It matters rather a lot to rather a lot of people, but otherwise I agree with Mr. Truant.
The way I see it, religious movements have to start somewhere and legends often have a historical basis - see for example, Troy, Mycenae, the Antikythera mechanism, the terracotta army of Qin Shi Huang. There might not have been a historical Jesus, but by the same metric you could question most early history that isn't based directly on archaeological findings.
So it's not that I think there's a definitive source that proves he existed, more that I can't see a reason to single out Jesus in that regard other than to be provocative.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^ abcIn a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman(who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of GodISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 ^Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Viewsedited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61 ^ abMichael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^ abRichard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34 ^ abcdRobert E. Van VoorstJesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted" ^ abJames D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" inSacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis" ^ abcThe Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
I'd rather look at translations of the historical documents. What historians have to say about them is worth considering, but I'd rather not stop investigation as soon as someone says there's evidence. What is the evidence?
If you're being persistent enough that you want the physical documents, good luck. If you're content with online translations you could probably find Josephus' work just by Googling it. He made a few references to someone called "James the brother of Jesus called Christ", which is an important wording distinction, because saying someone is "called Christ" is tantamount to saying "yeah, people say he's God. idk" As opposed to saying "Jesus the Christ".
Philo of Alexandria is also used as a source by both sides, since some of the stuff he writes about seems to coincide with things in the Bible (Wikipedia provides a handy chart here regardless of how compelling you may find it).
I warn that about halfway down the page you start getting into well and true crackpot territory ("Jesus and Buddha were the same person!"). Joseph Campbell was not a historian, regardless of how he may have fancied himself.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
...Gelzo, You do realize your coming off as a tad overzealous, at this point right?
Someone presents you with numerous quotes from various studied historians and you start asking laypeople to start examining their source material. That Wikipedia page goes into great detail the evidence these people are basing their findings on, saying you won't except that unless others bring the information to the thread for you to review doesn't come across as someone who wants people to have a discussion, it comes across as someone who is desperately trying to win an argument at any cost.
If the several dozen non-Christian + all the Christian sources are not enough for you, that's your business. But demanding others materialize this stuff so you have something to pick apart is silly, and I've done this song and dance enough times to know better.
I didn't mean to be that much of a bother. If you thought my civility or respect was conditional on further discussion and research, I'm sorry I gave that impression.
But in all honesty, I can't help but feel like you're being insulting.
Well, I dunno how to respond to that. I don't want to be a source of annoyance.
I generally assume that if someone starts to argue with me then there's some interest in having a discussion or trying to convince me. I didn't mean to start playing some game where we're gambling egos on what is and what isn't.
I guess I overstated some things, but I thought we were informal enough here for that to be acceptable.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Civility and respect" for your fellow fora goers is necessary. Now, it's not for your opinions on this subject, but if you're not conducting yourself in a civil or respectful manner, this tends to bleed into not treating your fellow fora goers in a respectful matter. If you can't manage civility and respect while even discussing this topic, than I suggest you drop it. Because yes, beyond further discussion and research, it's necessary for you to remain civil while talking about it.
And I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm being honest. You ARE coming off as overzealous, and I've participated in debates like this on more than one occasion, even one's on this VERY same topic.
I've seen how they go down. Someone presents an article, and the someone else tries to find flaws and explanations for why it doesn't necessarily show what that person believes, and then that person gets ANOTHER article, and this gets repeated until the thread gets too ugly to let live and is locked or shit-posted into existence.
"Civility and respect" for your fellow fora goers is necessary. Now, it's not for your opinions on this subject, but if you're not conducting yourself in a civil or respectful manner, this tends to bleed into not treating your fellow fora goers in a respectful matter. If you can't manage civility and respect while even discussing this topic, than I suggest you drop it. Because yes, beyond further discussion and research, it's necessary for you to remain civil while talking about it.
And I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm being honest. You ARE coming off as overzealous, and I've participated in debates like this on more than one occasion, even one's on this VERY same topic.
I've seen how they go down. Someone presents an article, and the someone else tries to find flaws and explanations for why it doesn't necessarily show what that person believes, and then that person gets ANOTHER article, and this gets repeated until the thread gets too ugly to let live and is locked or shit-posted into existence.
I really don't want to see that here.
Justice I usually agree with you on such matters, but I think you're being a tad paranoid here. This isn't OTC, we don't have RandomIdiot1 and all his brothers here to bother us.
In the future, if I've brought up a topic that you don't want to discuss, could you let me know? If you just respond with an opposite opinion, I tend to interpret that as interest in the topic.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Perhaps, and I can accept that criticism.
But I'd be lying if I said the conditions of this thread and previous experiences where making me believe this thread was going to go down a different path than the one I just outlined.
In the future, if I've brought up a topic that you don't want to discuss, could you let me know? If you just respond with an opposite opinion, I tend to interpret that as interest in the topic.
I don't know if this was addressed at me or him, but I tend to see not responding to posts that beg a response as rude, which is why I always do when I can. It's a bad habit, I guess.
But I'd be lying if I said the conditions of this thread and previous experiences where making me believe this thread was going to go down a different path than the one I just outlined.
I understand that, but I also think the environment here is different enough that we don't really have to worry about that so much.
In the future, if I've brought up a topic that you don't want to discuss, could you let me know? If you just respond with an opposite opinion, I tend to interpret that as interest in the topic.
That is not at ALL what I am saying.
You rejected expert comments on this in favor of wanting to look at the source data, but you asked others to bring it for you. You have access to the same links in this thread just like anyone else, you where perfectly capable of looking at this data yourself and commenting on it. Instead, you asked others to present it for you.
