Did Jesus Actually Exist?

What utter, and typical, horseshit that is. There is absolutely NO contemporary evidence for that clown Jeebus--it is the height of arrogant stupidity to claim that there is such a thing as "Jesus denial" which is a denial of science. There is no "scientific" basis for claiming that joker existed. Honest debaters aren't stating that your boy Jeebus didn't exist, they're just pointing out the lack of evidence. Olive Tree is one snotty s.o.b., who knows about as much about genuine science as my little dog knows. History is not a science, no matter what J. B. Bury claimed, and there is no physical evidence, no archaeological evidence for the fairy tale boy who is evoked when people begin babbling about "Jesus."

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
The evidence for the existence of the Jesus person isn't nearly as abundant as it is for the Big Bang, evolution, the Holocaust, etc. I wouldn't put Jesus-denying in the same category.

The evidence is significant, probably larger than for the Big Bang...

I'd need to see something more substantial than the New Testament before I'd agree with that.

Quote:

In any case it is sufficient for 99.9% of qualified historians to conclude that the dude probably existed.

Are you being precise when you say 99.9%? And historians saying "probably" is still a lot weaker than the evidence for the Big Bang.

Quote:

Anyone who denies that is just as much a denialist as someone who denies the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Not unless there's at least approximately equivalent evidence for both, and I don't think there is.

Just to clarify: I'm not denying that Jesus existed. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, and am not all that interested in the question. I'm just saying that your equivalence of Jesus-denying with science-denying seems pretty shaky. Seems to me there's magnitudes more falsifiable evidence for science/BBT/evolution/climate chance than for Jesus.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Not unless there's at least approximately equivalent evidence for both, and I don't think there is.

I do think there is ample evidence of both. But more importantly, neither you nor I are qualified climatologists, so we cannot check the GW evidence ourselves, and yet we both accept GW because we trust the scientists involved. Why is it not so for Jesus? The situation is similar in that getting a good grasp of the evidence for and against, how to assess such evidence, and the various thesis in play would take years of labor.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The difference for me between believing what historians say about Jesus and what scientists say about their work is ultimately a) the degree of certainty attainable and b) falsifiability.

It is certainly more plausible that a real Jesus existed than the hypothesis that a bunch of people colluded to make the whole story up, but how would one go about falsifying the claim? How would one prove to an arbitrary degree of certainty that there was no historical Jesus? So, until direct physical evidence of his existence is found, the story is just a "most plausible" one.

Stack that up against the evidence for the BBT, evolution, climate change, etc, and I think the difference is clear. True, I'm not personally qualified to do the science myself, but I have enough of an education in both science and history to be able to evaluate the relative strengths of the evidence provided for each argument.

So, I wouldn't immediately classify someone who doubts the historical existence of a Jesus as on a par with someone who doubts BBT, evolution, climate change, etc. There's clearly a much greater degree of uncertainty in the historical claims. I would consider the person to be unreasonable, stubborn, biased, perhaps underededucated on the subject or whatnot, but not an outright denialist. At least, not until historians brought slam-dunk evidence and the person still denied it.

And the claims of miracles and divinity in the NT don't do much to bolster the veracity of the texts' authors.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I have to echo what Setanta said. It's not about the truth, which is inconclusive, it's about your, quite bizarre, need to be right. And I've spent enough time arguing this particular topic with you.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

The difference for me between believing what historians say about Jesus and what scientists say about their work is ultimately a) the degree of certainty attainable and b) falsifiability.

It is certainly more plausible that a real Jesus existed than the hypothesis that a bunch of people colluded to make the whole story up, but how would one go about falsifying the claim? How would one prove to an arbitrary degree of certainty that there was no historical Jesus?

Like any historical claim... it is falsifiable inasmuch as a new document (artifact, text, engraving, which are the facts of history) can always be discovered that could invalidate the claim. This is not impossible at all. The historicity of Pontius Pilate was doubted by some historians until his name was found on some limestone discovered in Caesarea, in nowadays Israel...

