Philosophy Now Forum

What if his.story was some immense metaphor in a binary universe...

Je (i) SUS

ForgedinHell wrote:The reason why I believe he did not exist is simply because that's what the evidence shows. It's not even a debateable issue. Had he existed, then surely, someone, during his alleged lifetime, would have written something about him.

This is fallacious reasoning. History is replete with examples of people & events considered historical who were not written about until long afterward. One example would be Hannibal's campaign against Rome by crossing the Alps. There are also multiple examples from amongst the Pharohs of Egypt, the Chinese Emperors, etc. If you wish to throw out a significant portion of history based on the idea that people cannot write from memory, I suppose that is your prerogative. But it is not consistent with historical method.

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:The reason why I believe he did not exist is simply because that's what the evidence shows. It's not even a debateable issue. Had he existed, then surely, someone, during his alleged lifetime, would have written something about him.

This is fallacious reasoning. History is replete with examples of people & events considered historical who were not written about until long afterward. One example would be Hannibal's campaign against Rome by crossing the Alps. There are also multiple examples from amongst the Pharohs of Egypt, the Chinese Emperors, etc. If you wish to throw out a significant portion of history based on the idea that people cannot write from memory, I suppose that is your prerogative. But it is not consistent with historical method.

Actually, your argument is fallacious. Here is what the evidence shows: 1. Jesus never wrote anything. 2. No one who was an eyewitness to Jesus ever wrote anything about him. 3. There was no record of him ever being tried and convicted, but there are numerous recordings of trials before this alleged Jesus lived. 4. No enemy of Jesus wrote anything about him while he allegedly lived. 5. There is no physical evidence that he lived. 6. He allegedly lived in an area where there were numerous Jewish and Roman and other writers. 6. No contemporary historian wrote anything about him. 7. Therefore, anyone who wrote about him, whoever the writers were who wrote the Gospel of Mark, which was written long after this alleged jesus supposedly lived, would have no basis whatsoever for any of their claims. They were not eyewitnesses, and they would have had no documents or physical evidence to base their claims on. Therefore, it is made-up fiction. 8. The gospel writers were biased, not trying to be objective historians. 9. No one visited the places where Jesus supposedly lived and died, until long after he had allegedly passed away. Rather odd, since people usually visit the sites of famous people immediately.

There are more reasons, but the above should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that there was no historical Jesus. If people didn't believe he was a god, no one would have thought he ever existed given the flimsy evidence. The christians are literally in a Catch-22 situation: 1. Jesus was supposedly famous, but no one thought he was important enough to write anything about. or 2. He wasn't very famous or influential, which is why no one bothered to write about him, but somehow he did all these amazing things? It's much easier to conclude, given the evidence, that he did not exist, and if historians would stop being religious fanatics, they would have established this long ago.

ForgedinHell wrote:Actually, your argument is fallacious. Here is what the evidence shows: 1. Jesus never wrote anything. 2. No one who was an eyewitness to Jesus ever wrote anything about him. 3. There was no record of him ever being tried and convicted, but there are numerous recordings of trials before this alleged Jesus lived. 4. No enemy of Jesus wrote anything about him while he allegedly lived. 5. There is no physical evidence that he lived. 6. He allegedly lived in an area where there were numerous Jewish and Roman and other writers. 6. No contemporary historian wrote anything about him. 7. Therefore, anyone who wrote about him, whoever the writers were who wrote the Gospel of Mark, which was written long after this alleged jesus supposedly lived, would have no basis whatsoever for any of their claims. They were not eyewitnesses, and they would have had no documents or physical evidence to base their claims on. Therefore, it is made-up fiction. 8. The gospel writers were biased, not trying to be objective historians. 9. No one visited the places where Jesus supposedly lived and died, until long after he had allegedly passed away. Rather odd, since people usually visit the sites of famous people immediately.

I am going to help you out and note an important distinction by giving 3 example statements:
A) Person X never wrote anything.
B) We have no evidence that person X wrote anything.
C) We have no extant writings from person X.

You have made claims similar to A, but I am quite sure you have no way to substantiate that claim. If you do, please give me a reference. Were you to make some of those claims in the form of C, I might agree with you.

