Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 47 by JP Cusick]

If we dumb men don't understand it, I'd say that rests solely on God's shoulders.
Besides, that is how the government of man wants it to be...
and pay taxes...
and obey government...

all the rest doesn't matter a whit, does it?

Render to Caesar what he wants, money.
Render to God everything else - nothing Caesar cares about.

Am I wrong?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 50 by Goose]

There are plenty of people from antiquity for which we only have textural evidence. You already accept the existence of some of them...

Yes, and for everybody you've mentioned, we need to carefully examine the texts that these people wrote and/or the texts that mention them to see what might be truly historical.

We are having this argument solely because it’s Jesus.

That's probably true. If anybody said Martin Luther probably didn't exist, who would lash out in such fury at them?

That you can’t see it, doesn’t over turn the argument. Besides, you are missing the salient part of the argument. It’s not just that Tacitus hated Christians, it’s also that he didn’t trust them. In his mind they were a “most mischievous superstition.�

He didn't trust Christians to tell him what they believed? I think that's unlikely. Getting back to my example of the Jehovah-Witnesses critics, their most ardent foes believe what Jehovah's Witnesses say about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. In the same way Tacitus might not trust Christians about a lot of things, but he would at least believe what they say about their doctrines. Tacitus wasn't stupid, but he would be stupid to rely solely on third parties for information on Christian beliefs.

Professional historians don’t tend to use sources they believe are untrustworthy.

But they would look to religious groups to see what they believe. What historian of Mormonism would not read the Book of Mormon or interview a Mormon elder if she could to more fully understand what Mormons believe? So if Tacitus was in any way a credible source of information about Christianity, then he would have gotten information from Christians about their beliefs if he was at all able to.

Which is why it is far more plausible Tacitus got his information from Imperial archives as we know he had access to them.

We don't have those sources, so it is useless to speculate on what they said.

In any case, your logic here is completely fallacious, and Tacitus is useless as a source of information about Jesus.

You don’t take the word of JW’s on what they report do you?

I meet regularly with Jehovah's Witnesses and read their literature. That's how I know what they believe. Obviously I don't accept many of their beliefs, but I know what they believe because I listen to them. I would be a real knucklehead if I refused to listen to anything they say about their beliefs and then pretend that I can be a source of information about them! The same goes for Tacitus and Christianity: If he did refuse to listen to them as you say, then he would not be a credible historian.

So Tacitus cannot be trusted as a historian for determining if Jesus existed. Either he got his "information" from Christians and therefore his word is no more trustworthy than theirs, or he refused to listen to them and relied on some source we cannot check out.

That’s correct. I do not dismiss a priori any story solely on the grounds that it contains the supernatural or because it disagrees with my world view.

It's amazing you can believe in all those religions and folk tales.

There are some historians who think there may be a historical basis for King Arthur...

I see an analogy with the story of Jesus. Some historians claim King Arthur was not really a British king but a Roman cavalry leader. Huh? There was a "King Arthur," but he wasn't a king? The same game is played with Jesus. We are told that there was a Jesus only he wasn't a "Lord" (wasn't a god). So in order to save these figures we destroy them. I say just see them as myths from the outset, and we can save ourselves a lot of headaches.

In the case of Thor and Zeus I’m not aware of a single scholar who argues for their historicity.

Plato believed in Zeus, and there were certainly many other prominent Greeks and others who mentioned Zeus. So notable figures mentioning Jesus doesn't make him any more real than notable people mentioning Zeus makes Zeus real.

Having said that, the evidence for them is primarily from genres of literature known to record mythology. In the case of Zeus, for example, he is mainly depicted in Greek Epic poetry.

Speaking of "Greek epic poetry," I haven't failed to notice the similarities between the gospels and the works of Homer. Both Robert Price and Richard Carrier have documented the gospels using Homer's works as a basis for the story of Jesus.

You are missing the point. Many Caesars were deified. For example, Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Yes, but unlike Jesus, their stories are not meant to prove they were gods with magical powers. That's the difference between Jesus and these other figures you seem to miss. The stories of the emperors were stories of Caesars while the gospel story is the story of a god with magical powers.

