Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jesus Historicity Debate


Jeanne dArc

Recommended Posts

Been a while since I've been on this site: my old Jesus historicity thread is long dead, so I figure we need another, haha :P

I'm a convinced Jesus mythicist. I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whether human or divine, existed as a historical figure. Let's see where this goes ^_^ Anyone convinced he existed, and willing to argue for that position?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a while since I've been on this site: my old Jesus historicity thread is long dead, so I figure we need another, haha :P

I'm a convinced Jesus mythicist. I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whether human or divine, existed as a historical figure. Let's see where this goes ^_^ Anyone convinced he existed, and willing to argue for that position?

Hi Jeanne, glad to have you back for another articulate, interesting thread.

Unfortunately, I can't add too much as I don't put much stock into the Jesus lore, myself. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bad, fun video ^_^ Although I think they take Ignatius a bit too seriously; the martyrdom in general, actually.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bad, fun video ^_^ Although I think they take Ignatius a bit too seriously; the martyrdom in general, actually.

Don't worry there will be one a week for the next few weeks...go check these guys other history work, great stuff.

I think he was a man of flesh and blood who spent a lot of time with hookers, lepers, impoverished peoples all while turning water into water.

Did he deliver a better, more consumable version of Judaism to the masses, yes.

Am I going to defend my faith, not so much. You either believe or you don't. Either way your faith and answers to life are the best for you at this point in your life. And spending time to change somebody's mind by arguing seems inherently wasteful to me.

Be well and find your own answers. They will mean more to you than any I can offer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really take a strong mythicist position. I just don't think there's enough evidence to go either way.

A end times preacher or indigent preacher isn't a fantastic claim, there were plenty at the time. Even ones named yeshua.

But trying to sort out the reality from the myth is I think almost impossible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your motive for debating such an opinionated question? You will get one of two answers and one of them won't be the one with which you agree. There is no other individual that has EVER lived that has had as much influence as my boy Jesus. That would be kind of strange if he was non-existent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your motive for debating such an opinionated question? You will get one of two answers and one of them won't be the one with which you agree. There is no other individual that has EVER lived that has had as much influence as my boy Jesus. That would be kind of strange if he was non-existent.

That's a novel take: "my boy Jesus" ! Love it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really take a strong mythicist position. I just don't think there's enough evidence to go either way.

A end times preacher or indigent preacher isn't a fantastic claim, there were plenty at the time. Even ones named yeshua.

But trying to sort out the reality from the myth is I think almost impossible.

I've never said a preacher was a fantastic claim: part of what's suspicious about that element in particular is that nobody bothered to mention it for at least 40-50 years after he supposedly died. It's about as peculiar as books about Elvis failing to mention he was a singer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your motive for debating such an opinionated question? You will get one of two answers and one of them won't be the one with which you agree. There is no other individual that has EVER lived that has had as much influence as my boy Jesus. That would be kind of strange if he was non-existent.

It's "strangeness" is of no interest to me. I'd like to see what people have to say. I don't think Jesus existed, but I'm not averse to being re-convinced that he did. I want to know if anyone has any good reason for thinking he did exist historically.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never said a preacher was a fantastic claim: part of what's suspicious about that element in particular is that nobody bothered to mention it for at least 40-50 years after he supposedly died. It's about as peculiar as books about Elvis failing to mention he was a singer.

Not that fantastic, my point is if he was a minor figure (see the number of similar characters, even named ones running around at the time) then you wouldn't expect him to be really commented on.

Christianity didn't become big until much later, after all.

He certainly could have been a mythical figure that never existed but had a large effect on the world.

There's a good possibility Socrates was as well, though he's better attested.

That a figure spawned a movement after his death that spun into myth isn't amazing, it wouldn't be the first time or the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your motive for debating such an opinionated question? You will get one of two answers and one of them won't be the one with which you agree. There is no other individual that has EVER lived that has had as much influence as my boy Jesus. That would be kind of strange if he was non-existent.

