Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Why does it even matter whether or not he really existed? Joseph Smith existed and his brand of charlatanism is still going strong. The real question is whether or not he was divine or whether or not there is even such a thing as divinity. Except for the confection, that is. His mere existence is not evidence that the mystical, supernatural, magical, miracle stories about him are true.

2 Replies

Seems both sides of this controversy would do well to simply acknowledge that we do not know for sure if a single person is the Biblical character known as Jesus...or if the Jesus of the Bible is actually an amalgam of several individuals who were incorporated into one for the purposes of furthering the religion and its teachings.

The "walking on water" "rising from the dead" and such seem almost certain to be myth...and is of little consequences.

"Love your neighbor and your 'enemy' " is an admonition that was furthered by the early church fathers...and whether they got it from a single individual or from several doesn't really matter.

1 Reply

@FBM,

It's not a religious question, but a historical one, and as good as any I guess.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Hearsay isn't even admissible in civil lawsuits, which are decided by preponderance of the evidence. "Preponderance of the evidence" means that the charge is more likely than not to be true, which does make it a standard of evidence comparable to the one for establishing historical facts.

Not all hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court. Indeed, there are a number of well-recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule that let in quite a lot of hearsay testimony. The key is whether or not the statement being reported second-hand has the requisite indicia of reliability that would allow the finder of fact to say "I know that the statement is hearsay, but it is of a kind or was made under such circumstances that persuade me that it can be relied upon for its truthfulness."

Historians face the same task of sorting the reliable hearsay from the unreliable. That's especially true of historians of antiquity, where an unreliable source may be the only source. A historian isn't a judge, though, and there's no rule that says that certain types of evidence are inadmissible. Instead, the historian sifts through all the evidence and makes a determination, based on historical criteria, which is reliable and which isn't.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Why does it even matter whether or not he really existed?

Exactly, it's what he said that's important.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Are you a holocaust denier?

Holocaust is the title given to an event in WW2, in reference to the suffering of people by several consequences of war, including abuses by Nazis.

No one can deny that such events happened, however, there is an exaggerate claim of the number of deaths, of the methods used with intent or without intent by Nazis, and of the abuses themselves.

Same here, in this discussion, no one can deny that this person Yeshu (Jesus) existed -unless the denier is focused to believe his own imaginations- but the other things around Yeshu like walking on water and similar, such can be in doubt as a legend created about him.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Are you a holocaust denier?

Prhps he cannot appreciate the strength of evidence ssociqted. Carlo Is quite a vocal denier of biology

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

You wrote this.

Quote:

Writing postings after postings full of nonsenses won't cover up the true reality that science has debunked the holocaust hypothesis.

http://able2know.org/topic/256530-6#post-5785665

If that's not Holocaust denial I don't know what is. And you compounded it by using lower case h for Holocaust.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Holocaust deniers typically offer an alternative scenario or "rival theory" in which so many people would have died not by intent, but just as a result of the war, famine, diseases etc. This is the BS you try to peddle here, if I am not mistaken.

I must admit that this "rival theory" is much stronger than the feeble ideas peddled by the Jesus deniers. At least it does not involve little green men, gods, or new texts and religions springing mysteriously from certain cultural backgrounds without any actual guy writing them or working to make converts... But it does neglect a lot of what we know: we know for a fact that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews and planned the final solution as carefully as they could, and also diverted to this task significant resources which they could have used to defend themselves from the allies....

So you have a good rival theory, something the Jesus deniers don't have, but it still doesn't cut the cake. It is still BS.

1 Reply

Quote:

Seems both sides of this controversy would do well to simply acknowledge that we do not know for sure if a single person is the Biblical character known as Jesus...

"We" don't know for sure if a single person..."

What a comedian. Lol

After knowing that the existence of Jesus can't be denied, now Frank invents the idea of various individuals playing the character of Jesus two thousand years ago...

So, according to Frank, Jesus was an actor, and that for certain events, a body double took his place... a body double the one who was crucified... another body double the one who was hooked to a helicopter to rise up to heaven...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Carlo Is quite a vocal denier of biology

That too? I didn't know one could possibly deny biology...

