The Great Jesus debate. Did he exist at all - and if he did, what reasons do we have to believe he was divine?(316 Posts)
Madhairday and I have been plotting behind the scenes to have this debate as we think it will be interesting, both for us and for others.
Mad is a Christian & I am an atheist. I will leave it entirely up to her to present her case.
It's impossible to conclude that Jesus actually existed at all given that there's simply no evidence to work with. I am aware that the majority (although not all) of scholars, both secular & religious, have concluded that he did exist, but this is for inferential reasons not evidential ones, so the issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as many people suppose.
While I am generally happy to accept that there was some man, probably called Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus, who lived in the Galilean region at the beginning of the 1st century & who may have died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans - I don't feel that this is particularly significant or justifies anyone in believing that he was divine.
I also believe that nearly all of the "Jesus story" - the nativity, the miracles, the resurrection etc is complete myth and never happened at all.
I have continually pointed out on many threads that "There's no evidence that Jesus existed" and been called ignorant and so forth. So, this is my opportunity to make my case and demonstrate that this is, in fact, a correct statement.
So, I'm kicking of this (hopefully) interesting discussion with:
There is no evidence that Jesus the man existed. Discuss
(By the way, this is an open discussion for anyone to join in, ask questions, make points etc, it's not just for Mad and I).
The "evidence" for some Christians is what is in their hearts and minds
Fascinating. So the only evidence for Jesus exists in the minds of the people who believe in him. I agree.
So, not evidence at all then! And people of religion wonder why they are patronised by non-believers!
I dont have a problem with that, but now I am looking at it form non-christians points of views, I can see why that is problematic for many.
Back pain. I have never had it badly.
But it exists. We all know it exists.
How,or why, if we have never had it ourselves?
Partly because we believe those we trust who say they have it,
partly because we believe specialists who diagnose it and have no reason to believe that they are lying,
partly because we read about it, and again, have no reason to doubt the ones who wrote the articles,
and partly because it makes sense.
I get what you're trying to say, dogs, but that's not really a good analogy. We know (all of us) that pain exists, and there's no biological reason why it should be the case that one particular part of the body should be immune from it - so can only really conclude that it does exist.
Of course, strictly speaking, you're right. Someone who has never had backache can only surmise that it genuinely exists in others - but that's based on some pretty solid evidence.
The point of this discussion was to make clear that when people say "Oh, it's a fact that Jesus existed. There's loads of historical evidence proving it..." which we hear continually from all Christians and an awful lot of atheists/agnostics too, they are not correct.
And next time an MNer calls me an ignorant fool for pointing out, entirely correctly, that there's no evidence for an historical Jesus, I can post a link to this.
I do not think that you are ignorant or a fool.
And I would be happy for you to link to this.
I didn't mean YOU think that! But you'd be amazed how many people do
Ellie, I'm going to leave this thread now. I'm not here for 'apologetic' reasons, I'm here for a good discussion, and it's impossible to have a good discussion with someone who has no respect for or confidence in one's ability to contribute. You obviously think I'm some delusionist who's just read a few modern apologetic books and Googled a few Bible passages. This is objectively and provably untrue.
Anyway, I have much bigger fish to fry in my life right now, so I'm going to stick to MN threads which are, in that popular phrase, radiators and not drains.
That you are incapable of understanding what the debate is actually supposed to be about, Holo is your problem, please don't pretend that it's mine.
Anyway, I set out to do what I wanted - to show that there's no reliable historical evidence for Jesus. You helped me to show that by being completely unable to refute a single fact that I produced - all the time attempting to patronise me by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about.
And I set out to do what I wanted, which was to put forward an account of the development of Jesus traditions in the first century. You called me stupid. I'm sure that if I'd agreed with your version of events, you'd have hailed me as a genius.
Holo , I have been enjoying this thread, but I understand your decision.
Mad, hope you are feeling better and can return soon.
I'm sorry I have not been around. RL has been a bit bonkers and stressful and also poorly, so I have not had the time, headspace or energy.
Please don't leave the thread Holo - your contributions are so valuable, you say it a lot better than me. I think we have done as you said - accounted for the development of the Jesus tradition in the 1stC - and gone beyond that in fact, in providing some good arguments for historicity and for the 'historical Jesus'.
So with Paul, Ellie, am I right in thinking you go along with the C19 school of thought that he did not see Jesus as a human being or give any credence to his life and ministry? So we're talking here about Paul's perspective on Jesus rather than Paul being a good historical source to 'prove' Jesus existence - good, because that's the line of thinking I would prefer to go down. I don't think Paul could be cited as a useful historical source, if nothing else but by the nature of his epistles, which were documents as part of ongoing conversations with communities in varying situations. They were not a repetition of history in the way the gospels are purported to be - they were letters to groups addressing their own problems and misunderstandings.
Because of this, we can also surmise that it would be odd if Paul did repeat history in them. We join them as part of a conversation - would we expect single letters to go into a depth of explanation about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? It is certain that Paul places most importance on the death and atonement of Jesus, but there are references to Jesus as man, to his life as well as his death. There are also interesting semantic and etymological points - Paul's use of the word euangelion for example <'gospel'>, pointing back to the use of the word in Isaiah - the one who was sent to bring good news to the poor. There are also striking parallels between Jesus' and Paul's teaching on the kingdom of God - the central feature of Jesus' teaching. The use of such language implies a knowledge of such categories in early Christian thought - again, it would be odd if Paul repeated events in addressing particular circumstances, and would be beyond astonishing if Paul's early audience did not possess their own knowledge of Jesus traditions - ludicrous to say that they knew nothing of them until the appearance of the gospel of Mark. Where was the material Mark drew upon from? The early traditions referred to in Pauline epistles point to the fact that Christians had well formed credal statements from incredibly early after the events.
I'd thoroughly recommend reading this book if you have the time and inclination, it goes into this subject in a great amount of depth and has fascinating insight into 1st Century practise and belief and formation of Christianity as well as into the theology of Paul himself.
Interesting about pilgrimages too, like Holo I did not know a lot about early Christian pilgrimage <or lack thereof> - I have been educated! I hadn't made the connection that Constantine, having been embedded in Roman and pagan religious practise, encouraged pilgrimage and that this is when such practises took off in the Christian world. Before that, and particularly early on, it seems that Christians were detaching from Jewish tradition and literally practising what they preached - that God was all around, so there was no need for special sites of significance in a holy sense. Early Christian writings mention journeys made to communities of Christians, including to those living in places Jesus visited, but not journeys of pilgrimage. Paul, of course, mentions meeting with Peter.
I'm still lurking away. Very entertaining thread and I'm really hoping you are feeling better mad
Misread the title and thought it said 'what reasons to we have to believe He was bearded'
Oh he definitely had a beard! I've seen the pictures
Join the discussion
Please login first.