If you have a character from history that is reported to have done and claimed what is reported about Jesus with evidence on par with that for Jesus, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Just study the myths of Osiris and Romulus and Inanna...

You're not? icon_blink

You argue for the myther position. You have quoted from or linked to the work of at least three mythers.

I wouldn't label myself as a "myther." I'm just skeptical about the existence of Jesus. At this point, yes, it appears to me that Jesus probably didn't exist. However, it's way too early to tell if that will be my final judgment. I'm still reading mythicist literature and will soon move on to books that espouse a historical Jesus. Maybe I will change my mind, but I need good evidence to do so.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that your position isn't hopeless, in my opinion. If you want skeptics to believe in a historical Jesus, then you have the burden of proof. If they don't agree with you, then instead of complaining, keep trying to improve your arguments and look for better evidence. You may succeed after all.

[historia]

The fact that the evidence for Jesus is purely in textual form is one of the main reasons we're arguing his historicity. So trying to use history to prove Jesus is not a strength but a weakness.

Having debated this topic many times on many different forums over the years, it seems to me that this is actually one of the fundamental misconceptions that needs to be cleared-up.

Let me explain: Historians never set out to "prove" anything. We cannot reproduce the past, and therefore can never "prove" or "demonstrate" what "actually" happened.

Rather, the historical method proceeds like any other field of human inquiry: We make observations, we form a hypothesis, and then we critically examine the available data in order to assess our hypothesis.

The essential task of the historian in this case, then, is not to "prove" whether Jesus existed or not, but rather to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge. That last part (background knowledge) is critical, and worth discussing separately.

Framing the question this way is important, because it is very easy to adopt a hyper-skeptical stance toward any historical topic, declare that the available evidence doesn't meet your own (ultimately arbitrary and subjective) standard for "proof," and conclude that the consensus on that topic is therefore unjustified.

This is the erroneous methodology employed by all conspiracy theories, and why it is so frustrating to debate with a conspiracy theorist. This is not a proper historical method.

This is why it is not enough simply to point out problems with the historical evidence -- as Goose quite adeptly pointed out above, many ancient historical sources are anonymous, biased, written well after the events they describe, and include references to supernatural events.

This doesn't, in itself, show that the mythicist hypothesis explains the evidence better, it just shows that the ancient historical sources we will examine on this topic are similar to many other ancient historical sources.

Rather, the skeptic has to explain why the hypothesis that Jesus never existed makes better sense of the available evidence than the hypothesis that Jesus existed. When we do that, I think the mythicist hypothesis falls far short.

If you want skeptics to believe in a historical Jesus, then you have the burden of proof.

Richard Carrier disagrees with you. He argues in Proving History, rightly I think, that on this topic the burden of proof lies with mythicists. Why do you think he's wrong?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 53 by historia]

Finally you acknowledge that Christianity's likelihood of being a plausible scenario based on history is equivalent to a snowball's chance in Hell.

I have been waiting for you to acknowledge a historian would never propose a miraculous scenario, when mundane states are easily available.

It is a big step for you. Welcome.

[historia]

Finally you acknowledge that Christianity's likelihood of being a plausible scenario based on history is equivalent to a snowball's chance in Hell.

I have no idea what this is suppose to mean.

I have been waiting for you to acknowledge a historian would never propose a miraculous scenario, when mundane states are easily available.

It is a big step for you. Welcome.

Don't be silly. I've made the above point -- virtually verbatim -- many times on this forum over the past four or five years,.

[JP Cusick]

[Replying to post 47 by JP Cusick]
If we dumb men don't understand it, I'd say that rests solely on God's shoulders.
Besides, that is how the government of man wants it to be...
and pay taxes...
and obey government...

all the rest doesn't matter a whit, does it?

Render to Caesar what he wants, money.
Render to God everything else - nothing Caesar cares about.

Am I wrong?

