Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 29 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Last section

I think the last section about objections to doubters of his historicity does not really belong in this article. This article is supposed to address the strengths and weakness of the historical evidence for jesus, and yet this last section makes it seem that this article is already sending a message that the evidence says no Jesus. I suggest moving this section to the Jesus myth theory page, which is actually presenting a case that perhaps Jesus did not exist. Is there anyone here who objects to this? Feredir28 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean: Common objections to doubters of the historical Jesus? No real objection from me.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. Alrighty then. I will see it done. Feredir28 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I object, strongly. These are actual points raised by objectors, complete with citations to such being raised. They illustrate the quality of the discourse from advocates. That there are also sophisticated theologians as advocates does not make the much more common unsophisticated ones vanish, any more than The God Delusion's descriptions of what believers believe is "wrong" because sophisticated theologians claim they have better arguments. Sweeping these stupid, stupid objections under the carpet is inappropriate. Furthermore, there's a pile of material in there (e.g. Carrier on the fame problem) that would need to be put into the rest of the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree it should be moved. Once again, this section makes gross assumptions that do not tend to be the measure of either historians or theologians with historical backgrounds. I disagree strongly that you cannot accept a theologian as a historian when they are qualified as such. It would be like saying that a person of weak ID "god made the universe, and we evolved from there" or who is strongly christian and has some other method of dealing with their god, cannot be a qualified biologist -- and we know this isn't true. The broad stroke "dismissals" are not done with any real academic support, they are just handwaving "yeah, but we here at RW say it's not really relevant." For example, when talking about jesus being a minor figure in a mostly non-literate culture this is one of the PRIMARY assumptions made by qualified historians who address the man's "reality". yet here, you say "eh, that's not valid". Many of those sections have been addressed in the main body of this article "jesus as a minor historical figure", and dealt with there. --En attendant Godot 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I keep reading this, from the title, and really think this article should just be a recitation of what is known for a fact, what is guessed at, and what is known myth, and not add anything at the end about defending a position. it is the "evidence for a historical jesus', and not "lack of evidence for a historical jesus". As it is, it would counter what most Christians think, which is that there is TONS of proof jesus existed, but not go into the "jesus didn't exist" land, which is what I think the last section really does.--En attendant Godot 14:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(remove indent) The problem as even the wp:Jesus Myth Theory article shows is that the "Jesus didn't exist" land is a land of uncertainty and Christan Apologetic strawmen. Many so called "Jesus didn't exist" arguments are actually of the "Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist" variety--a view that has become about as mainstream as one can get. The majority of rational people accept the Jesus of the Gospel is a myth--the real debate is where on Remsburg's historical to philosophical myth scale he falls.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just talking, not trying to change anything (cause I'd get into edit wars, i'm sure, grin) - i think teh problem when you say "most scholars accept Jesus of the gosple is a myth" rests on definitions. what is the "Jesus of the gospel", and what isn't he. I think you will find, at least this is how I read the writings in this field, that most people think Jesus, a teacher and prophet, did exist and did have a **small*** following, and was put to death by the "authority" for being a bitch in their side. I think almost none assume he did any miracles, or was teh Christ of Paul's views. The problem is (to me) what someone means when they say the "jesus of the bible". are you talking teh dying / rising? (the Christ myth). are you talking someone running around trying to change the religion as he saw it, into something more Essene like? are you talking each of the events? - I guess that's why these two articles leave me cold. they discuss this topic the way many people discuss things they disagree with. vague terms that paint a slight reality into an overarching overstatement.En attendant Godot 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the myth itself with the person possibly behind the myth. The Gospel Jesus is exactly that: the entire Gospel account including the virgin birth, angels, miracles, resurrection, and so on. Remsburg even took the trouble to call this the Jesus of Bethlehem to separate him from the flesh and blood man (Jesus of Nazareth) he may have been based on.

