Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

[Elfdude]

Even the most radical atheists like Richard Dawkins accept that Jesus did exist.

No they don't. This is just BS. The only thing he ever said anything like that was an argument where he admitted for argument sake they existed and then walked back what that meant.

[fkizz]

Well Dawkins also believe we were created by a primordial alien race who left here self replicating bits with the alien's intelligent design marks, he also believes in a Creation story excepts he replaces God with ancient aliens so I guess not the best example for a skeptic.
I know he often appears in media and says edgy things, but that's it. He's not really a skeptic, he just has a different creation myth. You can only bluff for so long

[Elfdude]

No he doesn't. The panspermia idea is one of many and he's always said even if that occurred life probably evolved elsewhere. I believe his primary explanation of it is based on minerals serving as a lattice structure for catalyzing complex chemical interactions or something to do with oceanic volcanology.

[basics]

Monarchist,

Once I had been converted the enthusiasm to dig in to the Scriptures was uncanny because night after night for a very long time Scripture rolled before my eyes when I was sleeping. The Spirit was showing me not only the answers but the things to look for. Quite often to my wife's grief I would jump up in bed to nudge her just to tell her what I had just discovered. One of the first things I did was to phone the Chief Rabbi of the UK just to confirm that our Old Testament was indeed their Torah. As he wasn't available it was the Assistant Chief Rabbi who confirmed that indeed they were the same. The argument about Nazareth is an old one and by that time I was posting in Haaretz, and the Jerusalem Post digging up all that I could find plus enjoying reasonable debate about Jesus. The surprise came from an Israeli archaeologist who discovered that there were indeed two places called Nazareth yet today there is only one. Could this answer the Nazareth question?

In Gibbon's Decline and Fall, he records one Roman Caesar on confronting a serious argument within two factions about the authentication of Jesus, that he, Caesar, could produce records that show Mary, Joseph and Jesus having been recorded after one census. So we can see that the debates, the arguments were just as the Bible says that there were and still are people quite prepared to debunk anything to do with Him. And, the whole point from God's angle is that He doesn't care what they think because knowing and believing Jesus is purely built on faith imputed to that person by God Himself. It's a funny thing about human nature that we see almost every day of our lives in that we build up persons to be famous personalities and then spend the rest of our lives tearing them down.

[bigdaddy1204]

No they don't. This is just BS. The only thing he ever said anything like that was an argument where he admitted for argument sake they existed and then walked back what that meant.

I did check this before posting. Here's the man himself.

[mishkin]

Even the most radical atheists like Richard Dawkins accept that Jesus did exist.

Ergo, every atheist must accept Jesus did exist?

Btw, interesting thread. Personally I never worried about this issue before and always assumed that Jesus had existed and was some kind of agitator or philosopher. I sincerely believe that being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that a certain Jesus lived (or not) anywhere 2000 years ago. It is a really trivial (although as I said, interesting in my opinion) detail.

[sumskilz]

Btw, interesting thread. Personally I never worried about this issue before and always assumed that Jesus had existed and was some kind of agitator or philosopher. I sincerely believe that being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that a certain Jesus lived (or not) anywhere 2000 years ago. It is a really trivial (although as I said, interesting in my opinion) detail.

If you have enough interest, here's a debate that lays out all the major issues of both sides of the argument. Both participants are agnostic/atheists. The actual debate starts at 5:00. You'll get a solid grasp of the evidence/arguments just by watching the first 45 minutes or so:



The mainstream secular academic view is that Jesus existed, was baptized by John, gathered a small following, debated theological issues with other Jews, was thought by some to be the Messiah during his lifetime, and was crucified by the Romans while Pontius Pilate was prefect. Other details regarding his biography are subject to debate, but denying these core assertions is generally considered fringe.

[bigdaddy1204]

Ergo, every atheist must accept Jesus did exist?

That's kind of my point: it doesn't matter what your position on religion is. The existence or not of Jesus is primarily a historical question, just like other historical figures of that period such as the Roman Emperor Tiberius.

As far as I am aware, the consensus of scholars is that he did exist. The belief that he didn't is rejected by most scholars. At least that's what Wiki says.

What I'm saying is that the historical existence of a person called Jesus does not necessarily imply religious belief. Or to flip things around, the OP doesn't have to deny that Jesus existed, to not believe in Christianity (or any other belief system).

[Monarchist]

If you have enough interest, here's a debate that lays out all the major issues of both sides of the argument. Both participants are agnostic/atheists. The actual debate starts at 5:00. You'll get a solid grasp of the evidence/arguments just by watching the first 45 minutes or so:

[snip]

The mainstream secular academic view is that Jesus existed, was baptized by John, gathered a small following, debated theological issues with other Jews, was thought by some to be the Messiah during his lifetime, and was crucified by the Romans while Pontius Pilate was prefect. Other details regarding his biography are subject to debate, but denying these core assertions is generally considered fringe.

