Was Jesus Real, is he the same person as Buddha

[biggytitbo]

If Jesus and Buddha are the same person he really porked up didnt he?

[Buelligan]

Actually, the actual Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) lived about half a millennium before Jesus Christ actually lived on Earth, so I think you'll find he lost a little weight if anything.  Of course, that's only if you have evidence that the actual Chinese-style Buddha is the same person as the Buddha of the subcontinent and elsewhere.  There are actual recorded documents extant showing the actual weight of the "Indian" "Buddha" fyi (athletic to normal weight range).

[biggytitbo]

In 2000 years time they'll be having this exact same argument about Nick Knowles.

[marquis_de_sad]

Who, other than Christians have a vested interest in proving the existence of Jesus?  Some historians of that period I would have thought.  As we see here, it's a contentious topic with an exploitable market.

As there is evidence here on this thread contrary to your experience ("I don't know whether Jesus existed..."). it seems a bit like you're the one who's currently struggling to deal with the reality.  As for 'spoonfeeding', if you make a claim for something, I'm afraid it's entirely up to you to prove it, whether or not you enjoy using semantics to pretend you don't.  I've had to spoonfeed you regarding the fact that I'm entirely open to evidence, you just sound sore that you don't have any.  Well done for invoking a third logical fallacy though - Argument Redictio Ad Absurdum.

The spoonfeeding comment was a joke about the conspiracy types who tend to find Jesus myth arguments convincing. I can't tell if you're trolling with the stuff about logical fallacies. If so, well done.

I don't see why historians should have a vested interest in saying that Jesus was a historical person. In fact, the Jesus myth idea is far more popular and compelling to the general public, so historians of the period could very easily appear on all sorts of Discovery Channel type shows telling people what they want to hear if that's all they cared about. Your claim of there being "an exploitable market" for the historical Jesus argument should be pretty easy to prove. If you're right, there must be dozens of professional historians in the relevant subfields publishing books about Jesus being real.

Why is there a broad consensus among historians that Jesus was a historical person? Jesus was an obscure apocalyptic Jewish preacher who through a series of historical accidents ended up being the founder of a world religion. The main issues that a lot of people seem to have with the idea that he was a real historical person seem to come from:

1) That the Bible says highly unlikely things about him
2) The way we evaluate what happened in ancient history

When historians say Jesus was likely a real historical person, they don't mean that everything the Bible says about him is true. And the fact that the Bible says impossible things about him (and the world) doesn't necessarily suggest that the various writers and editors of the Bible made him up as well. A number of Roman emperors were believed to have supernatural powers and were treated as gods. That fact alone does not suggest that the Roman emperors did not exist. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is likely a later myth told about him that is probably untrue. That doesn't mean that George Washington the historical figure did not exist.

When trying to evaluate whether a figure mentioned in historical sources was a real person or not, you have to consider a number of things. For example, their status in society will likely determine what sort of sources, if any, are likely to survive. Alexander the Great was a conquering leader who held control of one of the largest empires of the ancient world. Jesus was one of many apocalyptic Jewish preachers in a backwater of the Roman empire. It should not be surprising that we have coins depicting Alexander the Great and no contemporary images of Jesus. In fact, it is amazing that we have any accounts of Jesus from people who lived when he did.

Another thing that needs to be considered are the sources themselves. You're never going to find an unbiased textual source about anyone, and even the interpretation of archaeological remains can be highly contentious. But the sources that we do have for Jesus add up to the likelihood of his being a real person. Josephus mentions him twice in passing. One mention has clearly been amended by later Christians, but proper textual analysis can plausibly show which bits were later additions and which were likely Josephus' original words. Josephus was a Roman Jew who was not a follower of Jesus, so he has no reason to puff-up Jesus' reputation. He also barely mentions him, which is to be expected; Jesus wasn't particularly important at the time, even to someone as uniquely interested in the region as Josephus. Another source is Tacitus, an ancient historian who is considered pretty reliable. Tacitus was also not a Christian, and in fact greatly disliked them. Why would these two sources mention Jesus as a historical person if he wasn't? What would be the point? You might say that these mentions alone don't prove beyond any doubt that he existed, and that's true. But then your standards of evidence aren't appropriate: you'd have to throw out all history of the ancient world. Sources for ancient history are scarce. Extremely scarce. Just as astronomers have to make do with the limited evidence that they can get hold of, historians of the ancient world have to make do with what we have.

It's interesting that you mention Pompeii. I wonder if you've looked at how many contemporary references to this presumably monumental historical event have survived?

[Soup Dogg]

oops. ignore.

[Buelligan]

If Jesus and Buddha are the same person he really porked up didnt he?

Is that a Theravada buddhist joke?  Of course, the Mahayana tradition would say he mushroomed out.