Take look at how Remsburg defined historical myth: "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

Again the majority of rational people accept the Jesus of the Gospel is a myth and the debate is where on the historical to philosophical myth spectrum he falls.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"most historians"

If you really are going to go through with disagreeing with the vast majority of scholars and historians on this subject, you might want to change the line that "most historians think Jesus was likely a real man" that appears near the beginning of the essay. You seem to be saying "well, there are professionals, then there are skeptics", and that's fine, but openly define yourself as skeptics and not a recitation of what historians generally think or how they generally work with teh Gospels.--En attendant Godot 14:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the references, the "vast majority of scholars" looking at the question are Christians who are heavily biased towards answering "yes" to the question. You've been conflating "scholars" and "historians" pretty freely, but if you make them separate groups, as you just did, the former has considerably less to say on the question. What do scholars and historians who aren't already Christians say? - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, your claim to know a huge amount about the question does not seem to go with you apparently not knowing of Mark's well-documented gross geographical and cultural errors as evidence he'd never been there - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. YOu cannot logically do what you are arguing "separate historians from Christians". There is no faith test to being a historian. There is no reason you cannot be a historian and a theologian as long as you are doing history correctly. I promised myself I'd stay off this page, but you are really going into "Fundamentalist territory" every time you write this stuff. When you look at the experts, and not some people on some page on some website, the EXPERTS agree about Jesus's existence. When I say the majority of scholars, it means historians, theologians, linguistic experts, document experts. It means the body of work. What's bothering me most, is that you are not listing actual scholars out there who are saying Jesus didn't exist, and you are ignoring hundreds of people I know of, who are all writing from the secular point of view, thank you very much, who contradict you. If as a fundimentalist, i were to point you to a website that said "Jason Lisle, phd, has said light cannot be measured both directions only one", you would rightly say to me "lisle is on the outside of modern scholarship on the issue, and until or unless he publishes in peer reviewed papers..." yet the people you cite are NOT publishing in peer reviewed papers. The article is very biased. it is not rational. it is not citing people published in peer reviewed journals - it's citing to web sites. As I said, it's your pet page... i'm leaving it alone. but understand, you are not doing actual history, you are doing "anti christian" writing. And before you say I'm commenting as a christian, I've been an atheist all my life. I'm arguing for academic content, not "christianity".--En attendant Godot 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the argument you are giving in the text "if they are Christian, or theologians dump them" is a No True Scotsman fallacy. IT is not relevant to actual academics in the field. --En attendant Godot 14:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. So, how does your claimed expertise square with not knowing that the author of Mark couldn't possibly have been Palestinian, as is apparent from you demanding a cite for it? - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, i was not paying attention. i was frustrated and mad. What you were saying about mark being fiction, floored me. I was working on Matthew at the time, so like i said, wasn't paying attention. Wanna see my Phd dissertation? It won't do you much good other than showing I spent years in college, but it's something. I'm not a great academic, if i were i wouldn't be editing Wikipedia, i'd be off writing the latest and greatest theology paper. However, until the last 5 years, I taught the development of the Bible, classes on biblical translations and intro to xianity. Believe what you want, as i said, I'm not editing your page.

I will say, however, that given what you are trying to say, linking to web pages, instead of reading articles by guys like Crossan, Price, Altizer, or Cupitt - even I suppose historically, Strauss, for your arguments instead of a web site that you seem to have stumbled upon that is no more than speculation, seems inconsistent with RW. --En attendant Godot 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Translation: "We here at RationalWiki accept scholarly consensus except for when it inconveniences our pet narratives." Carthage (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Biblical canon

The Biblical New Testament canon was determined some 60 years after the council of Nicea, not at Nicea itself as implied by this article. {unsigned|?}}

So change it. --Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 14:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Pretty screwed up"?

I commented here directing readers to this article. My comment was replied to:

“”That article is pretty screwed up. But it would a pretty big job to fix. The biggest thing that stood out to me was the sectin on Jesus in the Talmud. Peter Schaeffer has been doing a lot of work recently that needs to be taken into account. All Talmudic passages concerning Jesus (and he is often refered to by code names since any copy of the Talmud that mentioned Jesus could legally be burned in the later Roman Empire or in the Middle ages) is directly based on the Gospel of John, so its not an independent witness at all.

