Entry 634, on 2007-11-02 at 15:42:49 (Rating 3, Religion)
I recently listened to a Point of Inquiry podcasts which discussed "the Jesus Project". This is a project organised by the Center for Inquiry which takes 50 experts and examines questions regarding the historicity of Jesus. The first question is "did Jesus exist" and that is something which hasn't been commonly dealt with in the past. It was always assumed that he existed because the early historical and anthropological work was done by religious people. Obviously they assumed that Jesus existed and proceeded from there.
I personally think that it is unlikely that anyone who really resembled the figure in the Bible stories existed, but there are a whole range of possibilities between the conclusion that Jesus was real and that he didn't exist at all. Its possible that the stories are based on real events and then grossly exaggerated. Its possible that the stories are based on several real people or on common rumours and beliefs. The story came from somewhere but maybe it was just the imagination of early church leaders.
The fact that there is no real evidence outside of the Bible to indicate Jesus did exist but there is good evidence showing other figures of the period did, indicates to me that the story is totally fictitious or only very loosely based on a series of real events. The fact that every piece of evidence showing the truth of the stories ends up being a hoax also indicates that its untrue. If there was no evidence at all it would be more believable, but Christians inventing evidence shows how desperate they have really become.
The Jesus Project includes skeptics and believers and will examine questions relating to Jesus over the next 5 years. It will be interesting to see what they conclude. One thing is for sure: the Christians who claim there is better historical evidence for Jesus than for accepted figures such as Julius Caesar, Lincoln, etc, are talking total garbage.
Comment 1 by WF99 on 2007-11-17 at 13:38:19:
Considering that Christianity is essentially an offshot of Judaism, and assuming an objective standpoint, I can see why the apostles would want to fabricate a story. Their religion promised a coming messiah to deliver their people from oppression over two thousand years ago that they had yet to receive. However, also from that standpoint, why would all eleven of them be willing to die for what they knew was a lie? Also, if their motives were based on Judaism, it makes little sense that they would engage in false prophecy, a move that was recorded in Jeremiah as provoking God's wrath.
I believe that Jesus existed, and, since I'm a Christian, I guess I also believe that he was God, though my doubts have whittled Christianity down to just a subject for me. So I agree with most views that Jesus was a man who believed that he was the Messiah and was killed, and that the disciples later claimed that the body was missing and that he was God. I just also take the step further that he was right, though I take that step reluctantly.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2007-11-19 at 09:14:14:
I'm glad you can see why I am skeptical when you look at the story objectively. Well done! But then you go on to ask why 11 apostles would be willing to die. But you failed to extend your skepticism far enough. What evidence do we have the apostles existed, much less died for their beliefs? As far as I know the credible evidence outside the Bible for them is about the same as the evidence for Jesus himself: practically none.
You believe that Jesus existed because you are a Christian. But you are a Christian because you believe in Jesus. Sounds a little but circular, don't you think? Have I ever had the debate with you regarding whether he even existed? There is plenty of evidence in Roman records for other figures of the period but not for Jesus. Going back to being objective again, does that strike you as being a bit odd?
Comment 3 by WF99 on 2007-11-21 at 03:14:54:
Yes, I guess it is circular, but it's a circle I've been born into. And yes, we did briefly discuss Jesus' existence; you dismissed Polycarp and other historians as having their work tampered with, correct?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2007-11-21 at 10:33:22:
When I look at the historical record of Jesus I see a lot of hearsay, second and third hand stories, forgeries, fakes and other unsupported material. If I compare this with other records from the time it doesn't seem to be very convincing. Even the Bible has inconsistencies, and that is in the four stories chosen from hundreds. It could be that Jesus existed, but its a huge stretch of credulity to think any of the supernatural stuff is real.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE