Forum menu
Actually, I think I know why
Well you think wrong. I linked to an explanation to what an appeal to authority is and you clealy didn't read or understand it, as demonstrated by the rest of your post.
"PhD" does not equal "right". PhD's disagree within the same field and they can't sit there screaming "I'm a doctor...No *I'm* a doctor" at each other.
PhD is an indication of level of achievement, not level of correctness. Only evidence is that - and in a non-scientific, theological field the level of evidence generally presents to the level of homeopathy at best.
Experts are absolutely to be respected (in science fields especially) - but they absolutely *must* bring evidence to the table, not just say "I have a PhD you know"...
I am not promising definitive proof. As far as the historical existence of Jesus goes, I am saying that we have the same levels of textual evidence for him as we do for most historical figures. So, for example, quite apart from the theological/mythological content of the gospels (and yes, you can parse out that content in order to locate simple, factual history), what is found there counts as evidence to scholars.
But perhaps more important in terms of argument for his actual existence is the fact that he is mentioned by Josephus (a first century Jewish historian) and, later, by both Pliny and Tacitus (Roman politicians).
In the end, this is exactly the same type of evidence we have for any historical figure in antiquity. And as I continue to maintain, that there was indeed a figure called Jesus who made it onto people’s radar in the early first century is a beyond most reasonable doubt. Few scholars of any faith disagree. That is not a “appeal to authority”. It matters. A bit like climate science. 😉
The question is whether or not one believes he had any significance beyond being a political radical or a moral teacher or whatever. And that, I completely accept, is entirely up to one’s interpretation and faith position.
I have to say, Chevy, you don’t seem to know how the academy works. For a few individual scholars to get away with bad or incorrect scholarship is certainly possible. In fact, it is possible in any field, including the sciences. (There is young earth creationist with a doctorate from Oxford!)
But for the vast majority of scholars in a given field to get away with bad or incorrect scholarship over a prolonged period of time would require a conspiracy far in excess of killing Kennedy and faking the moon landings.
exsee wrote '....We all agree pon that historical fact'.
No, we don't all agree - read the thread.
Who appointed you to be spokesperson?
Seems to me that quite a few people now have asserted the existence of "overwhelming evidence" over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet. Whilst I have little reason to disbelieve that it exists aside from wilful obstinance, I'd rather like to see it for myself.
This is a fascinating discussion. I wish people could be a bit nicer to each other while they were having it.
we have the same levels of textual evidence for him as we do for most historical figures.
Is there the same amount of evidence for Jesus as there is for eg Herod?
Who appointed you to be spokesperson?
God?
Cougar sed> Seems to me that quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet.
See below overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ is indeed a fictional character, in this instance as portrayed in a recent South Park episode:
Pliny and Tacitus (Roman politicians).
My bold addition- I’m going back over 40 years so memory may be fallible. I studied some of Plinys writings for Latin- our teacher (a Dr no less as we’re brandishing around PhDs) said that a lot of the writings about JC & his followers were warning of them as a dangerous cult.
Obviously those in charge were trying to protect the status Quo.
I may be wrong but I have the impression that a lot of Roman record was less about JC existence rather than about a group that followed his doctrine.
I think around the time of JC there were various Jewish rebels trying to overthrow the evil Roman Empire, so they were wary of any challenge.
My bold addition- I’m going back over 40 years so memory may be fallible. I studied some of Plinys writings for Latin- our teacher (a Dr no less as we’re brandishing around PhDs) said that a lot of the writings about JC & his followers were warning of them as a dangerous cult.
This is correct, especially of Tacitus.
Is there the same amount of evidence for Jesus as there is for eg Herod?
Precisely. No one really doubts he existed, yet the evidence we have includes the gospels, Josephus, and certain chronicles (a common historical genre in antiquity and late antiquity).
Another historical example would be Caesar's Gallic Wars. Do we believe they happened? I would expect so, unless we want to doubt all history prior to, say, the early middle ages. Yet the only evidence we have for these tales of Caesar's great victories is, well, Caesar. And his little book called "Gallic Wars". Now, I don't doubt that they happened. But I expect there were embellishments and a perspective that set Caesar himself in a positive light. A historians, however, we accept that and mentally pare the story down to something resembling the facts.
With room for interpretation, then, we have a core historical idea (Caesar's Gallic Wars, or Jesus, son of Joseph, as some sort of religious figure) which few dispute. So I repeat that "we have at least as much evidence for the historical reality of a man called Jesus who was born around 4 BC, and who came to take on some sort of religious significance for people, as we do for many of the figures and events we associate with antiquity". Just because many folk do not accept that Jesus was a divine figure of any sort does not mean that the historical criteria applied to his life is not the same as that applied to other people and events of the same period and prior.
