How Historians Know Jesus Did Not Exist

[Minimalist]

Interesting video.....




although I think it should be How Philosophers Know Jesus Did Not Exist, rather than historians as it concentrates on primarily non-historical problems.  Still, they raise a number of good points.

[Paleophyte]

OK, WTF is with these annoying videos with the indelible subtitles that are painfully read for you? Kindly bugger off and stop treating us like illiterate bumpkins.

[Cavebear]

OK, WTF is with these annoying videos with the indelible subtitles that are painfully read for you? Kindly bugger off and stop treating us like illiterate bumpkins.

Yeah, that was WAY too long. I stopped after 5 minutes of audio and visual overload.

Minimalist does need to keep some limits on the length of posts.

[Cavebear]

Interesting video.....

although I think it should be How Philosophers Know Jesus Did Not Exist, rather than historians as it concentrates on primarily non-historical problems.  Still, they raise a number of good points.

Do you realize how long that video was?

[Minimalist]

Yeah....it's 25 minutes.

Sorry, not everything can be explained in a bullet point.... or a bible verse.

[Paleophyte]

OK, WTF is with these annoying videos with the indelible subtitles that are painfully read for you? Kindly bugger off and stop treating us like illiterate bumpkins.

Yeah, that was WAY too long.  I stopped after 5 minutes of audio and visual overload.

Minimalist does need to keep some limits on the length of posts.

I wasn't complaining about this particular video. It's that gawdsawful trend of reading subtitles at the audience that's come into vogue. Reminds me of the worst of the worst of PowerPoint presentations gone horribly awry.

[Minimalist]

I totally agree.  Sometimes you can go into options and shut off the closed captioning but it doesn't always work.

I guess Youtube is too worried about sticking more and more bullshit ads into their videos?

[Paleophyte]

I totally agree.  Sometimes you can go into options and shut off the closed captioning but it doesn't always work.

I guess Youtube is too worried about sticking more and more bullshit ads into their videos?

No, this is the content creators. I'll blame Youtube for their issues, and there are plenty of those, but this isn't one of them. These are the wretched subtitles embedded as video so you can't ever be rid of them. That'd be bad enough but each word highlights as it's spoken as if you were learning to read.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, that was WAY too long.  I stopped after 5 minutes of audio and visual overload.

Minimalist does need to keep some limits on the length of posts.

I wasn't complaining about this particular video. It's that gawdsawful trend of reading subtitles at the audience that's come into vogue. Reminds me of the worst of the worst of PowerPoint presentations gone horribly awry.

OK, sorry I slightly misunderstood. I was annoyed at the length; the voice-over, highlighted subtitles, and "Captain Obvious" content didn't bother me as much. But damn, 25 minutes?

As an administrative office worker, I didn't have to do too many Powerpoint presentations. I was comfortable talking to a small or large group, but not usually with graphics. So, one time I had to. The kind of old projection slide ones. It was recorded. I was horrified to see afterwards that my handheld pointer shook badly. It wasn't that I was nervous. I've had lifelong hand-tremors due to DDT expose as a teen. But I sure learned after that to just lay a pencil on the projecter next to the point I was explaining after that. It didn't shake!

[Paleophyte]

Interesting video.....

Meh. Was bored and watched it. Underwhelmed.

It starts with Trinitarian doctrine, which is absurd, but was concocted long after Jesus lived and died and has bugger all to do with his historicity. Then it wanders into the absurdity of Divine Sacrifice, which is equally absurd and equally irrelevant. Those are reasonable objections for Christian doctrine but don't do much for the historicity of Christ himself. So you can pretty much chop the first 8 minutes out of the video. From there it wanders into a bunch of Biblical inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding Jesus resurection. Nobody considers those particularly historical anyway. And then it wanders off into the weeds of other Biblical contradictions.

It's remedial for an analysis of Christianity and most of us know what's in it already. It doesn't do much to answer the question of whether or not there was ever a person or people at the nucleus of the mythos.

[Paleophyte]

OK, sorry I slightly misunderstood.  I was annoyed at the length; the voice-over, highlighted subtitles, and "Captain Obvious" content didn't bother me as much.  But damn, 25 minutes?  

Yeah, it was pretty low-grade. Sorry Min, but I'm not loving it.

[Cavebear]

Interesting video.....

Meh. Was bored and watched it. Underwhelmed.

It starts with Trinitarian doctrine, which is absurd, but was concocted long after Jesus lived and died and has bugger all to do with his historicity. Then it wanders into the absurdity of Divine Sacrifice, which is equally absurd and equally irrelevant. Those are reasonable objections for Christian doctrine but don't do much for the historicity of Christ himself. So you can pretty much chop the first 8 minutes out of the video. From there it wanders into a bunch of Biblical inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding Jesus resurection. Nobody considers those particularly historical anyway. And then it wanders off into the weeds of other Biblical contradictions.