—helenaconstantine

Comments? Scream!! (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"and he is often in code name". yeah - that pretty much sums it up for me. The passages (there are four, I believe) that have some tradition of being associated with Jesus are not critically accepted as being about Jesus, and in fact the majority of the academic opinion on them is they are not about the real man "jesus", though they may be a reference to the "mythical son of god, those new Christians are always on about". Either way, being that they were written years and years later, they are not "evidence." Do we say they are? gack. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 13:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm doubly confused. We don't say the Talmud is a good source for evidence. The commentator seems (at least by the quote you give) to be confused cause first he's saying our stuff about the talmud isn't correct, then he says, "but it's based on John (which it isn't), so it's not correct). I'm confused about his point.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya know

At some point, Christianity came into existence. I find it difficult to believe that someone, say, Paul, founded a religion based on a man's death that occurred quite recently with that man not ever having existed. --User:Brxbrx/sig 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, really. However, I think if you want to argue for the existence of a unknown mystic man, you should visit the Jesus myth page, this article was supposed to examine the historical evidence (which is overwhelmingly lacking). As for Paul, we have to consider the man a bit. He never met Jesus, and some scientists think that he may have suffered from TLE - but that is speculative, but I heard great arguments that the earliest Christians may have been influenced by ergot and ethnogeons (I may start an article on these drugs). There are several arguments to support that Paul alone may have started a cult, such as cargo cults. But if you examine how Christianity as a religion arose, it was a quiet and pacifist group influenced by Judaic and Hellenistic (Greek) ideals, desperate for a savior and liberation from Roman control. I found it very surprising that among the first established churches preached that Jesus was not a historical person but rather a spiritual concept. Strange, but it does not stop there. The image of Jesus has great parallels to earlier biblical characters, as well as minor parallels to Greek heroes. Feredir28 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx, virtually every scholar I've ever met thinks what you said. Far less than paul, who never met jesus, are the 20 or 30 small churches that arose in the 30 years after his death, started by people who did know him. (Including Peter's church, Mary's church, and what would become Judas' church). That said, this article is about "evidence". GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fed, i'd be curious who you are reading that suggests the first churches called Jesus "spiritual" only. The gnostics did not think he was mortal, but they thought he was real. and the earliest churches were very much of the idea he was a man, a teacher, and maybe a prophet. As for the mythic aspects attached to the Christ, that comes when Paul takes xianity to Greece and rome. But it's not damning in any way. GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 16:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my catechism isn't very good, but I do believe I was referring to the apostle Paul. I also don't like the article's tone, which seems to assert that Jesus is a myth. But I've not much to say to the contrary, so I just stated what I believed to be a logical interpretation of the data.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You were talking about paul about what? Paul's story is very dubious, since he never met the man. he very much DID start a religion on rumor. But, the rumor he started it on was because of 20 or 30 little churches that were there, and were started by people who knew jesus. As for the tone, could you point to specific examples. cause it should NOT sound like that, nor make that conclusion. I'd like to read them, and change them if you could point out such language.GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, one of the twelve disciples, never met Jesus? Or am I thinking of Peter?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul is the guy who had the head wound on his way to dimascus (sp) and had a vision of the Christ. (very important to state he did not say Jesus at the time). He wrote Hebrews and Corinthians, and Thessalonians, etc. Peter is the guy who denied Jesus three times, but became the first Pope, started one of the 20 or 30 small churches that paul heard of, etc. He has no writings in the bible. --GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. I meant Peter. It's pretty unlikely that Peter founded Christianity without there ever having been a Christ (divine or not. I'm an atheist, btw)--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Godot, I would recommend reading Bart Ehrman and his book Lost Christianities as well as Richard Carrier and R. G. Price. The church of Marcion was among the first to preach that Jesus was spiritual concept, as well as several other Gnostics. This population was big, big enough to be mentioned several times (such as 1 Peter 3:18-20). Outside sources, like Domatical Treastise; Hippolytus (3rd century) say things "acknowledging Him to be God, they deny, on the other hand, His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation." Sorry can't give you more, but I am writing this before class starts. 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I've read Ehrman and price, though not Carrier. And they are not suggesting Jesus wasn't real, they are saying the early churches disagreed in the form jesus' body took. that's gnosticism for you. your twist to make it sounds as if the authors didn't think Jesus was real. And at least Price and Ehrman think he was a very live, very real human that taught things about god, and was killed for ticking off the wrong people. maybe I mis understood your statement, though--GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted Ehrman does accept there was a jesus - he is really skilled in explaining the histories of various Christianities and which were victorious, but I think you confused my suggestion for R. G. Price with Robert M. Price (although he also does have his doubts about Christ's existence). See an article by G. Price here. I would highly recommend Carrier when you get the chance, he is a good read and a brilliant historian. Cheers. 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Emjoy class. ok, THIS price i hate. his research is very shoddy. I love the "real" price. His writing can be so amusing while making serious points. I'll read Carrier. like you, it's "one more on my book of things to read". GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)