Religion Amongst Metalheads

[CiG]

A lot of that is an appeal to authority fallacy but sure, I've admitted that some figure did exist who was probably Jesus, but the thing is any kind of detail about his life seems to be complete bullshit. The small pieces of information attached to any figure with the name Jesus seems to have become absorbed by one figure with seemingly little to no life details, creating a figure that looks like it has many lines of evidence to support his existence but actually has almost zero.

Other than references to a Jesus in historical texts, what actual evidence is there that the Jesus existed?

 

[challenge_everything]

That's a loaded question because it depends what you mean by the Jesus.

The accepted details of his life tend to be those referred to in various works published by Roman (ie non-Christian) authors no more than about 100 years after the rough date of Jesus' death. These include Jesus being a contemporary of John the Baptist, being a kind of itinerant preacher who developed followers, and was arrested in Jerusalem for some seditious or subversive incident and later crucified for it.

 

[CiG]

That's a loaded question because it depends what you mean by the Jesus.

Well this is the problem because Jesus seems to be one of the only so-called historical figures who have this problem. As far as I know there's no multiple figures who could be the Muhammad of that particular religion, whereas Jesus could be several different random traveling rabbis.

The accepted details of his life tend to be those referred to in various works published by Roman (ie non-Christian) authors no more than about 100 years after the rough date of Jesus' death. These include Jesus being a contemporary of John the Baptist, being a kind of itinerant preacher who developed followers, and was arrested in Jerusalem for some seditious or subversive incident and later crucified for it.

Why is there nothing from the actual period Jesus lived? Everything is a hundred or more years after his crucifixion, unless I'm wrong about that? Everything seems to be conveniently after a cult status had formed around the Jesus figure, which means many different sources can then posthumously be used to give him a basis in history.

 

[CiG]

Actually might pick up David Fitzgerald's new books, a 3 part supposed debunking of what he calls the atheist side of perpetuating the Jesus myth. I've read Nailed which he put out in 2010 which debunks the religious mythos of Jesus but much more interesting would be to see how he deals with the whole "well we know there was no 'son of god' Jesus but historians agree that someone called Jesus actually did exist" thing.

 

[challenge_everything]

Well this is the problem because Jesus seems to be one of the only so-called historical figures who have this problem. As far as I know there's no multiple figures who could be the Muhammad of that particular religion, whereas Jesus could be several different random traveling rabbis.

You misunderstood my comment. There's no confusion in the analysis of the historical sources as to which Jesus is referred to. The Roman histories identify a particular Jesus who lived during the reign of Pontius Pilate, developed followers and was executed under Pilate's rule.

The blending of multiple historical figures only arises at the biblical level where various events or statements attributed to Jesus are not independently verifiable, or worse are inconsistently attributed to other persons such as John the Baptist.

Why is there nothing from the actual period Jesus lived? Everything is a hundred or more years after his crucifixion, unless I'm wrong about that? Everything seems to be conveniently after a cult status had formed around the Jesus figure, which means many different sources can then posthumously be used to give him a basis in history.

I'm not a historian so this is a bit beyond my reach. The Galileans and Judeans were largely illiterate so presumably the only contemporary sources would have been Roman if something was written at all. I also don't think it's true to say the sources conveniently arise simultaneously with the cult movement. Jesus ' death is placed between AD30-36 as per Pilate's established rule. The earliest gospel is considered to be Mark around AD70 and the last John around AD90-110, and it was not until later that these had any influence on the Romans. In contrast the most significant Roman source of information is Josephus' history dated around AD94 and is disparaging of Jesus which suggests it was not swayed by any messianic movement that had formed.

 

[CiG]

You misunderstood my comment. There's no confusion in the analysis of the historical sources as to which Jesus is referred to. The Roman histories identify a particular Jesus who lived during the reign of Pontius Pilate, developed followers and was executed under Pilate's rule.

Isn't that false that there's no confusion? I thought there was a debate over whether it was Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Damneus? And these so-called sources which has the Romans identifying that Jesus as the Christ are based on Christians at the time who said they worshiped a man who was crucified named Jesus.

The blending of multiple historical figures only arises at the biblical level where various events or statements attributed to Jesus are not independently verifiable, or worse are inconsistently attributed to other persons such as John the Baptist.

So which are the statements and events that prove Jesus Christ was an actual guy?

I'm not a historian so this is a bit beyond my reach. The Galileans and Judeans were largely illiterate so presumably the only contemporary sources would have been Roman if something was written at all. I also don't think it's true to say the sources conveniently arise simultaneously with the cult movement. Jesus ' death is placed between AD30-36 as per Pilate's established rule. The earliest gospel is considered to be Mark around AD70 and the last John around AD90-110, and it was not until later that these had any influence on the Romans. In contrast the most significant Roman source of information is Josephus' history dated around AD94 and is disparaging of Jesus which suggests it was not swayed by any messianic movement that had formed.

I thought Josephus' two mentions of Jesus in Antiquity of the Jews were widely thought to be a fabrication and Christian interpolation?

Seems the only reason that modern scholars now think the mentions are authentic and not Christian interpolations is because: "scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them."

This is ridiculous and assumes that there aren't thousands of inconsistencies in hundreds of years old texts in attempts to make it all connect.

 

[challenge_everything]

Most of your contentions are not supported by the vast majority of even non-christian scholars on these issues. Certainly Josephus is regarded as a credible source. Why would you assume he would be influenced by christian dogma? I think you really underestimate how long it took for anything resembling modern christianity to emerge after Jesus' death. And it didnt start influencing Roman culture until Constantine.