How can you confidently separate real from not when it comes to a mythical, for want of a better word, figure?
Good question. But simply on the same basis that any historian might look at the Gallic Wars and sift the text in order to separate out the imperial propaganda from the actual, military fact. That's basic historiography.
But if as people do they truely believe something is real they will write about it as such and then those looking at it now will be coloured by their views whatever they are a definitive answer seems impossible to come up with.
So do we have a decision yet? I'm hoping to get out for a ride, but I don't want to miss out on finding out the answer.
No hard evidence for Herod either !! 😂
You are right. But...
If we take "Event A" as an historical given, much like "World War II started" or "9/11 happened", it represents a straightforward empirical fact. We may now elaborate upon it and interpret it how we wish, but the event itself remains.
It doesn't matter if, from the outset, an interpretive spin was placed on "Event A". In this respect, I think that 9/11 is an excellent analogy. One significant interpretation placed on it is that it was a terrorist attack that signalled the reality of an existential threat on the doorstep of Western civilisation. This was certainly the neo-con spin. Now I, and probably many on here, don't really buy that; but really, only time will tell what it truly was. The fact remains, however, that some planes hit some buildings at the turn of the century in an act of remarkable violence.
Will STW forumites in oxygen suits be debating this fact a few hundred years from now, when the skyline of New York is only a distant memory? Will they just stick to the problematic of interpretation? Or will they doubt the event itself? After all, historiographical criteria will have developed, and they won't have the same access to the original event as it was contaminated with interpretation from the beginning.
So, on the basis that doubt can be applied to pretty much anything that happened prior to our customary recording devices (cameras; mass media), we can probably trust nothing. On the basis that we have customarily accepted core facts on the basis of the manuscript evidence and cross-referencing, we can probably continue to trust those core facts.
No hard evidence for Herod either !! 😂
In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.
quite a few people now have asserted the existence of “overwhelming evidence” over the last couple of pages, but no-one has actually provided any yet.
There isn't a single silver bullet of evidence, just an accumulation from multiple different sources. Just like a court case you put them all together and form a conclusion one waybor the other. Overwhelmingly the evidence points to his existence as a historical character.
The evidence as it exists can't simply be put down on a forum post. If your genuinely interested you can use the Wiki link I posted as a start for your own research.
‘Jesus Christ’ is definitely fictional. It was just that Joseph was the first carpenter to shout it when he ****ted his thumb with the hammer...
You are right. But…
Interesting discussion cant reply just now or read your posts but will look later!
The bit the church really got wrong was fixing the date for his birth when no one knew him from Adam compared to his death which is celebrated at some point over a 6 week period. If some one noted his birth you would have thought something as unique as a resurrection would be note worthy enough for the date to be pinned down
In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.
Yep 🤨
If some one noted his birth you would have thought something as unique as a resurrection would be note worthy enough for the date to be pinned down
I think it is pinned down in the Jewish calendar, no?
Re fixing the date for his birth - you have to remember that the religion was spread around the middle East and the world via missionaries or evangelists, and they had to persuade people to as door their position. So sure, they piggy backed existing celebrations, but that doesn't necessarily matter much does it? If you want people to accept Jesus's radical message it doesn't really matter when his actual birthday was. Does it really matter when anyone's birthday is?
I don’t believe he was divine though.
But looking at those portraits of him he was quite good looking.
Does he has to be divine to convince? Like turning rocks into gold nuggets etc?
Why do people always look for divination?
Divine is a just a side show and once the side show is exhausted what else?
If people seek for a divine person aren't they merely looking for the material (wealth) self interest?
What is the core of his teaching?
As a matter of fact what is/are the core of all religious teachings?
In which case, we have no hard evidence for anything before the camera. Maybe the printing press. But if you say Herod, you might as well keep going.
This being the case, why are we concluding "it must be true because we believe everything else" rather than saying "we don't really know much about that time period with any certainty"?
Will STW forumites in oxygen suits be debating this fact a few hundred years from now, when the skyline of New York is only a distant memory? Will they just stick to the problematic of interpretation? Or will they doubt the event itself?
I don't really think it's directly comparable. Today, the vast majority of the developed world is literate and - thanks to the proliferation of the Internet - information is shared widely, rapidly and primarily in English. Multiple sources can be cross-referenced to build a clearer picture. Whilst I agree that bias in reporting is problematic, those biases are well known and can be taken into account.
Compare with Jesus' time, this is a lot more difficult. Few people wrote, and fewer still in a manner which is still extant a couple of millennia later. I can't exactly hop back and see if Jesus had a Twitter account. Everything we have written about Jesus today was written posthumously, and how long would it take for accounts to become unreliable in a barely-literate world?
