Even fewer people know that most of history is actually an amalgam of subsequent myths.
4 Likes
Many western Chinese people are Muslim, and quite a few have come to the east for work or other reasons. One time I saw a woman and her young daughter wearing a hijab and other clothing that looked uncomfortable for someone who could hardly walk yet. As is common for many Chinese toddlers, rather than wearing diapers the baby had a big slit in her pants, so the mother could hold her baby over an appropriate place if she had to go (for certain values of appropriate):
I just found it an interesting mix of hiding too much and not enough for western culture.
3 Likes
âThe New Chronology is a fringe theory regarded by the majority of the academic community as pseudohistoryâ.
Thatâs as bad and misleading as pseudoscience.
1 Like
I wasnât seriously suggesting it, I was just riffing off the ânot many people know that [fringe theory rejected by almost all scholars]â model. Itâs certainly possible that he didnât exist and the extent to which the stories assigned to Jesus are actually true is open to quite a lot of debate, but the assertion that Jesusâ existence is implausible seems to be a belief largely proposed by atheists online.
1 Like
Itâs a pretty safe guess that all historical figures are partly mythical. If itâs the case for even contemporary politicians and celebrities, it was likely so 100, 1000 years ago.
4 Likes
Didnât think you couldâve been serious as I was reading the Wiki page, but you never know. People believe in some crazy things.
I think you mean âItâs certainly possible that he DID existâ. Most theologial scholars reject the idea he ever existed, and the large majority of historians too.
Not that itâs impossible or implausible, just very unlikely regarding any lack of evidence.
Itâs not that atheists believe he didnât exist, we donât believe he did. A subtle distinction where the burden of proof rests with those making the claim. And no, itâs not just online atheists whoâve questioned it. Itâs been questioned for hundreds of years.
Iâd be happy to agree with the evidence if it existed, unfortunately itâs sorely lacking.
1 Like
Iâm not some atheist conspiracy proponent, nor am I an any way against there being a historical jesus human character, i just wouldnât personally ascribe divine characteristics to him. There is a ton of historical evidence for many figures in the bible, from king solomon to king david. Likewise it seems unlikely that an actual adam and eve character existed historically. Those are all fairly old historical characters but for many of them there is historical evidence that they existed.
Now the jesus story is much more recent and occurred during a period in history that both had meticulous record keeping and for which many records survived today. Yet there is zero record of such a person in the roman census, nor are any of the major events recorded including his trial and execution, and of course the divine attributions are quite clearly a reshaping and combination of historical myths from the countries the tribes of judah had directly encountered, they didnât even change any of the key details of these older myths they just borrowed them wholesale.
Regardless if there were a human person that actually existed called jesus, the biblical character would still be an amalgamation of previous myths not a historical record.
[quote]Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long-dead leader of those churches. The only known possible contemporaneous (c. 6 BCE through c. 36 CE) source regarding Jesus is Paul of Tarsus who expressly states that he got his information through revelation, not any human being.
[/quote]
Obviously no one knows for sure, but the idea isnât as much of a stretch as some imagine it to be. Other much older historical figures require a LOT more evidence to be confirmed, religious cultural bias has given this particular story a free pass until modern times, and is now being critically reexamined.
Very few people are aware of any of this, I was simply giving kudos to @pixleshifter for being aware of something most people arenât.
Donât âwe.â
Do not know where you get that idea. David? Sure. Moses? Absolutely.
But there were a ton of Jewish itinerant prophets just like Jesus in the intertestamental period. Many of them espoused similar ideas that had been floating around in Jewish communities for a while. Why make one up?
Too many Atheists want to apply scientific standards for historical proof. Thatâs not such a bad idea in and of itself, but for events that ancient, itâs possible for a person to have existed and not have any evidence for it. With Jesus, there is some documentary evidence which is not definitive, but it doesnât seem to make sense to discount them out of hand. Thatâs more than what we have for Moses, for example.
It could turn out Jesus was a composite figure, but that may end up being close enough to the idea of a historical Jesus that itâs nitpicking.
It could turn out Jesus was a composite figure, but that may end up being close enough to the idea of a historical Jesus that itâs nitpicking.
That seems the most likely explanation, he was probably based on a bunch of actual historical persons, with a bunch of messianic myth that had been floating around for several hundred years tacked on as well.
Because myths are invented all the time, often with a sprinkling of the current philosophical and political ideas of the time to lend weight.
There may have been a wise man spouting radical ideas. There may have been hundreds. They may have had names ranging from Jesus to Rumpelstiltskin.
The one weâre concerned with is the Jesus who raised the dead amongst other things. That wouldâve caused a huge stir during the era.
Unfortunately thereâs bugger-all evidence of that dude, so we come to the conclusion the entire story is a nice story, but a load of hogwash really.
The âweâ I refer to are the ones who reject the fallacy as simple mythos, like we reject the idea of Hercules, Gilgamesh and yes, Moses too.
