The Historicity of Jesus

By -
I really don't understand anti-Christians who try to argue "Jesus never existed." Certainly, someone came up with the doctrines we call Christianity. So what if his name was Bill and not Jesus? What possible issue could turn on that question?

Comments

  1. John Goes8:47 AM

    There is a theory that Paul invented Christianity. It is not insignificant if one believes that Jesus was not Divine or not flesh, but was Christ by virtue of a human pencil.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown9:23 PM

    Do you have a citation of someone who actually says that Jesus never existed? That seems like an extreme point of view that very few people would actually hold to.

    Regardless, it seems wrong to assume that someone came up with the doctrines that make up Christianity. Jesus's preaching plus Paul's writings plus generations of increasingly hegemonistic bishops and more recently a wide variety of non-Catholic preachers have crafted over 2000 years what we think of as Christianity these days, if there's even a set of doctrines that are consistent across all the various sects (I don't think you could find very many).

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah1:05 AM

    http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

    Googling "Did Jesus exist" gets 18,500 hits, many sceptical.

    Now, it's quite clear that rather a lot turns on the issue of, "Did the fellow who invented Christianity really die on the cross and rise again?" and similar things like that. But it's quite a differrent question than whether such a bloke existed at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:08 AM

    Jesus is mentioned by Josephus the Roman/Jewish historian. The doctrines of the Church were invented mainly by Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown2:10 PM

    Hmm, well during his reported existence, there were a number of other people claiming to be messiahs as well.

    And I think Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" does a pretty good job showing the inanity surrounding sacred cows and superstition of that time.

    This is not to say that old Jesus didn't exist.

    However, seeing as the entire line of his own family, the Jamesian side, was pushed to the wayside by Paulites, it's difficult to precisely know what the intentions of baby jesus were.

    After all, a good percentage of the official corpus in the New Testament were written by a guy who never met him and many denominations/sects spend a lot of their time strictly focused on interpreting Paul and not James -- due to the fact that Constantine promoted and edified Paul's version a the Council of Nicea.

    I wouldn't say he didn't exist, I just don't think that he was a deity nor is represented best by Paul's machinations.

    Playing the devils advocate on this particular topic can be constructive and should be used on other "faiths" such as Zoroastrianism... did he really exist the way we perceive him today?

    For what it is worth, there is a decent summation discussing these and other ideas:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-myth_hypothesis

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more