[MiddleRabbit]

The spoonfeeding comment was a joke about the conspiracy types who tend to find Jesus myth arguments convincing. I can't tell if you're trolling with the stuff about logical fallacies. If so, well done.

I don't see why historians should have a vested interest in saying that Jesus was a historical person. In fact, the Jesus myth idea is far more popular and compelling to the general public, so historians of the period could very easily appear on all sorts of Discovery Channel type shows telling people what they want to hear if that's all they cared about. Your claim of there being "an exploitable market" for the historical Jesus argument should be pretty easy to prove. If you're right, there must be dozens of professional historians in the relevant subfields publishing books about Jesus being real.

Why is there a broad consensus among historians that Jesus was a historical person? Jesus was an obscure apocalyptic Jewish preacher who through a series of historical accidents ended up being the founder of a world religion. The main issues that a lot of people seem to have with the idea that he was a real historical person seem to come from:

1) That the Bible says highly unlikely things about him
2) The way we evaluate what happened in ancient history

When historians say Jesus was likely a real historical person, they don't mean that everything the Bible says about him is true. And the fact that the Bible says impossible things about him (and the world) doesn't necessarily suggest that the various writers and editors of the Bible made him up as well. A number of Roman emperors were believed to have supernatural powers and were treated as gods. That fact alone does not suggest that the Roman emperors did not exist. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is likely a later myth told about him that is probably untrue. That doesn't mean that George Washington the historical figure did not exist.

When trying to evaluate whether a figure mentioned in historical sources was a real person or not, you have to consider a number of things. For example, their status in society will likely determine what sort of sources, if any, are likely to survive. Alexander the Great was a conquering leader who held control of one of the largest empires of the ancient world. Jesus was one of many apocalyptic Jewish preachers in a backwater of the Roman empire. It should not be surprising that we have coins depicting Alexander the Great and no contemporary images of Jesus. In fact, it is amazing that we have any accounts of Jesus from people who lived when he did.

Another thing that needs to be considered are the sources themselves. You're never going to find an unbiased textual source about anyone, and even the interpretation of archaeological remains can be highly contentious. But the sources that we do have for Jesus add up to the likelihood of his being a real person. Josephus mentions him twice in passing. One mention has clearly been amended by later Christians, but proper textual analysis can plausibly show which bits were later additions and which were likely Josephus' original words. Josephus was a Roman Jew who was not a follower of Jesus, so he has no reason to puff-up Jesus' reputation. He also barely mentions him, which is to be expected; Jesus wasn't particularly important at the time, even to someone as uniquely interested in the region as Josephus. Another source is Tacitus, an ancient historian who is considered pretty reliable. Tacitus was also not a Christian, and in fact greatly disliked them. Why would these two sources mention Jesus as a historical person if he wasn't? What would be the point? You might say that these mentions alone don't prove beyond any doubt that he existed, and that's true. But then your standards of evidence aren't appropriate: you'd have to throw out all history of the ancient world. Sources for ancient history are scarce. Extremely scarce. Just as astronomers have to make do with the limited evidence that they can get hold of, historians of the ancient world have to make do with what we have.

It's interesting that you mention Pompeii. I wonder if you've looked at how many contemporary references to this presumably monumental historical event have survived?

Why would I be trolling you about logical fallacies that you've made?  You made and continue to make them.  Do I sound like someone who doesn't accept the existence of Jesus based upon the Jesus myth?  Have made any statements to that effect?

Fundamentally, the issue I have with your posts on this topic is that you're not paying attention to what's actually being said and you appear to be reiterating some previous debate you may have had with some kind of militant atheist.  I'm not one of those people, however tempting it might be for you to assume that am.

The best historical sources are primary sources and Tacitus just isn't a primary source.  Were there primary sources for Jesus' existence, you'd cite them, wouldn't you?  That secondary sources are all that there is means the evidence is far less compelling.  Not a criticism of you, it's a criticism of the lack of primary sources.

As for Alexander The Great, that old teaching chestnut was brought up - by someone else - and I responded to it.  At no point was I attempting to compare the two people - or person and hypothetical person.  Of course there's more evidence for someone like that, it's a rather basic point you're making borne of a lack of attention on your part, I suspect.

And that's what I'm getting at in general: the responses I've had, particularly yours - are a bit like the old Gary Larson cartoon...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/153603564

And that's a bit like this conversation.  I'm writing quite specific things, but you're not reading them.  You're picking up on the odd word here and there and your brain's just regurgitating previous discussions.  You're hearing "Atheist...Jesus Myth...Famous world rulers cf Jesus..."  I don't know where you're getting those things from, but it's not from anything I've written.