It's remedial for an analysis of Christianity and most of us know what's in it already. It doesn't do much to answer the question of whether or not there was ever a person or people at the nucleus of the mythos.

Sometimes religious people engage in the stupidest absurdities. I find that says more about their individual mental state. It is almost "you couldn't invent this nonsense" but somebody did.

I never did actually read the Bible cover to cover. But I know about absurd parts of it. And being in the US, I have been culturally exposed to christianity more than other religions. But I know that all have their absurdities. And one side of my parents were Catholic and the other Protestant, so I know a bit about both sides of some divisions.

My point (such as it is) is that I agree that little about any religion makes much sense. With so much internal inconsistency, I have never understood why anyone pays attention to it. But I suppose it is much like politics. Consistency is not very common there either.

[Paleophyte]

Sometimes religious people engage in the stupidest absurdities.  I find that says more about their individual mental state.  It is almost "you couldn't invent this nonsense" but somebody did.  

One of the funniest ways I've heard of for disposing of Saturday morning door knockers was from somebody who managed to reply to the usual, "Have you heard of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?" with a straight-faced "No." Apparently, the look of horror as they realized that they might have to explain their absurdity to somebody over the age of six was a sight to behold.

[epronovost]

It doesn't do much to answer the question of whether or not there was ever a person or people at the nucleus of the mythos.

It also doesn't represent the consensus or at least majority opinion of historians on the subject which is that there was indeed an apocalyptic preacher and faith healer named Jesus (more accurately its equivalent in Aramaic) who was executed during the administration of Pontius Pilate.

Both the doctrine of the trinity and of the original sin and divine sacrifice are theological innovation that came well after most of the stories about Jesus were written and popularized.

[Rhythmcs]

The consensus of historians is that some guy existed, but not the guy in the book. The phrase "the consensus of historians" always does alot of work in comments about it, and it usually isn't the work that the phrase seems to be predicated on.

Let's just be frank. No christian is talking about some guy who's not in their magic book. Christ isn't a last name, and they're not jesusists.

[pattylt]

This video, as Min mentioned, is more of a philosophical argument. The best treaty on Jesus not existing was Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. I’m still agnostic on whether he actually existed but wasn’t anything like the book or never existed and was manufactured from whole cloth. Either way, he became useful to priests and grifters.

[jerry mcmasters]

The consensus of historians is that some guy existed, but not the guy in the book.  The phrase "the consensus of historians" always does alot of work in comments about it, and it usually isn't the work that the phrase seems to be predicated on.

Let's just be frank.  No christian is talking about some guy who's not in their magic book.  Christ isn't a last name, and they're not jesusists.

They know it's not the guy in the book.  Many, maybe most, serious historians aren't Christians so of course the J of the bible is not who they think they might or might not find when they ask if there was a historical Jesus.  They're trying to piece together the most likely and plausible explanation for the rise of the human phenomena that is Christianity, of which the question of whether or not there was some "Jesus" like character is pretty important.  (And of great interest to Min!)

[jerry mcmasters]

What I want to know is, how is this thread existing out here in the wild?  Should it not be attached to the "Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus" thread?  I want to see that fucker reach 1000 pages in my lifetime.

[Rhythmcs]

They know it's not the guy in the book.  Many, maybe most, serious historians aren't Christians so of course the J of the bible is not who they think they might or might not find when they ask if there was a historical Jesus.

To be clear, a preponderance of them are religious, and very much so.  Entire departments of well funded academia.  They are people with every reason and intention to vouch for the historical existence of the man in the book and even they feel like they couldn't sell it.  

They're trying to piece together the most likely and plausible explanation for the rise of the human phenomena that is Christianity, of which the question of whether or not there was some "Jesus" like character is pretty important.  (And of great interest to Min!)

The most plausible explanation for the contents of foundational myths has nothing to do with any singular person, real or imagined.  When we wonder about hercules and his defeat of the lernaean hydra there is a - no handwringing over whether there was a historical man..and b, even less so about a hydra.  Because the lernaean hydra was malaria...and no one fixed it.   There was a period of systematic earthworks and irrigation, lost to history but present on the landscape, coupled with a reduction in malarial pressure judging by remains of the sites at different times.  It continued to be malarial..albeit less so, until the modern era.  Was there a lernaean ruler or foreign king that ordered the work, or organized it?  It isn't necessary to assume so, and if so, that name is lost to history.  It would have to be a dynasty, because the work was completed over the course of three centuries. It coincided with a simultaneous effort to defoliate the marshes as well as drier environmental patterns.