Next, let me ask these questions:
i) Do you consider any of the apostles do be historical?
ii) Do you consider any of the persons mentioned in the gospels to be historical?
iii) Do you consider any disciples of the apostles to be historical (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.)?
iv) If the answer to i) and iii) is "no", who do you consider to be the first historical Christian?

So that it does not appear I am hiding my reason for asking this, I specifically don't think you can substantiate claim #2.

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Actually, your argument is fallacious. Here is what the evidence shows: 1. Jesus never wrote anything. 2. No one who was an eyewitness to Jesus ever wrote anything about him. 3. There was no record of him ever being tried and convicted, but there are numerous recordings of trials before this alleged Jesus lived. 4. No enemy of Jesus wrote anything about him while he allegedly lived. 5. There is no physical evidence that he lived. 6. He allegedly lived in an area where there were numerous Jewish and Roman and other writers. 6. No contemporary historian wrote anything about him. 7. Therefore, anyone who wrote about him, whoever the writers were who wrote the Gospel of Mark, which was written long after this alleged jesus supposedly lived, would have no basis whatsoever for any of their claims. They were not eyewitnesses, and they would have had no documents or physical evidence to base their claims on. Therefore, it is made-up fiction. 8. The gospel writers were biased, not trying to be objective historians. 9. No one visited the places where Jesus supposedly lived and died, until long after he had allegedly passed away. Rather odd, since people usually visit the sites of famous people immediately.

I am going to help you out and note an important distinction by giving 3 example statements:
A) Person X never wrote anything.
B) We have no evidence that person X wrote anything.
C) We have no extant writings from person X.

You have made claims similar to A, but I am quite sure you have no way to substantiate that claim. If you do, please give me a reference. Were you to make some of those claims in the form of C, I might agree with you.

Next, let me ask these questions:
i) Do you consider any of the apostles do be historical?
ii) Do you consider any of the persons mentioned in the gospels to be historical?
iii) Do you consider any disciples of the apostles to be historical (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.)?
iv) If the answer to i) and iii) is "no", who do you consider to be the first historical Christian?

So that it does not appear I am hiding my reason for asking this, I specifically don't think you can substantiate claim #2.

Jesus never wrote anything, period. Now, if you were to assume he did, but the writings are gone, that is on the same level as assuming there are invisible dragons in one's garage, we just have't proved they exist yet. No one wrote anything about him during his alleged life. That included many contemporary historians who lived in the area and were interested in ethics. They don't mention him because he didn't exist.

The apostles? Are you serious? Guess why there are 12 of them? Does the zodiac astrological signs sound familiar? Why is it that a star appeared when he was born, and there are three wise men following suit? Have you seen the astronomy of the brightest star in the sky and the three other stars lined up that are often referred to as the "three kings"? Why is it that this jesus, like so many other alleged gods, died and then rose after three days? Is it because when one looks at the sun when the earth is farthest away from the sun, that it takes three days before the earth starts to approach the sun again? Why is it that there is not a single miracle performed by jesus that was not performed by some other god before jesus? That includes rising from the dead, raising the dead, feeding the multitude, turning water into wine, etc? The jesus story is simply pagan myth. It was not a real person.

How come Paul never mentioned a mother Mary? A father Joseph? A virgin birth? A specific location where this Jesus allegedly died? Why didn't Paul visit the place where this alleged Jesus supposedly died? Paul was writing about a jesus who, like other pagan gods, existed in the supernatural world and acted there. The idea that he was an actual human being developed long after Paul died and the idea would have made him laugh.

There is not a single shred of credible evidence that an actual historical Jesus lived. But, because he is such a popolar god, we should not use our brains in evaluating the evidence and assume there must have been some person the stories were made-up on? Stories that are simply pagan myths that existed centuries before that were just being copied? The gospels are nothing but made-up fiction. They may refer to some real people on occasion, but anyone using, as an objective historical source, writings that claim a man walked on water and virgins can get pregnant and zombies can roam the earth has a lot of explaining to do.

ForgedinHell wrote:Jesus never wrote anything, period. Now, if you were to assume he did, but the writings are gone, that is on the same level as assuming there are invisible dragons in one's garage, we just have't proved they exist yet.