Quote:

So, until direct physical evidence of his existence is found, the story is just a "most plausible" one.

That is correct. It is FAR more plausible.

Quote:

Stack that up against the evidence for the BBT, evolution, climate change, etc, and I think the difference is clear. True, I'm not personally qualified to do the science myself, but I have enough of an education in both science and history to be able to evaluate the relative strengths of the evidence provided for each argument.

I honestly doubt that, not because i doubt your education, but more fundamentally, we cannot compare the truth procedures applicable to history with those applicable to astronomy so straightforwardly. How would you go about calculating the alfa risk (risk of being wrong when stating a claim) in history? And in astronomy? The scales are not the same. The only science that provide any certainty is mathematics. The rest is hypotheses.

No astronomer would disavow this sentence: "there probably was a Big Bang, it is more probable than the idea there wasn't one". IOW, there is little certainty there either, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

So, I wouldn't immediately classify someone who doubts the historical existence of a Jesus as on a par with someone who doubts BBT, evolution, climate change, etc. There's clearly a much greater degree of uncertainty in the historical claims. I would consider the person to be unreasonable, stubborn, biased, perhaps underededucated on the subject or whatnot, but not an outright denialist. At least, not until historians brought slam-dunk evidence and the person still denied it.

Seems to me there are many problems with such a neat distinction between hard sciences and history. Allow me two: 1) it let the Holocaust (a historical claim) vulnerable; 2) history is on some particular issues (eg the historical existence of Cleopatra, or the Holocaust) far more stable and positive on its version of stuff than astronomy can ever be on the general cosmogony of the universe, including the BB.

In the end, the process of denial is a real human process in which a real person does not seriously acknowledge the presence of some real evidence that has been vetted by specialists of the matter, and it matters not if that is historical evidence or astronomical. It's in the way one ignores or treats with undue scorn the available evidence that true denial resides.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well, I think there's still some haggle room there, but I think we're splitting hairs, anyway. Questions of plausibility seems to inherently include some amount of subjective measure. If your estimation is that someone who doubts the existence of the historical Jesus is on a par with BBT, etc, denialists, I won't argue the point further. I'm cool with agreeing to disagree.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Honestly, do you consider the Big Bang as certain? There are problems and arguments with the theory (which I am totally unqualified to assess).

It's not subjective, not really. Take a dude, take a piece of evidence, if the dude denies the evidence, you have a denier. The more evidence is denied, the more denial is at work. It is that simple and clear-cut.

In the worse cases, the legitimacy of an entire scientific establishment is attacked, as in the sad "history is not a science" thesis. If history is not a science, denying the Holocaust is not a form of anti-scientific denialism; it's just a "subjective" difference of opinion... And yet historic revisionism is one of the most frequent forms of denialism, and one of the most dangerous.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well, astronomers, cosmologists, etc, have worked out a model of the evolution of the universe back to within milliseconds after the BB. Of course, it is incomplete, but I don't know of any serious challenge to it as a whole, seeing as how even the developments with dark matter and energy didn't necessitate a new model. There's cosmic background radiation, radioactive decay and a host of other observations and experiments that support the BBT. ( http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/standardmodelpg/TheStandardModel.html ) If it turned out that there was no BB, the whole Standard Model would have to be thrown out or revised to the point that it would be unrecognizeable. As far as I know, even string theory or superstring theory would be an expansion of the existing Standard Model, not a challenge to it.

Compared to what would happen if it turned out that there was no historical Jesus. Yes, it would have widespread social, religious and political implications, but it wouldn't overturn the way professional history is done, would it? And...what is the actual, physical evidence that such a person actually existed?

In terms of physical evidence, I don't think there's more for the existence of Jesus than for Lao Tzu. Both are confined to ancient texts. Yet the existence of a historical Lao Tzu is strongly suspect in the eyes of western scholars, less so by Chinese historicans, if I'm not mistaken. I suspect, but haven't made any effort to prove, that cultural indoctrination has a significant influence on which historical figures, shrouded by the mists of time and scanty evidence, are given more or less plausibility. Just a passing observation: there's a whole lot more riding - in global political and economic terms - on the existence of Jesus than of Lao Tzu.