I know anything that involves religion understandably engages your bullshit-detector, but I'm not sure why it's so hard to accept there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified (crucifixion of dissidents was commonplace at the time) and who formed the basis for the myth that followed or why you seem to be demanding a level of proof above and beyond other historical figures whose existence is accepted yet similarly proved only by second-hand histories.

Also, it's fucking Friday evening and I'm going for a beer.

 

[CiG]

I'm not going to just accept historian consensus when all that seems to have convinced them is that there were many mentions of people named Jesus and Josephus talked about a Jesus twice in his writings, one of which is largely believed to be a fabrication and the other considered to be a Christian interpolation with the only counter-evidence to the latter being that they can't believe Christian interpolaters would do anything that isn't consistent with the new testament's narrative.

And I'm not saying that Josephus would be influenced by Christian dogma, I'm saying from what I've read he seems to have based his writings on what he was hearing the people say, when they talked about a Jesus who was crucified. It's not that he fell for some kind of cultist dogma it's that he's repeating rumour of people who would have been Christians.

why you seem to be demanding a level of proof above and beyond other historical figures whose existence is accepted yet similarly proved only by second-hand histories.

Like who? Most historical figures have several lines of evidence for their existence, Jesus Christ has almost zero. It's a silly comparison to make IMO.

(crucifixion of dissidents was commonplace at the time)

As was having the name "Jesus" and this is why you can't just connect the convenient dots because you see the name pop up in parts of history. As I mentioned before, there is some debate over whether it was Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified or Jesus the son of Damneus.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not going to just accept historian consensus

So say a multitude of people re. climate scientists. Alas, the historians (as an intellectual collective) are smarter than we are. So are the climate scientists.

No professional historian is suggesting that an actual, single individual existed to whom all the biblical writings refer. That person is a myth, clearly. Historians do agree that a collection of primary sources and historical events point to the existence of an actual figure who very likely served as source material for the Gospels. They've studied the correlations and connections, and they're simply saying what the evidence suggests. This doesn't mean that the historical figure who existed was the figure in the bible, only that someone existed.

This is how all history works, past a certain point. It's why people debate the historicity of figures like William Shakespeare, William Wallace, or Homer. There is no evidence beyond documentation, so historians have to determine whether the documents cohere enough to suggest the existence of a person. In the case of Jesus, it's generally accepted that someone existed. As far as the degree of commensurability between the "historical Jesus" and Jesus Christ, that's a matter of debate.

 

[CiG]

Yeah I agree that someone existed, I'm more curious over the details. Planning to read the Fitzegerald book I mentioned earlier, at some point, maybe. Kinda burnt out on stuff like this though TBH.

 

[challenge_everything]

So say a multitude of people re. climate scientists. Alas, the historians (as an intellectual collective) are smarter than we are. So are the climate scientists.

No professional historian is suggesting that an actual, single individual existed to whom all the biblical writings refer. That person is a myth, clearly. Historians do agree that a collection of primary sources and historical events point to the existence of an actual figure who very likely served as source material for the Gospels. They've studied the correlations and connections, and they're simply saying what the evidence suggests. This doesn't mean that the historical figure who existed was the figure in the bible, only that someone existed.

This is how all history works, past a certain point. It's why people debate the historicity of figures like William Shakespeare, William Wallace, or Homer. There is no evidence beyond documentation, so historians have to determine whether the documents cohere enough to suggest the existence of a person. In the case of Jesus, it's generally accepted that someone existed. As far as the degree of commensurability between the "historical Jesus" and Jesus Christ, that's a matter of debate.

Sums up my views nicely.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

wow
this thread actually came out way the hell better than the other thread with this title

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

So say a multitude of people re. climate scientists. Alas, the historians (as an intellectual collective) are smarter than we are. So are the climate scientists.

No professional historian is suggesting that an actual, single individual existed to whom all the biblical writings refer. That person is a myth, clearly. Historians do agree that a collection of primary sources and historical events point to the existence of an actual figure who very likely served as source material for the Gospels. They've studied the correlations and connections, and they're simply saying what the evidence suggests. This doesn't mean that the historical figure who existed was the figure in the bible, only that someone existed.

This is how all history works, past a certain point. It's why people debate the historicity of figures like William Shakespeare, William Wallace, or Homer. There is no evidence beyond documentation, so historians have to determine whether the documents cohere enough to suggest the existence of a person. In the case of Jesus, it's generally accepted that someone existed. As far as the degree of commensurability between the "historical Jesus" and Jesus Christ, that's a matter of debate.

.

 

[The Butt]

Don't believe in any higher power but I believe in parallel multiverse shit. Its interesting to think about.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Don't believe in any higher power but I believe in parallel multiverse shit. Its interesting to think about.

anything that could have happened did happen, it's just a matter of where it happened,

 

[The Butt]

Wholeheartedly believe it.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Wholeheartedly believe it.

i was just describing the basic idea of "multiverse-theory"

 

[WorldObliteration33]

Atheist. Believe that the universe came from nothing and that there is scientific evidence (I don't understand in detail but trust) to back it up.

Not a nihilist though and I don't personally believe that's a healthy outlook to live by. I still believe in sappy, overly-sentimental things that people can do and I think that alone gives life meaning.

 

[PrincessHades]

I'm not sure what I believe. I'm not a total atheist, I tend to believe that there's something but I often feel unable to find any meaning in that sadly, due to other stuff I have going on. I hope it changes with time.