I spent most of the last 2-3 years, during my search, generally agreeing that if the vast majority of scholars consider "Mythicism" to be fringe, then it's not worth my time. Eventually I bumped into a mythicist video on YouTube by accident. I decided to see what it was all about. Much of it was convincing. I don't adhere to it rigidly, but because they often make good arguments (especially Dr. Robert M. Price, featured there in your video, sumskilz), I stopped caring whether the view is "mainstream" or "accepted by most scholars" or "fringe". If something rings true, I'll believe it until it's pretty definitely shown to be implausible. Some mythicist ideas are plausible, some not. This is the work of all history and the sciences. Saying something is fringe is a scare tactic on the part of scholars who don't like an idea.

We really have to ask exactly how this "majority" is tallied, rather than just accept its beliefs. Who defines what is fringe? An idea is an idea. Let is be disproved by reasons, not numbers. The "vast majority" of Christians are Catholics, so is Catholicism true? The "majority" of scholars either are Christians who need Jesus to exist for obvious reasons, and/or are counted as the "majority" solely by extrapolating from the votes of the Jesus Seminar. All of this is argumentum ad populum, and shouldn't be the sole basis of credibility or investigation.

The main question I have is: why do "the majority" consider it definite that Jesus only preached and was crucified? And what is the basis of their assertion that those specific things are true about Jesus? As far as I can tell, the basis is that the Four Gospels and St. Paul agree that Jesus preached and was crucified, and that later pagan sources mention that he was crucified. That's the majority census reasoning. But there's a problem. The Gospels & Paul also all agree that Jesus was raised from the dead and that he did miraculous things (Paul doesn't mention the healing miracles though). Why is that set of data not accepted, but only his preaching & crucifixion are accepted? Both miracles/resurrection and preaching/crucifixion have the same basis in manuscript evidence, no? Clearly this majority don't accept the miraculous bits because they don't believe in miracles. A priori. But that simply makes them reject one aspect of the Jesus story out-of-hand whilst accepting the other aspects based on exactly the same texts & evidence.

Forgive me if these are dumb questions and ideas, but I find the changes in philosophy, psychology, history, archaeology, etc., very very interesting.

Robert M. Price often complained, in the past, that Ehrman would never debate him, so I'm glad this happened. Thanks for the vid.

[Monarchist]

[snip] What I'm saying is that the historical existence of a person called Jesus does not necessarily imply religious belief. Or to flip things around, the OP doesn't have to deny that Jesus existed, to not believe in Christianity (or any other belief system).

Very true bigdaddy1204. His historical existence certainly doesn't imply religious belief. I do admit that I, personally, had so many doubts about the truth of this religion for many years, but believing in the reality of Jesus' existence in history always led to me asking questions like: "but what if you're wrong?". Fears of judgment, damnation, and hellfire. It was really depressing and difficult, because I believed so fanatically. I had to believe. Yet I didn't really believe it all. So in order to find peace, I had to totally crush Jesus' historicity in my own mind, in order to escape from the neurotic effects of Christianity on my life & psyche.

I have no problems confessing this, because I'm not perfect and we all have our reasons for doing the things we do. That's life.

Btw, interesting thread. Personally I never worried about this issue before and always assumed that Jesus had existed and was some kind of agitator or philosopher. I sincerely believe that being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that a certain Jesus lived (or not) anywhere 2000 years ago. It is a really trivial (although as I said, interesting in my opinion) detail.

As I said to bigdaddy1204 above, I have my reasons to need Jesus not to exist. Just like many have their reasons to need him to exist. But to the point: you're right. Atheism is the philosophical rejection of all powers that may cause such miraculous effects as are attributed to Jesus, and it's the basis for a worldview. We all go through different stages and journeys to reach our conclusions.

[mishkin]

Thanks sumskilz, thanks bigdaddy for the clarification, I did not understand your previous message well.

[fkizz]

No he doesn't. The panspermia idea is one of many and he's always said even if that occurred life probably evolved elsewhere.

You just agreed, why did you say the no?. Eveb what you describe is saying that life existed outside Earth (extra terrestrial life; alien life) and then spread to Earth (extra terrestrial/alien life becomes earthly). Even in your terms this implies that ancient aliens lifeforms is what defines our origins.
Dawkins later adds belief of an ancient primordial aliens made sure intelligent design would be on the transmission vectors. Kinda anti-climatic narrative for a proud skeptic.

Ergo, every atheist must accept Jesus did exist?
Btw, interesting thread. Personally I never worried about this issue before and always assumed that Jesus had existed and was some kind of agitator or philosopher. I sincerely believe that being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that a certain Jesus lived (or not) anywhere 2000 years ago. It is a really trivial (although as I said, interesting in my opinion) detail.

Eh, one can pretty much accept an historical Jesus as an agitator/philosopher/whatever else that upset the local clerics and roman establishment giving him death penalty. And be atheist regardless.
Would even be similar story to Socrates.

Which is why openly denying the existence of any historical Jesus is often done out of spite and ideology rather than honest concern.
Now actively denying is not the same as questioning/doubting/researching, so this one was not for you OP, just in case you misunderstood.

[Elfdude]

I did check this before posting. Here's the man himself.