Rationalwiki and Wikipedia both claim that the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory that is rejected by most scholars. As an atheist myself, I certainly donât believe that the stories about Jesus in the gospels are reliable, and Iâd say itâs more than likely that claims ascribed to other deities were tacked on to support the story. Itâs interesting to see how the writers treated the Old Testament, as you can see signs of âcreativeâ translations or interpretations to suit the claims of prophetic fulfilment on the one hand, and alteration of the Jesus story to suit the Old Testament passages on the other.
They were also more politically significant in their time, so could be expected to leave a larger historical footprint. Iâm not surprised that he didnât really register outside of his circle of followers and I can imagine his trial and crucifiction being much less significant than it is portrayed - thereâs a strong focus on demonising the Jewish leaders, so of course they were all there to condemn him, the people symbolically accepted the blood guilt for Jesusâ death and they were symbolically rejected by God as his people. It canât just be a minor trial if the people are rejecting God.
I think we are probably more on a spectrum than on opposite extremes, what I was objecting to was the claim by both you that he was simply made up, without qualifying that statement with any level of uncertainty. I would agree that the historicity of Jesus should be questioned and that the accounts contain a lot of myth that can be verified as such a lot more conclusively than any of the accounts can be verified to be true.
I have heard this before about a number of deities, but I think Horus is the most common. Itâs funny, because Iâve heard Christians say the same thing, which they claim actually supports the idea that Jesus was divine. I mean, isnât it a little suspicious that so many deities sound like Jesus? Itâs almost like God put clues to the gospel in the other world religions so that the heathen could find the truth!
2 Likes
I hate to trot out the obvious, butâŚ
Could it have been another springtime metaphor for renewal/regeneration? Not unlike the many other dying/reborn gods in agricultural societies? Is that not a ârealâ phenomenon?
I hate to sound like a broken record, but some of you folks seem very determined to discredit the historicity of things which are obviously ancient myths, which are not âhistoricalâ events in the first place. It seems like people compartmentalize metaphysics they donât like as âbullshitâ by virtue of not having tangible, demonstrable reality - but then conveniently wave their hands to dismiss the metaphysical nature of governments, laws, money, employment, commerce, families, entertainment, etc as being ârealâ because they happen to be some consensus belief system⌠By the exact same logic I can easily dismiss the existence of countries as âsome nonsense that people made up that was convenient for them to believe, which they unjustly subjected other people toâ.
Pretty much all of human society is just some stuff people made up. So where do you like to draw the line at what is real or useful to believe? What beliefs or social structures actually do something for you, versus others you find yourself coerced into playing along with?
1 Like
So if we can agree that the attributes ascribed to him are mythological, and the gospels are unreliable with creative translations and interpretations, exactly which Jesus are you referring to? That there was a guy around the time called Jesus? There were probably hundreds, being a not-uncommon name. Again, weâre concerned with the Christian Jesus.
I cannot claim he was made up with absolute certainty and need no qualifiers. It is up to those who claim he was real to provide some form of evidence. The onus being on the claimant.
I donât accost Christians with my opinions about the matter generally, but if the subject arises Iâll happily ask for evidence.
2 Likes
Iâm not out to discredit the historicity of the myth. Obvious myth is obvious. Itâs a lovely story. Some really good bits and some really bad bits. All Iâm concerned with is the historicity of the figure.
You can dismiss the existence of countries and money all you like. You donât have to subscribe to them in the metaphysical sense of what they represent, but we have mountains of evidence they exist.
Youâre confusing these with representations.
3 Likes
Iâd agree, I donât really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but iâm inclined to think he was concocted as:
- there isnât a single record outside the bible, the only evidence for a physical person is taking the biblical stories at face value
- the accounts in the bible are all either the recounting of older myths or descriptions of supernatural miracles, none of which lend credibility of there being an actual man.
- There are records from the time periods so he would have shown up in the census or execution records if either happened, but both the virgin birth and the execution/resurrection story are clearly grafted in from older myths. Birth and death records are typically the two most common ways to verify a historical figures existence and in this case both of these are clearly older myths not actual accounts.
- Many of the other parts of his story that can be check are also proven to be earlier myths, like the execution of all infants under the age of 2 by king herod, older story didnât happen as described in the bible.
What I personally think is most likely is he was an amalgamation of earlier myths created by the few authors of the early church wishing to incorporate new ideas into the church. You see a HUGE shift of philosophies and ideas with the introduction of these stories and the new testament. the religion takes a complete 180. What better way to introduce those then taking some old familiar myths and combining them with some stories of miracles and make them loosely fulfill an old prophecy? That explanation actually makes sense to me and matches the only evidence.
I do know that this theory has gained a lot of traction more recently among non religious historians and think that the reason it has been and still is a minority theory is cultural religious biases as the church was one of the main sources of historical records, and then historical bias of taking old ideas at face value. I also think historians are remiss to claim the unlikelihood of a historical figure as they live in a culture whoâs primary religion is based solely upon that one fact. I am not surprised at all there is a HUGE cultural bias to not challenge this story.
