Did Jesus Actually Exist?

I have often wondered why the Jews were blamed for the killing of Jesus, down through the centuries, if this man did not exist. The blaming of Jews for killing Jesus did not materialize out of whole cloth. I do not ascribe these other so-called miracles to Jesus. But I do believe that someone knocked Mary up and she invented the lie that a god got her, a virgin, pregnant. People back then were on the whole unschooled with the exception of the Rabbis and the elite. People during that time was highly impressionable when it came to religion. It did not take much convincing for many to believe Jesus was the new Messiah.

The Jesus religion almost died out until it was revived by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337); Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

People are always looking for a fall guy and the Jews get selected more often than most.

It may sound simple, but it does not fit the problem at hand very well. E.g. it is a rule of urban legends that you can never trace back to the source, or even to where it exactly happened, because the source is of course inexistent. But in the case of Christianity, they made their best to cite their sources and to connect the story with local events and people. So you have a discrepancy here. Another is that urban legends have typically very weak and transient influences on human affairs. There are cultural epiphenomena. How many people ever believed an urban legend enough to sacrifice their life to it?

The idea that Jesus never existed makes for a much better urban legend: it has no evidence and sources; remains a fringe and barely noticeable social phenomenon; etc.

It's not a complicated theory, it's a complicated story.

I've explained my position about as thoroughly as I can, and I find I'm already repeating myself. You've come up with some theories that you suggest are at least possible. What you haven't explained, though is why the non-existence of Jesus is more plausible than his existence. Remember, we both agree that we should judge this issue on a "more likely than not" standard, so it's not enough for you to suggest scenarios that are equally likely. Rather than pitch another version of "urban legend Jesus" or "Chinese whisper Jesus" or whatever else, how about explaining why "real live Jesus" is so improbable that the alternative scenario, whatever that might be, is more plausible?

That is true, and there's a reason for it: As I stated a few pages ago, this is not my position, so there is nothing to explain. My position on the historicity of Jesus is one of genuine agnosticism. In my opinion, neither the "Jesus is a myth" side nor the "there was a real Jesus worthy of the name" side has good-enough evidence for its case; therefore I think our appropriate response is to withhold judgment.

To defend my Jesus-agnosticism against your view that there probably was a real Jesus worthy of the name, I don't have to explain why my urban legend / Chinese whisper / John Frum scenario is more plausible than a real Jesus. All I have to explain is that it's plausible enough for it to stay in the game, for Occam's razor to spare it, and for us to withhold judgement. And I believe I did that.

Ah, well then there's nothing left to discuss.


I don't share your optimism.

“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov

Great quote, EB, thanks for that.

Rome, (and Roman Catholicism) needed a scapegoat.

Talking of SciFi, for those who read French and love graphic novels, here is a poetic, funny and sexy take -- slightly on the 'heroic fantasy' side -- on the events coming up to the birth of Jesus. An angel is sent to earth in woman form, to find the man who will father the Messiah to come... She tries many bad (and some good) men... and make a few friends along the way: Gaspar, Melchior and Baltazar.

Not for fundamentalists of any stripe, obviously.



http://www.amazon.fr/dp/2723472671/ref=as_sl_pd_tf_lc?tag=lelitoulalu06-21&camp=1414&creative=6410&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=2723472671&adid=0J8RV34WT3JCRY9DHHZW

Michael Moorcock got there first.

"First"? People have been writting apocryph accounts of Jesus life since the 1st century a.d....

Some would argue "from the 3rd century BC!"

Science fiction in the 1st century? You don't say.

Science fiction is eternal.

Some would argue whatever... :-)

I can't be arsed to start another pointless argument, so we'll leave it at that.

Leave what at where?

Science fiction where it is.

You're getting wiser by the day.