Some of us do not want to remain dumb, and that challenge is on our own shoulders.

And some of us do not want to be the slaves nor servants to the man-made institutions of government or of Capitalism - and that challenge too is our own concern.

But you are correct that it matters not a whit to the majority of people as they do not care.

Those who do not care to take the challenge are just like sheep to the slaughter as they waste away their lives.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an and other scriptures give any person the choice and the direction to escape the bondage and start living a real life based in truth.

So you are not wrong - but your view only concerns those who have already surrendered.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 53 by historia]

Having debated this topic many times on many different forums over the years, it seems to me that this is actually one of the fundamental misconceptions that needs to be cleared-up.

It's good that you realize that many people doubt that Jesus was a real person.

Let me explain: Historians never set out to "prove" anything. We cannot reproduce the past, and therefore can never "prove" or "demonstrate" what "actually" happened.

You might misunderstand what I meant by "prove Jesus." I'm not looking for proof that eliminates all conceivable doubt the historicity of Jesus; I'm looking for proof that eliminates all reasonable doubt. So if I have what I judge to be reasonable doubt that Jesus existed (and I do have such doubt), then I remain skeptical.

Rather, the historical method proceeds like any other field of human inquiry: We make observations, we form a hypothesis, and then we critically examine the available data in order to assess our hypothesis.

Well, that's what many mythicists like Richard Carrier are trying to do. If the approach you just posted is so critical in determining if Jesus is historical, then why does it fail in some cases to establish Jesus as historical? Obviously, that approach to history is not completely reliable if different people apply it only to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions. Of course, you can argue that mythicists misapply it, but you'll need to make a good case that they do.

Framing the question this way is important, because it is very easy to adopt a hyper-skeptical stance toward any historical topic, declare that the available evidence doesn't meet your own (ultimately arbitrary and subjective) standard for "proof"...

But isn't this just what the historical-Jesus crowd is arguing? Are they not "hyper-skeptical" of the Jesus myth theory? They certainly insist that the evidence for the Jesus myth does not fit their "ultimately arbitrary and subjective" standard for proof. On this subject Carrier writes:

I suspect those so invested in the traditional and dogmatic views and interpretations, and those so terrified of going against 'the consensus,' that they simply cannot countenance all that I've argued (no matter how soundly I've argued it) won't be willing to concede this conclusion, even if God himself descended from heaven and told them it was correct. Their careers, reputations or religious faith may rest too firmly on their past assumptions, making them impervious to change.

As you can see, it's easy to argue that the opposing side has some ulterior motive. It doesn't prove much to "mind read" those who disagree with us. Although I agree with Carrier on this point, I would never argue against the historical-Jesus theory by claiming I know what they're thinking.

This is the erroneous methodology employed by all conspiracy theories, and why it is so frustrating to debate with a conspiracy theorist.

While I don't consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist" and don't necessarily believe that Jesus was invented out of a conspiracy, I do know that conspiracies do happen. Sometimes people conspire to commit crimes, for example, and that's why we have laws against such conspiracies. I think it's quite proper to examine the evidence for Jesus to see if the early church did work together to create Jesus. After all, many other religions did just that to create their gods.

...many ancient historical sources are anonymous, biased, written well after the events they describe, and include references to supernatural events.

While I understand that people have made up wild stories about actual people, they have also made up stories about people who never existed. So we need to examine those stories to see if there is any real person underneath all that baloney. After scrutinizing the New Testament, I can't see any good reason to believe it's based on a real Jesus. To the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to see the Jesus of the New Testament as a myth.

Rather, the skeptic has to explain why the hypothesis that Jesus never existed makes better sense of the available evidence than the hypothesis that Jesus existed.

I must disagree that the skeptic needs to explain anything. Do those of us who are skeptical that Bigfoot or UFOs exist have the burden to argue that they don't exist? Of course not. If you wish to argue for a historical Jesus, then you have the onus to show he did exist. I have no burden to prove he didn't exist.