As for me, I suspend judgement on both accounts, ie, both the Jesus question and the BBT/Standard Model theory. I don't see where, as a layman, having an opinion or belief one way or the other is useful or prudent. But I do see value in being able to weigh the relative strengths of arguments, and I don't see the Jesus argument to be nearly as robust as the BBT/Standard Model theory.

As always, I could be wrong. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

The difference btwn the BB and J's historicity problems is that the former is a big part of a grand scientific theory. In contrast, in history, there is very little theory. Marx tried one... But humans make their own history and thus, there can be no grand law in that domain. The only grand theory Jesus is attached to is religious, not scientific. So indeed, if it was discovered the J did not exist, the scientific impact would be small, comparable to what it would be if it was found that the planet Pluto does not exist: no big deal.

The fact that BB is a central part of modern astrophysics does not mean it is more (or less) certain than Pluto's existence . It might be impossible to calculate the odds that the standard model will be replaced by something radically different, like Newton mechanics were replaced by general relativity.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I don't think anybody's questioning Pluto's existence, just its classification, which is just a matter of wrangling over a conventional definition.

History is one of those tweeners. A "social science" that is becoming increasingly dependent on basic sciences in order to substantiate its claims. In the not-so-distant past, it was predominantly subjective interpretation.

I still don't see nearly as much to substantiate the claim for Jesus' existence as for the BBT or Standard Model. The former is largely circumstantial, a matter of ancient texts, while an abundance of empirical and physical data exist for the latter.

I would call someone who questioned the existence of a historical Jesus a skeptic (asking for more conclusive evidence). I would call someone who questioned the evidence for the BBT and the Standard Model a denialist (rejecting an extant abundance of evidence). The distinction isn't trivial, I think.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I don't think anybody's questioning Pluto's existence

Did you check that with Qehog? ;-)

Quote:

In the not-so-distant past, [history] was predominantly subjective interpretation.

Physics have been enmeshed in religion for centuries. Here are a few lines from Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton (yes, the book where he presents his theory of gravitation):

Quote:

This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being form'd by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems. And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually[1] signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a Living, Intelligent, and Powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is Supreme or most Perfect. He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; .......

History is one of the oldest sciences, with mathematics. When astrologists were still thinking of planets as gods and goddesses, and alchemists tried to change led into gold, historians were already trying to describe events without calling for divine influence or magic, or at least minimizing the recourse to super-natural forces.

In any case, there is an objective criteria for what constitutes science: falsifiability. And historical claims are falsifiable. Unless you can propose another criteria, history is clearly as much of a science as astronomy.

Also remember that the Holocaust is a historical claim, and that undermining history as a science is playing in the hands of Holocaust deniers... Ideas matter.

1 Reply

History is not, and never has been a science. Newton was no kind of historian at all. Olive Tree wouldn't know science if it came up and bit him in the ass.

Here he goes with that holocaust horseshit again. Olive Tree is truly despicable, using a warped Godwin's law--comparing anyone who doesn't agree with his stupid BS to the nazis. History is not a science, it is a documentary exercise. Saying it is not a science does not deny the reality of the holocaust, which is supported by an overwhelming deluge of documentary evidence--much of it meticulously created and maintained by the nazis themselves.

Here, i'll play Olive Tree's game. Suggesting that people who don't agree with him are the same as holocaust deniers makes him as despicable as the terrorists who were just murdering people in France.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You could chose your words more carefully, Ped. The Holocaust is no 'horseshit'...

Quote:

History is not a science, it is a documentary exercise.

