5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Jersey Girl]

There are obviously numerous threads on the subject. Here's a big example:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31586

Certainly. But this is a discussion board, not a learned journal.

If we want to talk again about something that has already been discussed, we can (though nobody who is bored by it needs to join in). I realize of course, that you are not saying we can't.

Having said that, I find the hypothesis that there was no actual person called Jesus who preached and was put to death involves far more difficulties and demands for supplementary hypotheses than the suggestion that yes, there was such a person, but the accounts of him in early Christian writings are very far from giving us good historical evidence for what happened in his life.

That thread is the exact reason I endorsed Aristotle and Kish.

Do you think that the early accounts were intended to give us historical evidence?

[_Chap]

Do you think that the early accounts were intended to give us historical evidence?

Er, no. Did I say they were?

The point is, in the context of this thread, that they simply don't, whether they were intended to or not.

But that does not imply that Jesus did not exist, just that we know very little about him.

{Edited to add: The fact that a 'Joseph Smith of faith' could be created and attract adherents in the 19th century, and still be at the core of a religion today - despite all the good evidence that one might think would by now have destroyed such a construct, or prevented its creation in the first place - has hugely increased my skepticism towards taking the gospel accounts of Jesus as telling us 'what he was really like'.}

[_Jersey Girl]

Do you think that the early accounts were intended to give us historical evidence?

Er, no. Did I say they were?

Chap, you need to stop this, really you do. No, you didn't say that they were. This is what you said:

Having said that, I find the hypothesis that there was no actual person called Jesus who preached and was put to death involves far more difficulties and demands for supplementary hypotheses than the suggestion that yes, there was such a person, but the accounts of him in early Christian writings are very far from giving us good historical evidence for what happened in his life.

And I asked you if you thought they were intended to give us historical evidence. That's all I asked you. If the authors intentions were to convey some other message (which I believe they were, if we're talking about the New Testament), then we wouldn't expect them to contain historical evidence. That is one place where I think that the historical Jesus movement falls short in it's collective expectation.

The point is, in the context of this thread, that they simply don't, whether they were intended to or not.

But that does not imply that Jesus did not exist, just that we know very little about him.

I agree with you, which is why I would recommend that any investigator investigate the truth claims of the historical Jesus movement instead of passively receiving the information and spouting it as if it were, well, gospel.

On that previous thread that EA linked to, you'll see some defenses for the historical Jesus and also some cultural, historical information supplied by both Aristotle and Kish. I have not seen other posters on this board who are able to engage the material, the culture and it's history like they can. That thread is an education in and of itself.

I guess the point of most of my previous comments is that if someone is simply looking for reinforcement for their lack of belief or opposition to the LDS church, then what we're going to see here is repeated commentary to that effect and likely mockery, and I think that's a waste of time. If, however, someone would like to learn something more than how to supply unsupported assertions and conjecture (head nodding, I call it), then I'd point them directly to that other thread.

I'm writing in a hurry because I'm in a hurry. I need to go before I blather out anything more.

[_Jersey Girl]

You had to ETA, right?

{Edited to add: The fact that a 'Joseph Smith of faith' could be created and attract adherents in the 19th century, and still be at the core of a religion today - despite all the good evidence that one might think would by now have destroyed such a construct, or prevented its creation in the first place - has hugely increased my skepticism towards taking the gospel accounts of Jesus as telling us 'what he was really like'.}

I don't blame you or anyone else for that skepticism. I encourage anyone (including myself) to investigate to whatever depth they are able. I'm completely open to the investigative process, I would like others to do the same instead of letting the thinking be done for them and swallowing it whole, because many here have been down that road once already.

Investigating, to me, isn't popping up 5 bullet points without making inquiry.

Really going now.

[Guest]

Have you investigated these claims for yourself

Nope.

or are you planning to swallow it all whole without doing so?

Nope.

I'm posting a thread about an interesting, on topic, article that posters might find interesting and wish to discuss.

Are you planning on staying bitchy and irrationally judgemental about almost everything on the board?

[_Chap]

...

I'm posting a thread about an interesting, on topic, article that posters might find interesting and wish to discuss.
...

I just discussed it. Thanks.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Aristotle is overstating his case in that quote. Julius Caesar's physical existence, for example, is much better attested by the network of evidence than Jesus. It's Ok to argue that based on available evidence and how the existence of historical figures is inferred, it is likely that Jesus existed without having to assert extreme confidence. Jesus's existence is about as well attested as Socrates - maybe a little worse - to put it in perspective. Socrates acts as a good analogy because he also has mythic qualities wrapped up in commentary and questions about when his voice ends and where the authors writing about him begins.

I don't recall saying that about Julius Caesar and Jesus. In one of the linked threads I said this:

I have three questions for you: Did Pythagoras exist? Did Thales of Miletus exist? Did Musonius Rufus exist?

...

If you answer "no" to any of these then you will need to throw away most ancient history outside of figures like Caesar, Augustus, and Alexander the Great. Yes, the big men of history have better documentation, that's the nature of being a powerful political figure. But, since Jesus never claimed that his kingdom was of this world, I don't know why you would expect that he would be as well documented as those whose kingdom was of this world.

Original pared down and emphasis added. I probably should have said ancient history concerning persons; places and events are different beasts when it comes to evidence.

[_I have a question]

I just discussed it.

Enjoyably so, if I may be so bold.

Thanks.

You're very welcome!

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm posting a thread about an interesting, on topic, article that posters might find interesting and wish to discuss.

I posed a series of questions to contribute to your discussion and recommended 2 posters who are particularly well qualified to engage the topic.

Are you planning on staying bitchy and irrationally judgemental about almost everything on the board?

Not unless you plan to continue acting like a hyperbolic dick, honey.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... 2 posters who are particularly well qualified to engage the topic.

How so?

- Doc