BF2S Forums Jesus, Real Man or Myth?

OrangeHound wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

There's a Jesus College at Cambridge University and another at Oxford University, that's weird IMO.  Two of the most prestigious Universities have a College named after him.

But, since these schools were founded by the Christian church (at least that's my understanding), why would this be weird?

This debate is about proving Jesus existed or not, and many people here argued that most non-Christian scholars say there's no evidence of the historical Jesus.  Now, we must agree many of the most important scholars studied at these Universities.  If all of them were so convinced that Jesus never existed, they'd be against having a Jesus College inside the University.  What I mean is, many scholars from these two Universities must be comfortable with the fact that Jesus did exist.  Otherwise, they would be protesting for such a blatant offense to science.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-12 10:08:21)

sergeriver wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

There's a Jesus College at Cambridge University and another at Oxford University, that's weird IMO.  Two of the most prestigious Universities have a College named after him.

But, since these schools were founded by the Christian church (at least that's my understanding), why would this be weird?

This debate is about proving Jesus existed or not, and many people here argued that most non-Christian scholars say there's no evidence of the historical Jesus.  Now, we must agree many of the most important scholars studied at these Universities.  If all of them were so convinced that Jesus never existed, they'd be against having a Jesus College inside the University.  What I mean is, many scholars from these two Universities must be comfortable with the fact that Jesus did exist.  Otherwise, they would be protesting for such a blatant offense to science.

I don't think this debate is about proving anything - one way or the other. It is hopefully an exchange of ideas and opinions on the notion: can you call Jesus a historical personage. In the loosest form anything "from history" is historical; including myth. But, that is not sufficient justification to call a written account historical - in the face of: contradictions, missing credible-verifications, parallels to other myths, etc.

Even if there isn't sufficient justification (reason, evidence, etc) to call what we know about Jesus historical fact; it would not mean a man did not exist - in some other form (as origin of the account; in another guise) - behind the distortions and fabrications of myth.

King Arthur - is not a historical person, as far as I know, I am only aware of the distortions of myth & fable. But, again there very well could be a real person & personal account - upon which the myths are based.
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/arthur/historical.asp

King Arthur is the figure at the heart of the Arthurian legends. He is said to be the son of Uther Pendragon and Igraine of Cornwall. Arthur is a near mythic figure in Celtic stories such as Culhwch and Olwen. In early Latin chronicles he is presented as a military leader, the dux bellorum. In later romance he is presented as a king and emperor.

One of the questions that has occupied those interested in King Arthur is whether or not he is a historical figure. The debate has raged since the Renaissance when Arthur's historicity was vigorously defended, partly because the Tudor monarchs traced their lineage to Arthur and used that connection as a justification for their reign.

In similar fashion - the attempt to deal with this figure from antiquity - is a difficult one; and definative proofs one way or another from antiquity are sparse (actually based upon argumentation; rather than facts); or non-existent.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-12 13:04:02)

To my knowledge King Arthur is based on a Celtic war chief named Arthurius who lived around 517 and fought in a battle called Mountbadon, I believe. I really should go check my notes from when we studied Arhurian legend, despite the fact it isn't relevant to Jesus as much as anything else would be.

topal63 wrote:

Well you know (serge) - I already said I don't have sufficient reason to think he (Jesus) is an historical figure. And, this idea applies to the whole lot of NT characters: Paul, Saint Peter, James (a brother in Christ), Joseph, Mary, etc.

We have no historical evidence to think he existed, but the lack of that evidence does not mean he didn't.  If it was for evidence, half of the historical characters of the ancient age didn't exist.

Considering it didn't start that way, no.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

are we not counting the bible...

I think that's proof enough that there was some dude named Jesus chilling around the middle east 2000 years ago..

Whether he's the son of God, couldn't tell you.  I mean.. people wouldn't make this whole story up just for the sake of having millions of people give them money would they?

Referencing your last paragraph, I think you are referring to today's Christians ... the first generation or two of Christians went through multiple waves of resistance and persecution (King Herod, Nero, etc.).  Because people persisted in Christianity, these persecutions are one of the social-proof arguments that "something real" must have been present at that time.

OrangeHound wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

are we not counting the bible...

I think that's proof enough that there was some dude named Jesus chilling around the middle east 2000 years ago..

Whether he's the son of God, couldn't tell you.  I mean.. people wouldn't make this whole story up just for the sake of having millions of people give them money would they?

Referencing your last paragraph, I think you are referring to today's Christians ... the first generation or two of Christians went through multiple waves of resistance and persecution (King Herod, Nero, etc.).  Because people persisted in Christianity, these persecutions are one of the social-proof arguments that "something real" must have been present at that time.