Legends about hercules aren't going to tell us about whoever that guy was, if there was a guy or many guys...identical to the "jesus" claim - because even if hercules and the hydra is some sort of story about that...this is all of the information we have or are ever likely to have on the subject.

[Cavebear]

Sometimes religious people engage in the stupidest absurdities.  I find that says more about their individual mental state.  It is almost "you couldn't invent this nonsense" but somebody did.  

One of the funniest ways I've heard of for disposing of Saturday morning door knockers was from somebody who managed to reply to the usual, "Have you heard of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?" with a straight-faced "No." Apparently, the look of horror as they realized that they might have to explain their absurdity to somebody over the age of six was a sight to behold.

Good one! I usually just wear my atheist hat (kept conveniently on a hook by the front door) to let them know what to expect. But if one ever visits me again (I'm on their "hopeless" list now I think), I'll give that idea a try.

[jerry mcmasters]

They know it's not the guy in the book.  Many, maybe most, serious historians aren't Christians so of course the J of the bible is not who they think they might or might not find when they ask if there was a historical Jesus.

To be clear, a preponderance of them are religious, and very much so.  Entire departments of well funded academia.  They are people with every reason and intention to vouch for the historical existence of the man in the book and even they feel like they couldn't sell it. 

I said "serious."  There's a reason when you go to your local library and go to the History section you won't find much mention of a guy who historically walked on water and rose from the dead.  That's in the Religion section.  The supernatural has no place in what serious historians do, because once you allow that caveat, there is no limit; the sinking of the Titanic could be as effectively explained by the anger of Poseidon, etc.  The search for the "historical Jesus" is a valid pursuit, not because we're going to confirm historically that a guy walked on water and rose from the dead, but because historians try to piece together an accurate portrait of the human experience and how it came to be.  

They're trying to piece together the most likely and plausible explanation for the rise of the human phenomena that is Christianity, of which the question of whether or not there was some "Jesus" like character is pretty important.  (And of great interest to Min!)

The most plausible explanation for the contents of foundational myths has nothing to do with any singular person, real or imagined.  When we wonder about hercules and his defeat of the lernaean hydra there is a - no handwringing over whether there was a historical man..and b, even less so about a hydra.  Because the lernaean hydra was malaria...and no one fixed it.   There was a period of systematic earthworks and irrigation, lost to history but present on the landscape, coupled with a reduction in malarial pressure judging by remains of the sites at different times.  It continued to be malarial..albeit less so, until the modern era.  Was there a lernaean ruler or foreign king that ordered the work, or organized it?  It isn't necessary to assume so, and if so, that name is lost to history.  It would have to be a dynasty, because the work was completed over the course of three centuries.  It coincided with a simultaneous effort to defoliate the marshes as well as drier environmental patterns.  

Legends about hercules aren't going to tell us about whoever that guy was, if there was a guy or many guys...identical to the "jesus" claim - because even if hercules and the hydra is some sort of story about that...this is all of the  information we have or are ever likely to have on the subject.

Sure, maybe, maybe not.  It's a question worth asking, though, as again it seems like a valuable puzzle piece in the story of the human experience and valuable to understanding the question of how exactly religions form in the first place.  Does there actually have to be a Jesus (or Jesus-ish person) or a Mohammed or a Joseph Smith, or does mythmaking take place that quickly out of whole cloth?  So I don't understand your dismissal of the question.  Wouldn't it be fascinating if a discovery were made pointing to the possibility of a Historical Hercules!  There's little handwringing about it, though, because, historical H or no historical H, it remained trivia; there was no religion of "Herculaity" or whatever that went on to shape the world the way Christianity did.  Understanding Christianity and asking whether there was an actual man at the origin of it is a much more worthy pursuit, no supernatural needed. 

Nor do I understand your closing the book on it, research continues, who knows, maybe there could be new Dead Sea Scrolls type finds that points more assuredly to an actual historical nutjob wandering around Galille at that time.  It's too interesting of a question to blow off.

[Minimalist]

OK, sorry I slightly misunderstood.  I was annoyed at the length; the voice-over, highlighted subtitles, and "Captain Obvious" content didn't bother me as much.  But damn, 25 minutes?  

Yeah, it was pretty low-grade. Sorry Min, but I'm not loving it.

IF you expect "high grade" on Youtube you are bound to suffer eternal disappointment.

The points they make are essentially correct although, as I said, it has little to do with "history" ( there are NO primary, secondary or tertiary historical evidence sources for the godboy ) and more to do with logical fallacies and philosophical questions by the liars who wrote the shit now called "the Gospels."