Because he could do so much, I feel sounds like many men rather than one, and if this source is correct, Roman records do not have a Jesus of Nazareth, plenty other Jesuses but not one where we need one. It seems silly that a God would show himself to man then, but not now, and it seems rather plausible that the man who could do so much would be the mythical conglomeration of many men. That seems very likely to be a reason that so many heard of this one legend.

The best reason for this thread is:

science.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that fantastic, my point is if he was a minor figure (see the number of similar characters, even named ones running around at the time) then you wouldn't expect him to be really commented on.

Christianity didn't become big until much later, after all.

He certainly could have been a mythical figure that never existed but had a large effect on the world.

There's a good possibility Socrates was as well, though he's better attested.

That a figure spawned a movement after his death that spun into myth isn't amazing, it wouldn't be the first time or the last.

Possibility doesn't really equate to plausibility though, ipso facto. The "nobody Jesus" -- the model most common among historicity claims -- is in blatant contradiction to the biblical portrayal of Jesus. Even if there was some preacher named Jesus who was crucified at about that time, could he really be called "the historical Jesus" if he doesn't conform to all but about two features of the biblical Jesus? If I tried looking through the historical data for a "historical Jon Snow" I could probably find somebody (or worse, assume somebody) that roughly approximated him. Then again, we don't even have the evidence of a minimal "nobody Jesus", just the possibility that such a figure seems like it could have hypothetically existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue for me comes down to, is it a myth based on some kernel of reality, that is so far gone that can not be sorted out from the tree that sprung from it?

Or a myth entirely?

Frankly, I don't think it matters either way but it's fun to ponder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibility doesn't really equate to plausibility though, ipso facto. The "nobody Jesus" -- the model most common among historicity claims -- is in blatant contradiction to the biblical portrayal of Jesus. Even if there was some preacher named Jesus who was crucified at about that time, could he really be called "the historical Jesus" if he doesn't conform to all but about two features of the biblical Jesus? If I tried looking through the historical data for a "historical Jon Snow" I could probably find somebody (or worse, assume somebody) that roughly approximated him. Then again, we don't even have the evidence of a minimal "nobody Jesus", just the possibility that such a figure seems like it could have hypothetically existed.

That's kind of the question.

See, we have the historical founding fathers, and then we have the mythological founding fathers.

Depending on your political perspective they were highly secular, rational men, or highly religious, spiritual men. Bit of a false dichotomy, but this is an example.

If over time the historical records of the founders is lost, which when I'm a bit cynical about education and general appreciation of history I lean towards, that doesn't mean that there were historical founders of the US.

It does mean that they may not resemble much at all the myths sprung up from them, but they were still real figures.

By the same token, if there is a kernel of a real figure, or figures, that inspired what became the Christ character, there was still a real figure behind those legend. But they are no longer visible on the historical record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the curiosity, but there is no way to know at this point in time, so why ask? Until further evidence comes to light, some will just have to be left wondering. Not only do I believe Jesus was a real person 2,000 years ago, I believe he is still here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, where can I get a photo or picture with him?

I'm just having fun. There's about the same evidence for Jesus and God as there was for Zeus and the other Olympians to the Greeks and Romans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue for me comes down to, is it a myth based on some kernel of reality, that is so far gone that can not be sorted out from the tree that sprung from it?

Or a myth entirely?

Frankly, I don't think it matters either way but it's fun to ponder.

Well yeah, it isn't that it "matters", per se. It's just interesting ^_^ And I suppose in many ways of historical importance; not a lot of importance, but apparently enough that Christianity had its first major schism because of it, haha

I understand the curiosity, but there is no way to know at this point in time, so why ask? Until further evidence comes to light, some will just have to be left wondering. Not only do I believe Jesus was a real person 2,000 years ago, I believe he is still here.

Well yeah, it's unlikely we'll ever know for certain. But why believe he was a person if there isn't a reason to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of the question.

See, we have the historical founding fathers, and then we have the mythological founding fathers.