There is increasing skepticism over whether Nero persecuted Christians. It is now considered to be extremely unlikely by the majority of historians, nor is he believed to start the fire he is often credited with and supposedly make the Christians scape goats for. This is now widely considered to be untrue - which is quite strong evidence that the references to Christ by Tacitus (where his references to Christians are in the context of being Nero's scapegoats) are later additions (forgeries).

topal63 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

are we not counting the bible...

I think that's proof enough that there was some dude named Jesus chilling around the middle east 2000 years ago..

Whether he's the son of God, couldn't tell you.  I mean.. people wouldn't make this whole story up just for the sake of having millions of people give them money would they?

For many scholars the Bible does not count as historical proof.  Of course nobody would make such story up just to make millions, lol./sarcasm

And the converse is true, for many (scholars) it counts as (is believed to be) prima facia evidence in a case for a historical Jesus. That case rest on the opposite assumption (of the mythical case). It rest upon this assumption: that Jesus (and the Apostles, etc) certainly existed as basically described in the N.T.; and then (from that standpoint; that assumption) you attempt to reconstruct a credible account from: textual analysis, archeology, extra-biblical information (including historical information specific to the region, but not specific to the N.T. account), etc.

Also I would like to clarify again what I tried to before. From a mythical perspective - there is no point in trying to prove that a man could exist (or did not exist) behind the mythical account as traditionally known and often accepted in faith (as a fact). The point is calling what we know about the man historical. Saying this - is not a historical person - is not the same as saying - someone somewhere did not exist. There very well could be a man upon which the account could have some basis in fact (but we just don't know - who that man is; what we have left is distortion and myth).

But if all I know is myth.

If all I know cannot be confirmed - or identified with a real man.

I am not inclined to say that there does not exist a real basis for the origin of the myth.

But, I am inclined to say that what we do know is probably not a historical personage.

I'd agree with that.

I believe there was someone who was the basis for the Jesus myth, a real life Jesus. But I also believe that Jesus would be so far removed from the man of myth as to be almost unrecognisable.

OrangeHound wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Referencing your last paragraph, I think you are referring to today's Christians ... the first generation or two of Christians went through multiple waves of resistance and persecution (King Herod, Nero, etc.).  Because people persisted in Christianity, these persecutions are one of the social-proof arguments that "something real" must have been present at that time.

There is increasing skepticism over whether Nero persecuted Christians. It is now considered to be extremely unlikely by the majority of historians, nor is he believed to start the fire he is often credited with and supposedly make the Christians scape goats for. This is now widely considered to be untrue - which is quite strong evidence that the references to Christ by Tacitus (where his references to Christians are in the context of being Nero's scapegoats) are later additions (forgeries).

Majority of historians? 

Granted there are several historians who question the authenticity of the documents which report these events (there is always a minority that takes contrarian positions on most every event of history), but I have not seen that there has been an opinion shift.

Something to consider:  on the subject of Christianity and Jesus, there are two extreme sides to the historical debate.  There are the protagonists who see every historical document as historical evidence, even the ones that seem out of place (such as the 18.3.3 passage of Josephus we were discussing earlier in the thread).  And there are the historical antagonists of Jesus & Christianity who see every ancient document that references to Christ and Christians as a forgery, a fiction, or an embellishment, and it is therefore historically discounted.  There is ample fuel that has been created for both sides of this debate, and it is necessarily biased toward one extreme or the other.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, we cannot prove this one way or the other in a forum thread ... the issues have become way too religiously politicized for a novice to clearly review the facts (or lack of facts).   At best the novice can say that there are ample historical references to Jesus to validate his existence, but that that the validity of these references is supported by some ancient historians and questioned by other ancient historians (the majority/minority varies depending upon the document).

I would say that is not the situation - as there are worldviews, paradigms, social factors, etc - at play (example: at one time it would have been inconceivable to challenge almost any Christian dogma).

There is a massive amount of false-histories (forgery) penned by Christian writers - considered not part of the official canon. These are anonymously authored in the same manner and often same style as that considered to be the canon. The basis for a historical Jesus rests upon assumption that - the concept of myth can be ignored in this case - when it hasn't been in the case of other religious myths. Also, the case for a historical Jesus rests on another assumption that these canonized accounts are not in equality with the uncanonized accounts (the multitude of other forged Christian histories).

Also I don't have time right now to address in detail your previous post on the Testimonium Flavium, but I will (... well, maybe I will).