Are you talking of the History Channel? I am talking of the real, serious science of history, the one done by serious scholars... Smile

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Listen, you scumbag asshole, for the last time, i am not denying the holocaust. I freely deny that you have a shred of decency in you, you're in the same league as the shooters in Paris. I freely deny that history is a science. All you care about is the appearance of being right--you'll say anything, hurl any kind of filth at people who don't agree with you, just so that you can claim to be right. You're pathetic, you're a ******* idiot, and i'm done talking to you, asswipe.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I don't think anybody's questioning Pluto's existence

Did you check that with Qehog? ;-)

Nope. I've had that wingnut on Ignore for a long time now.

Quote:

Physics have been enmeshed in religion for centuries. Here are a few lines from Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton (yes, the book where he presents his theory of gravitation):

So, what's your point? Did Newtonian physics prevail? Did his supernatural inclusion pan out?

Quote:

History is one of the oldest sciences, with mathematics.

History is not on a par with matematics. Please have a closer look at that assumption, viz what constitutes a historical proor vis a vis a mathematical one.

Quote:

When astrologists were still thinking of planets as gods and goddesses, and alchemists tried to change led into gold, historians were already trying to describe events without calling for divine influence or magic, or at least minimizing the recourse to super-natural forces.

Both endeavors were depending more or less equally on hearsay, faith and tradition, rather than empirical evidence.

Quote:

In any case, there is an objective criteria for what constitutes science: falsifiability. And historical claims are falsifiable. Unless you can propose another criteria, history is clearly as much of a science as astronomy.

This seems to be a black-or-white false dichotomy. Historians are increasingly depending on science to back their claims, but that doesn't make history equivalent with science. One historian says that the radically skeptic Greek philosopher Pyrrho of Elis was significantly influenced by contact with Buddhist monks during his time with Alexander in India. Most other historians doubt this. Who's right? The empirical evidence is lacking, so they base their claims on subjective estimations of plausibility. No testable predicions, nothing conclusively falsifiable. Majority opinions prevail, but are they free from cultural conditioning or cognitive bias? I doubt it. Now, let's compare that to the repeated measurements of the cosmic background radiation and how it relates to the Standard Model. Hardly comparable.

Quote:

Also remember that the Holocaust is a historical claim, and that undermining history as a science is playing in the hands of Holocaust deniers... Ideas matter.

False analogy. There is plenty of extant physical and photographic (including videographic) evidence that the Holocaust happened. Nothing of the sort exists for the existence of a historical Jesus. These are not equivalent claims, nor do they weigh in on the question of whether or not history is a science.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Well, i suppose it depends what one calls science. I thought that was consensual but it doesn't seem to be. To me, history is one of the oldest and most respectable sciences, a very important one, and I don't like people who deny it with facile superficiality. And if they deny evidence, if they peddle lies in the process, and post crappy amateurish websites crying that academia is rotten... i shall call them deniers. It is all very simple for me. It's not about the domain of knowledge, but about the approach to evidence and the relation with academia.

History is the science that allowed you to know about Pyrro... If Pyrro ever existed, of course. :-)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

To me, history is one of the oldest and most respectable sciences,

What difference does that make? You can put "To me" in front of any sentence to say any old crap. To me the whale is a breed of chicken, to me n****** is not a racist word etc. etc. History is one of the humanities. Go to any university and see how many History lecturers teach in the Science block. None

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

My opinion about what constitutes a science may be different from yours. You have a problem with that? Define science then...

Maybe in your culture, history and sociology and the other 'social sciences' were never deemed to be real sciences. In mine, they by and large got that status with Durkheim (who founded French sociology) or following upon him, early 20th century. Michelet was another great precursor.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Denying the historical Jesus is one form of anti-science denialism, and denying the holocaust is another. The latter is more sinister than the former, but the mental processes at work are by and large the same: follow your ideological instinct and forget all evidence.

Here is the "parallel":

1)- Denial of the physical existence of Jesus is a form of anti-science.

1a)- Denial that Nazis had concentration camps is a form of anti-science.

2)- Denial that Jesus is or was the son of a god is a right for every person in this world.

2a)- Denial that in Nazi concentration camps there were gas chambers, that they burnt alive people, and similar is a right for every person in this world.

0 Replies

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know