Depending on your political perspective they were highly secular, rational men, or highly religious, spiritual men. Bit of a false dichotomy, but this is an example.

If over time the historical records of the founders is lost, which when I'm a bit cynical about education and general appreciation of history I lean towards, that doesn't mean that there were historical founders of the US.

It does mean that they may not resemble much at all the myths sprung up from them, but they were still real figures.

By the same token, if there is a kernel of a real figure, or figures, that inspired what became the Christ character, there was still a real figure behind those legend. But they are no longer visible on the historical record.

What part is the kernel though? With the founding fathers, sure there are myths, but at least there are discernible, distinct kernels of reality. With Jesus nobody seems to be able to agree which parts of the story are supposed to be true even if he did exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never worried if he existed or not, I read the material attributed to him, and it accords with deep unconscious understanding, or we would not be so intrigued by it. Whoever conceived those words was well in touch with the "source". The attribution does not matter to me, the words do, even if those of a ghost writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part is the kernel though? With the founding fathers, sure there are myths, but at least there are discernible, distinct kernels of reality. With Jesus nobody seems to be able to agree which parts of the story are supposed to be true even if he did exist.

We can tell with the founders because we have a historical records to ground the stories and a certain cultural expectation of what they were.

Remove the historical records and it goes off into fantasy.

My point is we really shouldn't expect there to be anything written about whatever character may be the basis for Jesus.

He simply wasn't that important.

And due to time, whatever record there may have been could easily have been lost.

Which is why I stick to if there was a historical Jesus, whatever person he was would not be recognizable from the myth that sprang up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can tell with the founders because we have a historical records to ground the stories and a certain cultural expectation of what they were.

Remove the historical records and it goes off into fantasy.

My point is we really shouldn't expect there to be anything written about whatever character may be the basis for Jesus.

He simply wasn't that important.

And due to time, whatever record there may have been could easily have been lost.

Which is why I stick to if there was a historical Jesus, whatever person he was would not be recognizable from the myth that sprang up.

That's part of my point though. Is it really "the historical Jesus" if it doesn't look like the mythical character: since the character is literally all we have to go on?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, yes. I've read a lot of history and seen how figures have become mythical over time, bearing little resemblance of their historical self.

But the historical figure that inspired legend or myth still existed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, yes. I've read a lot of history and seen how figures have become mythical over time, bearing little resemblance of their historical self.

But the historical figure that inspired legend or myth still existed.

But again: possibility isn't probability. As I said, I could compare Jon Snow from Game of Thrones to plenty of historical figures, but that doesn't in itself provide any credibility to the claim he existed historically. And we would indeed expect some sort of evidence of a figure of this caliber. Maybe not much, sure, but Josephus for instance discusses events and people far more trivial and ephemeral than Jesus. He devotes pages of text to a scandal involving a religious figure so obscure he didn't even have a source that bothered to remember their name. I fail to see how a preacher who supposedly began a literal cult following (more impressive than figures like the lowly shepherd Athronges, whose moment in the spotlight was even briefer and whose impact was minimal, yet was recorded nonetheless) could escape mention by somebody from the time period. I wouldn't need a biography or something; something as brief as Athronges' story would do. But the fact we have nothing characterizing him as even being human until half a century after the putative fact reeks of myth to me. There are other chronological inconsistencies with the early years of Christianity to consider as well (e.g., Paul seems to have been in the religion a bit too early for any of the gospel chronologies, and he doesn't even speak of Jesus as a person, but as some kind of archangel-messiah-deity thing; I should think if Jesus were indeed a historical person who'd been executed shortly prior, Paul could not have failed to include at least some fleeting reference to his historicity in his tens of thousands of words).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, the thing for me is I don't think Jesus was that important. Yes we have writings of some figures, but we also know that the area was a hotbed of supposed Messiah figures and doomsday figures, as well as cults we have only Archaeological but no written record of.

The issue for me is making a definitive statement he didn't exist when there is really no conclusive way to show either way.

I guess you could say I'm agnostic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.