P.S. Please don't think I have any antangonism for you or anyone else on this forum, or that I have some intended agenda. I can only say - I don't. I am merely providing the other side of the debate as best I can.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-13 15:16:06)

OrangeHound wrote:

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Something to consider:  on the subject of Christianity and Jesus, there are two extreme sides to the historical debate.  There are the protagonists who see every historical document as historical evidence, even the ones that seem out of place (such as the 18.3.3 passage of Josephus we were discussing earlier in the thread).  And there are the historical antagonists of Jesus & Christianity who see every ancient document that references to Christ and Christians as a forgery, a fiction, or an embellishment, and it is therefore historically discounted.  There is ample fuel that has been created for both sides of this debate, and it is necessarily biased toward one extreme or the other.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, we cannot prove this one way or the other in a forum thread ... the issues have become way too religiously politicized for a novice to clearly review the facts (or lack of facts).   At best the novice can say that there are ample historical references to Jesus to validate his existence, but that that the validity of these references is supported by some ancient historians and questioned by other ancient historians (the majority/minority varies depending upon the document).

I would say that is not the situation.

There is a massive amount of false-histories (forgery) penned by Christian writers - consider not part of the official canon. These are anonymously authored in the same manner and often same style as that considered to be the canon. The basis for a historical Jesus rest on an assumption that - the concept of myth can be ignored in this case - when it hasn't been in the case of other religious myths. Also, the case for a historical Jesus rests on another assumption that these canonized accounts are not in equality with the uncanonized accounts (the multitude of other forged Christian histories).

I had a brain fart ... the text in orange is not an accurate statement.

You're mostly right, and thank-you for the correction ... there are some documents that the Christian promoters on this issue don't accept as valid, and some they debate upon (such as the Gospel of Thomas).  The criteria for a Christian promoter to affirm historical validity is not a canonization issue (you may not have intended this, but it is how I interpreted your statement).  Not all non-canonical works are considered historically invalid, however, speaking here of  documents which were debated for canonization.  Some were not included simply because the authorship did not meet the set criteria (in the NT canon, the author had to have been both known by the Church at the time and have a direct apostolic connection) ... others were not included because the theology was benign or contrary to the Church's theological positions.

Spiritually valid - is not equal to - historically valid.

There is nothing in existence (IMO) to suggest that myth or faith - is invalid - but that does not equal history. The Gospel of Thomas can be valid from a perspective of induction into the mystery of being and mystery called by name : God.  Unhistorical does not equal invalid - if that was not the original intent.

I'm presently here, laughing my fucking ass off at anyone who believes in religions, i don't respect that kind of people, Sorry.

Jesus is a nice guy!  it's his fan club that drives me crazy!   

my take on this...   stories passed on by word of mouth tend to get more grandiose with each telling.  so   Jesus showing up to a village with some wine and fish, turns into   wow!  he turned water into wine and feed us all fish he magically created!   

Jake  you look alot like that Jesus guy they claim was the son of god.  after he dies on the cross I have a plan to get us everything we ever wanted!

I dont deny the existence or non existence of any god, I just choose to not participate.

buLLet_t00th wrote:

What I want to know (if Jesus did exist) is why 'God' sent him down 2000 years ago when, to be honest, not much was going on.

Now though there is a load of shit going on in the world (and 50 years ago with the holocaust) and where's Jesus?

Well last time he was sent down they killed him... I don't think "The Man Upstairs" would want to make the same mistake again, especially with recording equipment in every body's hands now a days....lol

No seriously, Jesus did exist it has been proved.  He was the sun of a carpenter.  Weather or not he has or had anything to do with any religious establishment is beyond my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure no one around, except a handful of deliberating scholars knows the answer to that question.  Chances are you'll never hear the true answer either.

I think someone made a very very very valid point in saying this is nothing more then a debate on opinion.

Having said that I think Jesus existed and was no sun of GOD.  If he thought he was, it was because he was nuts.  If people thought he could do amazing things like turn water into wine, chances are he was nothing more then a magician.

The real question you should be asking is what was Mosses smoking to see that burning tree and to be able to part the red seas, I mean really, I want some of that high grade please...Thank you very much.

Christbane wrote:

Jesus is a nice guy!  it's his fan club that drives me crazy!   

my take on this...   stories passed on by word of mouth tend to get more grandiose with each telling.  so   Jesus showing up to a village with some wine and fish, turns into   wow!  he turned water into wine and feed us all fish he magically created!   

Jake  you look a lot like that Jesus guy they claim was the son of god.  after he dies on the cross I have a plan to get us everything we ever wanted!

I don't deny the existence or non existence of any god, I just choose to not participate.

Good point, people don't really get the idea that we are supposed to not live directly by the word of god but to use his teachings as guidelines, most fanatics totally miss that point in all religions and for that I hate them too.  However, your lack of participation in religion is only a sign of your inability to choose and deal with the consequences of your decision.  I mean I used to be like that but then I realized you don't get any points sitting on the fence, if you know what I mean, if not think about it (no offence intended).

Last edited by Scardaddy (2007-12-02 15:55:31)