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

http://able2know.org/topic/256530-6#post-5785665

If that's not Holocaust denial I don't know what is. And you compounded it by using lower case h for Holocaust.

Poor reading comprehension izzithepush.

The words of mine are clearly about the gas chambers and the number of deaths using such a method.

My position still stands, SCIENCE HAS DEBUNKED such a claim.

When I said "holocaust" in my phrase, and you read the whole context, it is obvious that I'm talking in reference to those assumed gas chambers.

And, if you want to keep discussing about this exaggerate claim, this is not the place to do it. Go back to that forum and thread and discuss it over there.

Here, the discussion is about Jesus, a complete different topic.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension you loathsome racist chimp.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So you have a good rival theory, something the Jesus deniers don't have, but it still doesn't cut the cake. It is still BS

This is life, you can't agree on everything.

And if for any reason you take for granted a mischievous misinformation given by someone, then I can't do anything to help you. Because if that is what you want to believe, then be happy with it... oops... my mistake... I must say... then be in sorrow all your life because it...

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Historians face the same task of sorting the reliable hearsay from the unreliable. That's especially true of historians of antiquity, where an unreliable source may be the only source.

Historians are not entitled to claim that they know something when they don't. If their only source for some event is an unreliable source, then they don't know, and the proper response is to be forthright about it. To say "oh well, let's settle for unreliable sources then", is not the proper response --- not for a historian, not for any honest intellectual.

joefromchicago wrote:

A historian isn't a judge, though, and there's no rule that says that certain types of evidence are inadmissible.

In my opinon, if a piece of evidence would be inadmissible in a civil suit, it is very likely inappropriate for establishing historical narratives, too. I have formed this opinion from the assumption that the legal rules of evidence make sense for the respective standards of proof that the evidence needs to meet in a particular case. After all, these rules are tested far more often, and with far higher stakes, than the 'rules of evidence' historians follow informally. In dealing with evidence, then, I trust the rules of the legal system more than I trust the rules of the historical profession.

Now, the standard of proof that historians seek to meet --- or that I expect them to meet --- is preponderance of the evidence: Is a given claim about history more likely than not to be true, given the available evidence? As I said, I believe that judicial rules of evidence are well-adapted to the standard of proof that the evidence needs to establish. Therefore, it makes sense to me to evaluate historical evidence by the same rules a judge would use to evaluate evidence in a civil suit.

joefromchicago wrote:

Instead, the historian sifts through all the evidence and makes a determination, based on historical criteria, which is reliable and which isn't.

Maybe this is me being dense, but I don't see how this approach differs materially from what a judge in a civil case would do.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Prhps he cannot appreciate the strength of evidence ssociqted. Carlo Is quite a vocal denier of biology

How dare you say that I'm a denier of "evolution" when izzithepush is calling me a "chimp"? Lol.

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

I'll tell you exactly what I have told the Jesus deniers: As far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion, but I won't let you peddle lies about what the scientific consensus is.

If you can point to ONE QUALIFIED ALIVE SCIENTIST who doubts the Holocaust, do so. But you can't, just like the Jesus deniers can't, because there is no such person.

STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY !!!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

the Myth Thesis had never ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

For the record, my position is not that the historicity of Jesus is purely a myth. My position is that we don't know whether Jesus really lived or not. Given the paucity of reliable evidence, it is reasonable to withhold judgement about the historicity of Jesus.

By contrast, the fact of global warming and the historicity of the Holocaust is established beyond all doubt, by mountains of evidence, and reliable evidence at that. Withholding judgment about these is utterly unreasonable. There is simply no equivalence between the evidence for Jesus and the evidence for global warming and the Holocaust.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Seems both sides of this controversy would do well to simply acknowledge that we do not know for sure if a single person is the Biblical character known as Jesus

Oh my dog, I agree with Frank Apisa! Surely the apocalypse must be nigh!

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

There is simply no equivalence between the evidence for Jesus and the evidence for global warming and the Holocaust.

This is a strawman. I never said the cases were comparable scientifically. My point is that the mental processes at play, the debating tactics used, and the general configuration of a core scientific consensus opposed by fringe activists are similar. That's all I wanted to highlight.

0 Replies

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know