't be, and, even if it could, it shouldn't be.

Right, now we have photos and videos. Although those can be doctored too

 

[Apzu]

Josh

Really? I had no idea Josh had derived from Joshua/Yehoshua before today, but it kind of makes sense.

Still, mohammed has the advantage of being more standardized than all names derived from Jesus. But now I'm wondering if there are more people named mohammed in the world than Josh+Jesus+other languages.

 

[Cocaloch]

I neither want nor don't want him to have existed. I simply don't think he did, since there is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, you can argue that it isn't convincing to you, but it certainly exists.

 

[HelloMeow]

Sure but no one in the thread made any claim about this.

But which person are you talking about then? If it's not the magical guy from the book, then who is it?

To me it's the same as equating Harry Potter with Daniel Radcliffe.

 

[Eggbok]

Just think about the amount of times you say or hear someone say "Jesus Christ".
It's Jesus easily.

 

[Airola]

I neither want nor don't want him to have existed. I simply don't think he did, since there is no evidence.

I think you just are picky on what counts as evidence.

 

[capitalCORN]

I think that the major difference here is that Buddhism didn't really spread out of Asia. Buddhists make up about a percent of North America, maybe a fifth of that in Europe, and are virtually absent in South America, Africa, and the Middle East (maybe a million practitioners beween all of those regions combined).

I'm not sure if you are in South Korea, or are living in the west, but Buddhism is also one of the more invisible faiths in North America. Buddhists don't try to convert others or set up faith-based schools, community centers, and businesses in the same way that Catholics, Baptists, or Muslims do. At least not nearly to the same extent. People like faux Asian art, including depictions of Buddha statues. I'm not convinced most of them know how Siddhartha Gautama relates to said statues, or that Buddha was an actual person as opposed to an eastern god like Vishnu.

Once again people argue the west. I'm arguing historical importance. Bhuddhism existed in all pockets of the east, nearly two thousand years before Christianity would make the scene. Do you think modern people in Asia pass everyday Buddhist effigies with no knowledge of their roots? The world did not divorce it's past for globalization.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Really? I had no idea Josh had derived from Joshua/Yehoshua before today, but it kind of makes sense.

Still, mohammed has the advantage of being more standardized than all names derived from Jesus. But now I'm wondering if there are more people named mohammed in the world than Josh+Jesus+other languages.

I bet Maria has Muhammad beat.

 

[Inferno313]

But which person are you talking about then? If it's not the magical guy from the book, then who is it?

To me it's the same as equating Harry Potter with Daniel Radcliffe.

Huh? I have no idea what you're actually trying to argue.

Jesus being a person who existed doesn't mean that we also have to believe in the myths about him.

 

[Cocaloch]

Lol, what does this even mean? Because it sure makes it sound like you don't think science is much to bother with. It's LITERALLY the only thing giving us actual facts about anything.

It isn't.

But which person are you talking about then? If it's not the magical guy from the book, then who is it?

To me it's the same as equating Harry Potter with Daniel Radcliffe.

This is weird. People exist outside of other people's interpretations of them. Your logic can discount every historical figure since our knowledge of them from documents doesn't map on perfectly to the actual person.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Lol, what does this even mean? Because it sure makes it sound like you don't think science is much to bother with. It's LITERALLY the only thing giving us actual facts about anything.

You jack off science. You think it is the only methodology for which explains our world. Philosophy, history, archaeology, sociology, the arts, other traditions don't matter to you. Just science. It's almost like you treat it like a...religion.

I value science, but you jack off science. Just stating facts. I have some suggestions though: some lotion would go a long way.

 

[segasonic]

I'm an atheist and I think the notion of Jesus having never existed is crazy.

With that said: It's Jesus.

 

[kswiston]

I think you just are picky on what counts as evidence.

The good old "Evidence = fits my world view" definition.

 

[HelloMeow]

Huh? I have no idea what you're actually trying to argue.

Jesus being a person who existed doesn't mean that we also have to believe in the myths about him.

What I'm asking is who was this person if you take away the myths?

Can you even equate the myth and the person? For example, you can't with Harry Potter and Daniel Radcliffe.