As for Pompeii, I think your comment on that might speak volumes.  Something about wood and trees...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/16/archeological-find-changes-date-of-pompeiis-destruction

The point is this: if you're interested in proof, you need evidence.  That's what counts.  When new evidence appears that challenges previous assumptions, the theory should change.  The continuing lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is the reason for my lack of belief that he existed.  Should new evidence come to light, then I'll amend my position, depending on the nature of that evidence.  Fallacious arguments - however many times they're repeated - aren't going to change my mind.

[Alberon]

Jesus having existed or not hardly matters, posterity aside. It matters about as much as whether the Starship Enterprise existed.

Mate, I've seen the Starship Enterprise with mine own eyes.

Admittedly, it's a lot smaller than I was expecting.

[Soup Dogg]

.

[marquis_de_sad]

MiddleRabbit, you seem to be confusing me with Soup Dogg.

I brought up Pompeii because contemporary references to it are very scarce. It seems that because there's archaeological evidence, you accept that it happened. I want you to consider how you would evaluate historical information where there is no archaeological evidence.

[Buelligan]

What, stuff like the origins of the rude English/British V sign?

[gib]

The first contemporary evidence of the use of the insulting V sign in the United Kingdom dates to 1901, when a worker outside Parkgate ironworks in Rotherham used the gesture (captured on the film) to indicate that he did not like being filmed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64ewblmTUY&t=58s

Fantastic.

[Mr_Simnock]

Middlerabbit are you trying to appear to be a dumb cunt or is it something your working on?

[Buelligan]

You should offer to mentor her/him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64ewblmTUY&t=58s

Fantastic.

Thanks for linking that, fantastic stuff, I'm going to watch it all.  I wish someone would lip read it, I'd love to know what he said.  A new hero for my pantheon.

[Mr_Simnock]

You should offer to mentor her/him.

Thanks for linking that, fantastic stuff, I'm going to watch it all.  I wish someone would lip read it, I'd love to know what he said.  A new hero for my pantheon.

Interesting idea although judging from his reply to marquis_de_sad (who did a great post) I would have my work cut out

[Soup Dogg]

MiddleRabbit, you seem to be confusing me with Soup Dogg.

The fuck are you saying about me? I was telling this cunt he was wrong when you were a glint in the milkman's eye pally.

[kittens]

i am begging you, please do not ask me how i know. please.

[MiddleRabbit]

Middlerabbit are you trying to appear to be a dumb cunt or is it something your working on?

Is that an attempt at satire or is punctuation just something that other people use?

[MiddleRabbit]

The fuck are you saying about me? I was telling this cunt he was wrong when you were a glint in the milkman's eye pally.

It's true, I find it difficult to tell bigheaded halfwits who leap to erroneous conclusions apart.  After you've worked so hard on your personality too. 

I can only apologise.   Your parents, on the other hand...

[marquis_de_sad]

The fuck are you saying about me? I was telling this cunt he was wrong when you were a glint in the milkman's eye pally.

I just meant that he was talking to me as if we'd had some previous interaction, which we hadn't.

[Soup Dogg]

Okay I forgive you.

[Soup Dogg]

Just like Jesus really.

[marquis_de_sad]

Just like Jesus really.

Ergo you don't exist checkmate OED.

[greenman]

In 2000 years time they'll be having this exact same argument about Nick Knowles.

Until society rebuilds itself and they find his arse carved ontop the darkside of the moon 50 miles across.

[ProvanFan]

If it is false then there'll be evidence for Jesus' existence, won't there?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim for a thing.
I'd suggest the opposite of that was true.  If something happened then there'll be evidence for it, otherwise it's just conjecture and belief.


To take it a step further, I don't think that religious people want evidence for their beliefs because evidence for their beliefs would remove any need for faith. That goes for Jesus and God both.

I don't have faith in cheese, dogs or curtains because they're palpable things.  I don't have faith that Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius erupting because of the records and of the evidence. 

If people want faith in things, that's great, but by its nature faith requires a certain amount of doubt.

So, I think it's highly unlikely that anything remotely resembling the New Testament's fantastical elements actually occurred due to the lack of evidence for them.  If someone chooses to believe that such things did occur, it can only be as a result of faith or, perhaps, wishful thinking.  Neither of which have much place in an accurate history.

I don't have faith in your arrogance.

[MiddleRabbit]

I don't have faith in your arrogance.

Probably because it doesn't exist.

[ProvanFan]

Play along, for Christ's sake.

[Zetetic]

Play along, for Christ's sake.

?!

[MiddleRabbit]

Play along, for Christ's sake.

Do this!  Do that! 

I'm not being arrogant, I'm not the one telling people what they are, I'm not the one who insists on anybody thinking anything in particular.  I'm not offended by people who don't share my opinions, I'm not horrified by people who assume I'm something I'm not.

People can think and do what they want, can't they?  Well, they can as far as I'm concerned anyway.  I gather that's not a widely held view in some places...

[NoSleep]

So history is whatever you want to believe it is?