Richard Carrier disagrees with you. He argues in Proving History, rightly I think, that on this topic the burden of proof lies with mythicists. Why do you think he's wrong?

I haven't read that book yet, but I can say I don't agree with everything Carrier has written in On the Historicity of Jesus. For example, on page 325 he writes:

Mark's gospel also evinces possibly a poor understanding of the geography of Palestine (e.g. Mark 7.31 has Jesus simultaneously traveling north and south...

I checked a map of first-century Palestine, and it's entirely possible that Jesus took a route from the Tyre-Sydon area, south to Decapolis, and then north to the Sea of Galilee. It does seem odd that he took that route, but it's possible.

So I do think critically and fairly. I will soon read some of the books of those who believe in a historical Jesus. I might change my mind, but I need good evidence to do so.

[William]

[Replying to JP Cusick]

We also know that the Christians being thrown to the lions did this "turning the other cheek" in the arena, and then killing the Christians backfired onto the Romans because Christianity would in time take over Rome.

I think this is where some confusion arises. One has to understand that those called 'Christians' were so called by Romans, and it was a derogatory label.
Nothing is known as to what these ones actually referred to themselves as, but we can understand that whoever they were, they claimed to follow the teachings of a philosophy that dealt with the problem of Rome and elitism and disparity effectively enough to cause Rome to try and eradicate them.

However, we can also conclude that the processes Roman elitism used in relation to dealing with this particular problem evolved into replacing the brutal with the subtle - replacing persecution through brutal means by infiltration and the slow and steady re-telling of the story to support the Roman agenda, and THAT is what 'Christianity' is.

So it appears that 'Christianity in time took over Rome'? Have another look. Things are not always as they appear.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by JP Cusick]
If we dumb men don't understand it, I'd say that rests solely on God's shoulders.
Besides, that is how the government of man wants it to be...
and pay taxes...
and obey government...

all the rest doesn't matter a whit, does it?

Render to Caesar what he wants, money.
Render to God everything else - nothing Caesar cares about.

Am I wrong?

Some of us do not want to remain dumb, and that challenge is on our own shoulders.

And some of us do not want to be the slaves nor servants to the man-made institutions of government or of Capitalism - and that challenge too is our own concern.

But you are correct that it matters not a whit to the majority of people as they do not care.

Those who do not care to take the challenge are just like sheep to the slaughter as they waste away their lives.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an and other scriptures give any person the choice and the direction to escape the bondage and start living a real life based in truth.

So you are not wrong - but your view only concerns those who have already surrendered.

In this you are still incorrect.

Who?
Who are these ones going in 'the direction to escape the bondage and start living a real life based in truth.'

Who?
Who are these ones who have not surrendered?

Please read this thread before answering, as it should help you with formulating your argument.

[JP Cusick]

I think this is where some confusion arises. One has to understand that those called 'Christians' were so called by Romans, and it was a derogatory label.
Nothing is known as to what these ones actually referred to themselves as, but we can understand that whoever they were, they claimed to follow the teachings of a philosophy that dealt with the problem of Rome and elitism and disparity effectively enough to cause Rome to try and eradicate them.

I agree that at first the name "Christian" was derogatory and they did not like being called that, but we can see that Peter told them to accept the name calling as better than being called an evil doer, see 1 Peter 4:14-16

My finding is that at first they called their selves as "disciples" (disciplined ones) as shown in Acts 6:1-7

So it appears that 'Christianity in time took over Rome'? Have another look. Things are not always as they appear.

I agree - you are correct in this.

It was Rome that took over Christianity - not the other way around.

In this you are still incorrect.

Who?
Who are these ones going in 'the direction to escape the bondage and start living a real life based in truth.'

Who?
Who are these ones who have not surrendered?

Please read this thread before answering, as it should help you with formulating your argument.

You give an excellent comment #10 in that thread.

I would agree with scripture that the entire world is deceived, but some people are more deceived and some less.

God judges the heart, so a person's intention does matter, and so I say without evidence that I believe that there are some people who sincerely seek the truth, and that is the ultimate criteria.