 

[TheBowen]

Apart from religious figures, it would be people such as hitler, Ghandi, einstein,

Hell even certain actors like Jackie chan I think would be known virtually everywhere.

It's odd to think that there are people that are universally known, despite most people not knowing the specific history behind the person

15 pages and not one hint of a mention?

Though in all honesty, if we're discounting JC, it's probably Hitler

If we where talking just about the Uk then yes, but outside of that I don't the name Henry the 8th has that much recognition

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Huh? I have no idea what you're actually trying to argue.

Jesus being a person who existed doesn't mean that we also have to believe in the myths about him.

He's trying to argue the application of some kind of scientific method to ascertain the concrete certainty of someone actually existing. Thereby without such empiric evidence, you cannot state for a fact that these people did actually exist.

As all records, literally *all* records, either pictures, writings, first person, 2nd person accounts are all circumstantial. Ergo, not actual evidence backed up by Scientific data.

Photos can be doctored, pictures made up etc.

The actual logic behind this guys entire argument basically nullifies pretty much every historical character since the early 1900s.

The end point of which might actually lead to some pretty grim ramifications like. "Well that massacre didn't happen as there's no Scientific evidence"

 

[autumnleaf]

What I'm asking is who was this person if you take away the myths?

Someone who inspired the biggest following in history?

 

[Airola]

What I'm asking is who was this person if you take away the myths?

Can you even equate the myth and the person? For example, you can't with Harry Potter and Daniel Radcliffe.

If you'd read about North Korean leaders 1000 years from now they'd also seem like fictional characters because of what people around him believe about him.

 

[Skellig Gra]

What I'm asking is who was this person if you take away the myths?

Can you even equate the myth and the person? For example, you can't with Harry Potter and Daniel Radcliffe.

His teachings are some of the most gangster shit ever. That is what is worth remembering. His supposed miracles are meaningless CG filler.

 

[Lister]

Huh? I have no idea what you're actually trying to argue.

Jesus being a person who existed doesn't mean that we also have to believe in the myths about him.

I think his argument is: if the person who inspired the Jesus myths is so far removed from the myths... then does it really matter?

If I found some geeky dude who wears glasses, works at a newspaper in NYC, and at night, likes ot wear spandex, are you going to say, SEE! I told you superman existed!!

If you confine yourself the question: Did a real human being (or more likely did a handful of itenerant preaches causing trouble in Judea in the first century - 'cause this happenned a lot there and then) inspire or set off the mythological character we have described to us in the bible, then as I said, the answer is probably yes. But he isn't the Jesus of the bible, anymore than Radcliffe is Harry Potter.

 

[Aranath]

As an Ancient History and Biblical Archaeology double-major, there is some shocking ignorance on display here.

As already mentioned, Life of Brian's depiction of dime-a-dozen holy men was based on fact. Jesus was not the only messiah and holy man in his time. There were many before him, many at the time of his life, and many more for years to come after his death. By stating that he didn't exist, it would mean that a bunch of Judaeans sat around one day and decided to invent some messiah for their movement, when you could just find countless others around the eastern Mediterranean, preaching at times similar messages. Apollonius of Tyana was a similar and highly-venerated figure who was a contemporary of the historical Jesus. Would you say he was invented too?

People tend to automatically dismiss the existence of a historical Jesus just due to the sheer size and influence of the movement that he influenced. Dismissing his existence makes no historical sense whatsoever. The main difference between Jesus and all the other holy men was the fact that Jesus's followers were a lot more successful at spreading and attracting people to their movement. Apollonius was largely forgotten because the religious movement he inspired died off.

 

[Cocaloch]

What I'm asking is who was this person if you take away the myths?

Can you even equate the myth and the person? For example, you can't with Harry Potter and Daniel Radcliffe.

Who was Caeser if you strip away our records of him?

This is a bad question.

 

[Cocaloch]

I think his argument is: if the person who inspired the Jesus myths is so far removed from the myths... then does it really matter?

If I found some geeky dude who wears glasses, works at a newspaper in NYC, and at night, likes ot wear spandex, are you going to say, SEE! I told you superman existed!!