This is indicative of behavior I have seen before and it usually ends in a thread no one wants a part of by the time it's through.
FWIW, Gelzo, you didn't seem uncivil to me. No disrespect to Justice of course.
It's just, you were taking a provocative stance, I assume knowingly, and it's obviously an issue a lot of people feel strongly about. And, IDK, but is it usually considered bad form to press people for more and more sources? From what I've seen on social justice blogs, people tend to get irritable when you make them do your Googling for you, which I think is understandable.
I don't think SJ bloggers are usually indicative of the internet as a whole, but it is generally considered rude to ask people fore easily-obtainable information.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I don't think Gelzo's the type to get into a burden-of-proof argument, if that's what you mean.
Perhaps, but whether he knew it or not, that was exactly the direction it looked like he was headed.
Gelzo, I'm sorry if you feel that shows a lack of faith in you, but I've never seen someone approach a debate, especially one regarding potentially religious topics approached in the same manner you where doing in have it not end in a huge slog-fest of people throwing fallacies around.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
We don't, and I prefer if we didn't, and perhaps that will explain my overzealous response to this situation.
But I've probably spent more hours on that very wiki-page than I care to remember (second to only a handful: Occam's Razor, the Problem of Evil).
And it seems pretty clear to me the opinions of the scholars and the fact that they have much more evidence for Jesus than many figures we accept as existing without question.
The idea that we're going to look at each piece of evidence bit by bit AGAIN makes my skin crawl.
The thing is that I was arguing from the negative stance. That means I can't provide evidence of Jesus not existing, I have to look at what people consider evidence and then respond to that.
I'm also trying to limit the time I spend here so I can work on my school projects. I acknowledge that there's stuff I haven't read and that I can't read all of it. I thought it would be fair to ask for a common source and discuss from there. Maybe it's bad form to not devote more time and effort into this sort of a topic after bringing it up, but I didn't know precisely how seriously people would take it.
If saying this counts for anything, I'm not going to flip my shit over people having different levels of skepticism, and I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.
The thing is that I was arguing from the negative stance. That means I can't provide evidence of Jesus not existing, I have to look at what people consider evidence and then respond to that.
I'm also trying to limit the time I spend here so I can work on my school projects. I acknowledge that there's stuff I haven't read and that I can't read all of it. I thought it would be fair to ask for a common source and discuss from there. Maybe it's bad form to not devote more time and effort into this sort of a topic after bringing it up, but I didn't know precisely how seriously people would take it.
If saying this counts for anything, I'm not going to flip my shit over people having different levels of skepticism, and I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.
Well, if you don't want to invest the time, maybe just not bring it up? I'm not trying to be a dick, just saying your original statement was kind of totally left-field anyway.
Obviously, the Christian sources should be treated with more skepticism than the non-Christian ones. Though, there are quite a few non-Christian sources.
Comments
The way I see it, religious movements have to start somewhere and legends often have a historical basis - see for example, Troy, Mycenae, the Antikythera mechanism, the terracotta army of Qin Shi Huang. There might not have been a historical Jesus, but by the same metric you could question most early history that isn't based directly on archaeological findings.
So it's not that I think there's a definitive source that proves he existed, more that I can't see a reason to single out Jesus in that regard other than to be provocative.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Viewsedited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
^ a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^ a b c d Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
^ a b James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" inSacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
^ a b c The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
If you're being persistent enough that you want the physical documents, good luck. If you're content with online translations you could probably find Josephus' work just by Googling it. He made a few references to someone called "James the brother of Jesus called Christ", which is an important wording distinction, because saying someone is "called Christ" is tantamount to saying "yeah, people say he's God. idk" As opposed to saying "Jesus the Christ".
Philo of Alexandria is also used as a source by both sides, since some of the stuff he writes about seems to coincide with things in the Bible (Wikipedia provides a handy chart here regardless of how compelling you may find it).
I warn that about halfway down the page you start getting into well and true crackpot territory ("Jesus and Buddha were the same person!"). Joseph Campbell was not a historian, regardless of how he may have fancied himself.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well Gelzo, I don't share his annoyance but I can understand it.
You come across as having hangups sometimes.
I generally assume that if someone starts to argue with me then there's some interest in having a discussion or trying to convince me. I didn't mean to start playing some game where we're gambling egos on what is and what isn't.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
You were the one who brought the entire subject up in the first place, though.
Justice I usually agree with you on such matters, but I think you're being a tad paranoid here. This isn't OTC, we don't have RandomIdiot1 and all his brothers here to bother us.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I understand that, but I also think the environment here is different enough that we don't really have to worry about that so much.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just how I feel.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
It's just, you were taking a provocative stance, I assume knowingly, and it's obviously an issue a lot of people feel strongly about. And, IDK, but is it usually considered bad form to press people for more and more sources? From what I've seen on social justice blogs, people tend to get irritable when you make them do your Googling for you, which I think is understandable.
I don't think SJ bloggers are usually indicative of the internet as a whole, but it is generally considered rude to ask people fore easily-obtainable information.
As far as I know anyway.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I mean don't get me wrong I can understand what you thought would happen.
Burden-of-proof followed by no it's YOUR burden of proof followed by DAT'S A FALLACY followed by RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH.
But yeah, I don't think we do that here.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Sure, here you go.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
All of a sudden I feel like I'm on tumblr.
you best start believin' in tumblogs, Mr. G.
yer in one
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well, if you don't want to invest the time, maybe just not bring it up? I'm not trying to be a dick, just saying your original statement was kind of totally left-field anyway.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Son, in all seriousness if you are looking for seriousness you're in the wrong place.
I'mma get back to leek-twirling now.