[Rhythmcs]

I said "serious."  There's a reason when you go to your local library and go to the History section you won't find much mention of a guy who historically walked on water and rose from the dead.  That's in the Religion section.  The supernatural has no place in what serious historians do, because once you allow that caveat, there is no limit; the sinking of the Titanic could be as effectively explained by the anger of Poseidon, etc.  The search for the "historical Jesus" is a valid pursuit, not because we're going to confirm historically that a guy walked on water and rose from the dead, but because historians try to piece together an accurate portrait of the human experience and how it came to be.  

The historical jesus is a blank.  A literal everyman.  Anyman.  

Sure, maybe, maybe not.  It's a question worth asking, though, as again it seems like a valuable puzzle piece in the story of the human experience and valuable to understanding the question of how exactly religions form in the first place.  Does there actually have to be a Jesus (or Jesus-ish person) or a Mohammed or a Joseph Smith, or does mythmaking take place that quickly out of whole cloth? 

There doesn't seem to have been anything quick about greek or christian mythmaking.  But sure, people can construct myths in real time, we had the good fortune of documenting it at least once, unambiguously, just since the invention of cameras and video.  

So I don't understand your dismissal of the question.  Wouldn't it be fascinating if a discovery were made pointing to the possibility of a Historical Hercules!  There's little handwringing about it, though, because, historical H or no historical H, it remained trivia; there was no religion of "Herculaity" or whatever that went on to shape the world the way Christianity did.  Understanding Christianity and asking whether there was an actual man at the origin of it is a much more worthy pursuit, no supernatural needed. 

Nor do I understand your closing the book on it, research continues, who knows, maybe there could be new Dead Sea Scrolls type finds that points more assuredly to an actual historical nutjob wandering around Galille at that time.  It's too interesting of a question to blow off.

-and that guy won't be the jesus in magic book either..... The problem isn't that historicists can't find the guy. It's that they know they won't. The jesus we know, even when stripped of the supernatural elements, is a character. It's ridiculous to strip it that way, ofc, since that's the whole point of the stories and indeed the entire statement of the faith...but you could do it, just like you could talk about a lestat who wasn't a vampire. Go through anne rices family tree and circle of friends. Read american erotic horror to familiarize yourself with it's tropes.

[Paleophyte]

The points they make are essentially correct although, as I said, it has little to do with "history" ( there are NO primary, secondary or tertiary historical evidence sources for the godboy ) and more to do with logical fallacies and philosophical questions by the liars who wrote the shit now called "the Gospels."

The Christian Gospels, theology, and many of the churches are such utter contradictions that many Christians no longer believe them. Along with the "nones" there's a growing population of traditional/cultural Christians who view it as more of a worldview than anything to do with events that transpired (or not) 2000 years or more ago. They account for a lot of those empty pews and because they are a short step away from an apatheist they aren't passing it on. My sister's one of them and I suspect that she's raising a pair of budding atheists.

[jerry mcmasters]

I said "serious."  There's a reason when you go to your local library and go to the History section you won't find much mention of a guy who historically walked on water and rose from the dead.  That's in the Religion section.  The supernatural has no place in what serious historians do, because once you allow that caveat, there is no limit; the sinking of the Titanic could be as effectively explained by the anger of Poseidon, etc.  The search for the "historical Jesus" is a valid pursuit, not because we're going to confirm historically that a guy walked on water and rose from the dead, but because historians try to piece together an accurate portrait of the human experience and how it came to be.  

The historical jesus is a blank.  A literal everyman.  Anyman.  

Sure, maybe, maybe not.  It's a question worth asking, though, as again it seems like a valuable puzzle piece in the story of the human experience and valuable to understanding the question of how exactly religions form in the first place.  Does there actually have to be a Jesus (or Jesus-ish person) or a Mohammed or a Joseph Smith, or does mythmaking take place that quickly out of whole cloth? 

There doesn't seem to have been anything quick about greek or christian mythmaking.  But sure, people can construct myths in real time, we had the good fortune of documenting it at least once, unambiguously, just since the invention of cameras and video.  

So I don't understand your dismissal of the question.  Wouldn't it be fascinating if a discovery were made pointing to the possibility of a Historical Hercules!  There's little handwringing about it, though, because, historical H or no historical H, it remained trivia; there was no religion of "Herculaity" or whatever that went on to shape the world the way Christianity did.  Understanding Christianity and asking whether there was an actual man at the origin of it is a much more worthy pursuit, no supernatural needed. 

Nor do I understand your closing the book on it, research continues, who knows, maybe there could be new Dead Sea Scrolls type finds that points more assuredly to an actual historical nutjob wandering around Galille at that time.  It's too interesting of a question to blow off.

-and that guy won't be the jesus in magic book either.....  The problem isn't that historicists can't find the guy.  It's that they know they won't.

  Okay then.  We agree historians won't find the Jesus of the magic book.