If you confine yourself the question: Did a real human being (or more likely did a handful of itenerant preaches causing trouble in Judea in the first century - 'cause this happenned a lot there and then) inspire or set off the mythological character we have described to us in the bible, then as I said, the answer is probably yes. But he isn't the Jesus of the bible, anymore than Radcliffe is Harry Potter.

None of this really follows, There are plenty of apocryphal stories of most famous figures. Does this mean that they didn't exist?

 

[autumnleaf]

This like the Simpsons episode where Lisa realises the man Jebediah Springfield isn't the person everyone thought and the legends say, so you have the man vs the myth.

Personally I am not religious in the slightest, I don't believe in a God or afterlife or that Jesus performed miracles. I do think there was a man baptised by Paul and crucified though that inspired everything we know today. That to me counts as 'real'.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

None of this really follows, There are plenty of apocryphal stories of most famous figures. Does this mean that they didn't exist?

It's like I already said, there's a difference between actual Jesus, and astral Jesus.

Actual Jesus lived in reality on the planet at one point in history.

Astral Jesus is the product of his following.

Kind of like in Entourage where you see famous people playing over-exaggerated characters of themselves.

Or another similarity would be the Jebidiah Springfield episode in classic Simpsons. His mythos doesn't coincide with his reality.

 

[mechashiva]

Vin Diesel has 101 million Facebook followers.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

It's Urkel.

 

[Majmun]

cupcakKe

a LEGEND

 

[Lister]

None of this really follows, There are plenty of apocryphal stories of most famous figures. Does this mean that they didn't exist?

I'm not necessairly agreeing wiht the train of tought, though I can follow it.

As I said, I think there is enough evidence to support a historical Jesus - I think that's where the other poster has an issue though.

Jesus is a loaded term. When we say that it's more likely than not that a historical Jesus existed, we mean:

- Well, itinerant preaches in first century Judea getting tinto trouble with local authorities were a dime a dozen. Like radio shock jocks today, or better, Youtube celebrities. So yeah, this is likely.

- Given clues in how things about him were described we can glean some things that are likely to be fact or close to it - like he was probably born in Nazareth, he might have been crucified - Romans loved to do this to rabble rousers.

I guess I'm agreeing with you, now that I think about it. Some people just can't divorce the religious baggage form the name and as much as some religious posters think it validates their beliefs, a historicity to Jesus really doesn't, some people just need to point that out.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's like I already said, there's a difference between actual Jesus, and astral Jesus.

Actual Jesus lived in reality on the planet at one point in history.

Astral Jesus is the product of his following.

Kind of like in Entourage where you see famous people playing over-exaggerated characters of themselves.

Or another similarity would be the Jebidiah Springfield episode in classic Simpsons. His mythos doesn't coincide with his reality.

Except it's essentially impossible to completely get at "actual Jesus". He was almost certainly a real person. I am quite sure a number of the stories about him are fabricated or mutated over the ages. Those two points are in no way contradictory, and thinking that they are shows a real lack of historical thinking.

I guess I'm agreeing with you, now tha tI think about it. Some peopel just can't divorce the religious baggage form the name.

I'm aware that this is the fundamental issue, it's what I've been arguing against. Some people seem to think we can get at the actual people themselves instead of what sources tell us about people. That's fundamentally not how history works tough. I'm enough of a not post-modernist to accept that these people existed outside of our understanding of them, but that doesn't mean we can ever get at those people.

 

[capitalCORN]

cupcakKe

a LEGEND

YAAAASSSS QWEEEENNNN!!!!!

 

[Izuna]

There is no scientific consensus that he ever existed at all. Look it up.

You should do some reading.

Why wouldn't you think, as someone who clearly doesn't believe he had all these "powers", that it's likely a regular dude had existed if one of the biggest religions ever is based on this dude?

How do you think Jesus was invented then?

 

[Cocaloch]

You should do some reading.

He's right that there is no scientific consensus, he's just wrong that it means anything at all. History isn't made by scientific consensus. People don't exist by scientific consensus. That's not what science does, and it is an ironic misunderstanding of the epistemology that he thinks is the only method of generating true knowledge.