[/quote]

That's what I was referring to. Nice try though.

You just agreed, why did you say the no?. Eveb what you describe is saying that life existed outside Earth (extra terrestrial life; alien life) and then spread to Earth (extra terrestrial/alien life becomes earthly). Even in your terms this implies that ancient aliens lifeforms is what defines our origins.
Dawkins later adds belief of an ancient primordial aliens made sure intelligent design would be on the transmission vectors. Kinda anti-climatic narrative for a proud skeptic.

No it doesn't. I agreed he's talked about panspermia, in a hypothetical context. You seem to struggle with science there.

[fkizz]

Panspermia which you agree upon, basically settles that our origins can very well come from alien lifeforms. Not sure what you disagree with.

The rest on design by ancestral aliens was what Dawkins himself added. It's his subjective opinion, going beyond panspermia, yet playing on the same type of idea of our origins being possibly alien.
I agree his statement sounds like bad science, but to each, his own.

[mishkin]

Eh, one can pretty much accept an historical Jesus as an agitator/philosopher/whatever else that upset the local clerics and roman establishment giving him death penalty. And be atheist regardless.
Would even be similar story to Socrates.

This^ is what I said (maybe I explained myself badly) was my original position (atheist with the preconceived idea that jesus had existed).

[Elfdude]

Panspermia which you agree upon, basically settles that our origins can very well come from alien lifeforms. Not sure what you disagree with.

The rest on design by ancestral aliens was what Dawkins himself added. It's his subjective opinion, going beyond panspermia, yet playing on the same type of idea of our origins being possibly alien.
I agree his statement sounds like bad science, but to each, his own.

It's not science. He was not speaking of a scientific theory, he was speaking of a hypothesis. I'm not sure what you're saying I agree upon. I agree Richard Dawkins has talked about panspermia, pretty much anyone who has ever talked about the origin of life has. What's your point? You asserted that he believed panspermia was true, that's very different than discussing it.

[bigdaddy1204]

The divinity of Jesus is an issue that was never resolved in Christianity. Some believed he was god. Some believed he was not. The Marcionites believed he was god - but an entirely different god to the one described in the Hebrew scriptures. Conversely, there is a group called Jehovah Witness that say Jesus is not god (but other Christians say he is).

It seems controversy about the significance of Jesus is unlikely to end any time soon.

[Elfdude]

Christians all believe Jesus was Divine. That's one of the main defining points of christianity. The problem is that most simultaneously know the miracles attributed to him are probably impossible and probably never occurred. This leads to a weird type of incoherence between historical representation of a man like jesus and trying to find jesus himself. The closest figure we can point to is Yuz Asaf but he wasn't killed by Ponti, he was removed from the cross and smuggled away by his followers. Which defeats all of christianity if it's true.

So yeah, I'm sorry but there's no historical jesus. There's at best people who hold some traits in common with him and they range over the period of hundreds of years.

[Ludicus]

The only question worth answering is why not commit suicide.

Not recommended if you are sensible, insecure or depressed,
Suicide by Álvaro de Campos aka Fernando Pessoa

[fkizz]

The divinity of Jesus is an issue that was never resolved in Christianity. Some believed he was god. Some believed he was not. The Marcionites believed he was god - but an entirely different god to the one described in the Hebrew scriptures. Conversely, there is a group called Jehovah Witness that say Jesus is not god (but other Christians say he is).

It seems controversy about the significance of Jesus is unlikely to end any time soon.

Well going more Historical, the Roman Emperor called himself "Son of God". Due to formalities, religious worship of Roman Emperors was very common, so people existing considering the Emperor as the Son of God in literal terms possibly existed. Stories of half man half divine rulers were actually very common. Hercules, Gilgamesh. Even Alexander tried to go for a claim of being partially Divine, which caused him a quarrel with his former teacher Aristotles, who was against it.

Now, when Jesus criticizes and defied Roman Authority, the only realistic way to say the Emperor is not really the person who influences this area, is to remove the claim of Son of the God from the Emperor (a claim many people believed true), and move it to someone in the said rebellious area of Judeah. And what better person than the one who just got accepted as Messiah?

If people followed a Messiah while believing the Son of God was in Imperial Throne, the movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere. As long as Rome had that title habit, the Messiah could only advance if he accepted the claim of Son of God as well, thus in fact challenging Imperial Authority as the Messiah was destined/supposed to.
People dropped the claim that the emperor was son of god, and moved the such title to the Messiah.
Given plenty of people already indoctrinated to believe Emperor was Son of God, the idea that such a person was around on Earth was very feasible in their minds. If not the Emperor, then someone else. It's how they were raised.

This is from a more historical perspective. A Messiah in the conditions of Rome brutal pragmatism would have 0 chance at sucess if he didn't shift the title of Son of God from Emperor into Himself.

From a more theological perspective, Church just considers it a Dogma as to prevent confusion and deviations. Prioritizing order and faith first and beforehand.
The Clerics are allowed and even encouraged to have open discussions on Dogmas though.