As far as I can tell, it does indeed seem highly likely that Jesus the person existed. Beyond that though, I don't see how we can rely on much being historically accurate with any degree of certainty. Ie, are people actually writing about Jesus the man or Jesus the myth? Widespread legends can be consistent without necessarily being historically accurate.
A very good question Chew.
A lot of what Jesus said or is alleged to have said makes great sense to us, but perhaps (or perhaps not) because we live in a country steeped in his teachings for 1500 years. But did people really worship him as divine just because they wanted to go to heaven? That is a fairly popular theme in the gospels isn't it?
As a matter of fact what is/are the core of all religious teachings?
Be excellent to each other?
Ooops
A lot of what Jesus said or is alleged to have said makes great sense to us, but perhaps (or perhaps not) because we live in a country steeped in his teachings for 1500 years.
The basic is the same (slight variations) and transcends through time so time has no bearing for teaching (most). They (religions) might disagree with each other in the way to progress our thoughts but if you look deeper they are almost saying the same thing (for their own people or whoever they are explaining to). For example, be kind to each other, avoid greed, being selfless and be respectful etc.
But did people really worship him as divine just because they wanted to go to heaven?
Yes, because people (not all) have put their self interest first i.e. I go to heaven because I worship while you go to hell because you don't worship, which is the wrong intention. However, there are some who worship for the right intention and back up with right actions.
That is one reason why some religions forbid the worshipping of "idols" not because it is wrong but because the focus of the teaching could be distracted. For example, even Buddha told his disciples Not to worship him but to remember his teaching well but people being people in their remembrance of Buddha decided to create an "image" of the Buddha (blame the Romans LOL!). Buddha only allowed stupa to be erected in remembrance of him.
That is a fairly popular theme in the gospels isn’t it?
Yes, because the reason is rather than loosing the flock worshipping is the next best action people can have to maintain some form of focus. This is to avoid losing the flock altogether.
Problem is that people being people start to focus on self interest and in the process starts to "condemn" other religion(s).
Be excellent to each other?
How? Define excellence? Someone gives you plenty of cash is excellent or someone doing the right thing is excellent?
P/s: I found some of the religious practices rather similar (strictness in practice i.e. with guide for daily routines) when I spoke to my Jewish and Muslim friends. Religious people in the past were normally perceived by the people as the people with knowledge/wisdom/even doctor etc. A bit like modern day scholars/scientists/doctors etc (real ones not those who pretend to be one).
I have recently listened to same "talks" about pluralism from some religions fractions where they objected go it because in fear of confusing or diluting the teaching. Pluralism here does not related to race but to belief/ideology and hence they become very protected of defending their position. This is also the reason why you see conflict all over the world.
While listening to the "talks" they also mention that it is wrong to condemn other religion regardless. But this particular point is sideline by many so called religious "leaders" for their own self glorify interest.
This being the case, why are we concluding “it must be true
I don't think any historians are saying 'it must be true' are they? The common line seems to be 'it seems probable that Jesus existed'.
Compare with Jesus’ time, this is a lot more difficult. Few people wrote, and fewer still in a manner which is still extant a couple of millennia later.
The same thing applies. You build up a picture of the people who did write, who they were, what their biases were and do the same thing.
We're fortunate to have on STW someone who has a great deal of experience in this field and people still just sit there waving their dicks around and shouting about evidence and logical fallacies. When they have access to Google and presumably have enough disposable income to buy at least a few books in the topic.
I thought you of all people would be keen on burden of proof.
"Do your own research" would seem both somewhat flippant and a waste of time if someone else already has and can just tell us the answer, no? The crucifiction, for instance, seems to be considered to be fairly reliably documented (Tolemic or someone, I'd have to go back and check). Wouldn't have been difficult just to say that rather than handwaving.
That Wikipedia link Taxi25 provided a couple of pages back was very helpful, BTW. It discusses research done along with criticism of said research in a pretty balanced manner. Worth a read.
As the Christ bit means "the chosen one" / "messiah" rather than actually being a name, then the historical existence of a real chap named "Jesus of Nazareth" wouldn't mean that "Jesus Christ" the character (based loosely on him and mixed with pre-existing myths such as Mithras etc) isn't fictional.
the historical existence of a real chap named “Jesus of Nazareth” wouldn’t mean that “Jesus Christ” the character (based loosely on him and mixed with pre-existing myths such as Mithras etc) isn’t fictional.
I would only phrase differently what you have said:
the historical existence of a real chap named "Jesus of Nazareth" wouldn't mean that anyone needs to accept the interpretation of his life as in any way divine, and so refer to him as "the Christ", "the Messiah", "the Son of God", or whatever.
I consider the life of brian a documentary.
I thought you of all people would be keen on burden of proof.
I am keen on listening to people who know stuff. It's why I like academia. I respect the work that people have done.