The only argument for a historical figure existing is taking the biblical accounts at face value, the accounts which are half retelling of older myths and half accounts of supernatural miracles. There is no other source at all anywhere of any such character. One of the authors of the accounts clearly states that he didnât meet a physical person but rather learned about him from divine revelation. I cannot find a single thing that lends credibility or has any historical merit. Iâve found absolutely nothing convincing me that any such person existed, I think it is highly unlikely, but Iâm open to the possibility and if evidence surfaced wouldnât have any issue with there being such a person.
(edited: for clarity, i was ramblingâŚ)
You stated axiomatically that a schism exists between science and religion. That statement is falsifiable, and Iâll build a formal proof that itâs false if you insist. Science and religion are not even completely separate, much less opposed to each other, since some religions incorporate a belief in science as an article of faith, and many religions began with an advance in human thought that might well be considered sociology or political science today.
You also used one of your criticisms of religion - your contention that âmost religionsâ hinder investigative thought because they rely on âconcocted statementsâ - as part of your criteria for whether any particular religion is an outlier or the norm. Thatâs quite circular, and it serves you by allowing you to make statements about âmost religionsâ that are clearly intended to discredit religion as a whole, while preventing anyone from presenting any of potentially hundreds of counterexamples to your points. You can just say âwell, thatâs not a major religion, itâs an outlierâ and continue to make grossly incorrect statements about religion. I donât know if that rhetorical strategy is best called âbegging the questionâ or just âweasel-wordingâ but you appear to be talking about your archetype of what you think religion as a category is, despite your insertion of the word âmostâ as a defensive measure. Even with the insertion of âmostâ and âmanyâ and ânormalâ itâs clear youâre referencing a cognitive prototype that for you corresponds to religion in general, and you are characterizing it by the features of some religions that you donât like. Do you see my point?
Incidentally, nobody but the Druse really knows what their spiritual practices are. It was a trick question. The religion became closed to outsiders in 1043 and their rituals are a closely kept secret, much like the Yazidi faith. You can learn about their culture and live among them, but you canât engage in their private ceremonies, if they have any.
I apologize for the aggressive tone of yesterdayâs posts, and for the combative nature of our argument. But I donât know how else to deal with your assertions. Youâre saying things that are inherently untrue, as well as repeating specious arguments. Your posts appear aimed at discrediting religion as a whole, rather than the actual religions that have practices you object to. The UU church I attend is a force for good in the world, and harms no one, so I will defend it. My own religious beliefs are widely held - there have probably been more pantheists in human history than any other single religious philosophy - so you canât honestly say theyâre not truly representative of religious thought, and not the target of any broadsides directed at âmost religionâ or âreligion as a wholeâ.
Once again I have to go, but I have to give some mad, mad shoutz to @Mister44 for the awesome John Brown mural. Totally worthy of painting on a customized 1970 Econoline! And thereâs no way to miss that Bible in his hand, eh? Or the crazed look in his eye.
Oh fuck. You just donât understand what is meant by the term, âhistorical Jesus.â
Historical Jesus != Magical Jesus.
If you want to define it differently from everyone else, fine. Donât expect people to take your ideas on the subject seriously.
So if you think that the evidence for there being a historical Jesus is somewhat compelling, then youâre not an Atheist? What the actual fuck.
you make a lot of really intense assumptions about what i think that arenât what i think⌠i really am not sure how to counter things I donât think or claims i didnât make, so i wonât. I appreciate the effort you put into your reply though, and am not brushing it off, Iâm just at a loss as to how to move the conversation forward in a meaningful way.
Perhaps my second post clarifying my thoughts will clear up your misconceptions about what i think, or perhaps it is just what you are reading into my statements that causing you to jump to conclusions that arenât mine? I donât really know how you are getting to where you are from my statements.
I guess weâll only know if my grasp of hikma is correct when the pure the light of tajalli has shown on me and my words upon the return of al-Hakim. I wouldnât want to upset your preconceptions about me.
Itâs okay, based on yesterday and todayâs comments I apparently unintentionally struck a nerve. I apologize I didnât mean to offend you in any way, please know it wasnât my intention for anyone to take my generalized statement so personally or to cause anyone offense.
I also want to add that I appreciate many of the comments and insights that you bring to BB and am glad you are a part of this digital community.
Who would historical Jesus have been if he wasnât also magical Jesus? The L Ron Hubbard/Joseph Smith/Jim Jones/Bobby Henderson of his time?
3 Likes
Could you explain this idea more? As far as I know there is only one source of information about Jesus, and in that source he does some pretty magical stuff.
Do you have some other source of information about an actual human who lived that is independent from these? If so Iâd be highly interested. thx.
Iâm curios as well.