Talking about burden of proof makes little sense in this context. Historians find and interpret evidence. They aren't lawyers; Jesus isn't fictional until proven real, And STW isn't a court. So there's no burden of proof. You just read evidence, and read interpretation of it, and you make your own mind up on the probability. The more someone knows about a topic the more weight their view carries, to me at least. If you haven't read the evidence then your opinion is less valuable.
Chevy blathering on about logical fallacies makes zero sense in this context. We absolutely should listen to those who know more than we do.
So if you have a genuine insight into why Jesus did NOT exist, then bring that to the table. You can't just say 'burden of proof' and do nothing.
Also the fact is that religion (from what I read) was meant for the poor as well as people with good intention.
The ruling class see themselves as living "gods" hence their downfall. Nowadays, the ruling class whoever they are would hijack religion for their own intention.
The ruling class see themselves as living “gods” hence their downfall.
Frequently true, however the irony here is that the popularity of Jesus comes from his diametric opposition to ideas like these.
Frequently true, however the irony here is that the popularity of Jesus comes from his diametric opposition to ideas like these.
Because someone has hijacked the teaching since there are benefits to be gained.
I am keen on listening to people who know stuff. It’s why I like academia. I respect the work that people have done.
So am I, but that's not what's happening is it. These academics are popping going "you're all idiots, I have a PhD" and then running off again.
So if you have a genuine insight into why Jesus did NOT exist, then bring that to the table. You can’t just say ‘burden of proof’ and do nothing.
Sure I can. It's impossible - or at best very very difficult - to prove the non-existence of something (as I expect you well know). See Russell's Teapot.
There's plenty of valid reasons to at least question it, which is what we're doing here. For instance, the earliest gospel was written 20 years after his death by someone who admits never met him. The rest of the NT was written like 50 to 100 years AD. You'd be daft to take that on, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase, blind faith alone. If there weren't still questions to be asked, SaxonRider would have had nothing to study.
So am I, but that’s not what’s happening is it. These academics are popping going “you’re all idiots, I have a PhD” and then running off again.
That's not how I read it at all. You have to remember that Chevy was challenging someone on the subject of their life's work without appearing to have any qualifications at all. If someone came on here telling everyone about IT security on the basis of having read ab article or two and telling you you're wrong, you'd be a little bemused too I expect. In fact, ISTR you citing your years of IT experience several times on here. And rightly so - your skill, knowledge and experience should count for something.
You’d be daft to take that on, if you’ll pardon the turn of phrase, blind faith alone.
Yes, and that's exactly why we have this as a field of study. Historians aren't just reading the gospels and sitting back saying 'yep that proves it' and giving each other PhDs to boast about. What do you think goes on in history departments in Universities?
You have to remember that Chevy was challenging someone on the subject of their life’s work without appearing to have any qualifications at all.
Which is equally daft.
skill, knowledge and experience should count for something.
Absolutely. I was never questioning his knowledge (or anyone else's), I was just rather hoping they'd use it to help explain things.
Good thread.
I'm firmly of the yes, he existed camp.
However, as SR has pointed out in this thread, no amount of theological or historical study makes anyone's opinion on the existence of a supreme being any more relevant than anyone else's.
A point that has become confused in previous discussions of the topic.
I was just rather hoping they’d use it to help explain things.
I'd imagine it's a lot to type out, when it's all on the internet already probably. He's dropped a few names - put a bit of work in 🙂
So am I, but that’s not what’s happening is it. These academics are popping going “you’re all idiots, I have a PhD” and then running off again.
If that's the way I came across, then I'm very sorry.
I have to say, though, that if we were having one of our relatively frequent medical discussions, then I would expect someone like DrJ - whose expertise is strongly hinted at in his screen name - to weigh in, and I would expect most of us would be more inclined to think that he had some additional knowledge on the medical front than a hypothetical Joe Bloggs who just had strong opinions.
The thing is, we have had many of these discussions on here over the years, and I by-and-large accept and even value the comments of a good many people regardless of whether or not we agree. Indeed, I even miss Mr Woppit! But when it comes to the more empirical side of things, and I happen to have a certain expertise in that same area, I felt it was appropriate I should say something. Granted, my tone was sarcastic and grumpy; but I wasn't trying to assert authority for its own sake!
At the same time, I have written some fairly extensive responses to similar questions on here in the past, and frankly, they do take time. That's why - and I don't know if you remember this or not - I came on here a couple of years back, and asked the massif for a series of questions/objections they would like to see addressed, as I am trying to complete a book in which I deal with as many of them as possible.
Importantly - and as I've always said on here - it is not being assembled with a view to converting anyone. (I doubt it would be possible with you lot anyway! 😉 ) It's being written simply because I think you ask quite a few good questions that are well worth addressing as openly and as honestly as possible.
I hope that helps me get removed from the naughty academics list!