I've never claimed anything about Jesus' writings. All I did was answer your challenge that the gospels should have noted Jesus' literacy (which they did). You seem to miss the point that having no evidence of something is not the same as proving it didn't exist. You have not proven your claims. As I said, you could possible amend them to a form I would agree with: We have no evidence of writings by Jesus.

ForgedinHell wrote:The apostles? Are you serious?

Likewise, you decline to give direct answers to my questions. Therefore, I must infer: 1) You don't think the apostles are historical, 2) You think Paul was the first historical Christian. If that is incorrect, you could do the discussion a great service by giving direct answers. In the meantime, I will say this.

Paul thought the apostles were real. In the letter to the Galatians he mentions meeting James, John, and Peter. Further, he clarifies James as the brother of Jesus. So, it appears he thought Jesus was real as well. Then, in the letter to the Colossians he mentions Mark and Luke, two of the gospel writers. He seems to think they were real. In Luke's writings he claims to have been a companion of Paul, and Paul never denies that. Given Luke's gospel, I doubt Paul felt the need to write about all the things you mention. Luke had already done it.

There is no way to 'know,' if in 'fact,' Jesus ever did, or did not, write anything. To say one way or the other, is to 'assume,' that historical record is necessarily accurate, without omission or addition; selective reference. One has to consider differing language translations, ones ability to articulate meaning, such that another understands, and that it accurately portrays actual events.

All one can truly say is that, as far as they know, he either did or he didn't, such that there shall always be some percentage of uncertainty as to absolutely, truthfully knowing, which can never be negated with certainty.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no way to 'know,' if in 'fact,' Jesus ever did, or did not, write anything. To say one way or the other, is to 'assume,' that historical record is necessarily accurate, without omission or addition; selective reference. One has to consider differing language translations, ones ability to articulate meaning, such that another understands, and that it accurately portrays actual events.

All one can truly say is that, as far as they know, he either did or he didn't, such that there shall always be some percentage of uncertainty as to absolutely, truthfully knowing, which can never be negated with certainty.

I basically agree with you, and I think the way I phrased it in my previous post agrees with what you said. In many ways the OP is irrelevant to Christianity given the role played by the concept of inspiration.

But, what has never come up, is why Jesus might not have written. You will note that I never disagreed with chaz's claim that illiteracy was high. I suspect it was. What I disagreed with was his attempt to extend a general statistic to a particular person. It's just supposition, but if illiteracy was so high, what good would it have done Jesus to write? When Christians began to write, it served other purposes: 1) Documentation for the future, 2) A way to clarify certain points, 3) communication between distant churches and persons.

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Jesus never wrote anything, period. Now, if you were to assume he did, but the writings are gone, that is on the same level as assuming there are invisible dragons in one's garage, we just have't proved they exist yet.

I've never claimed anything about Jesus' writings. All I did was answer your challenge that the gospels should have noted Jesus' literacy (which they did). You seem to miss the point that having no evidence of something is not the same as proving it didn't exist. You have not proven your claims. As I said, you could possible amend them to a form I would agree with: We have no evidence of writings by Jesus.

ForgedinHell wrote:The apostles? Are you serious?

Likewise, you decline to give direct answers to my questions. Therefore, I must infer: 1) You don't think the apostles are historical, 2) You think Paul was the first historical Christian. If that is incorrect, you could do the discussion a great service by giving direct answers. In the meantime, I will say this.

Paul thought the apostles were real. In the letter to the Galatians he mentions meeting James, John, and Peter. Further, he clarifies James as the brother of Jesus. So, it appears he thought Jesus was real as well. Then, in the letter to the Colossians he mentions Mark and Luke, two of the gospel writers. He seems to think they were real. In Luke's writings he claims to have been a companion of Paul, and Paul never denies that. Given Luke's gospel, I doubt Paul felt the need to write about all the things you mention. Luke had already done it.

I did answer the questions. If you assume something, that would be consistent with your assumption that an historical Jesus existed, so why should anyone expect you to stop assuming things now?

Resha Caner wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no way to 'know,' if in 'fact,' Jesus ever did, or did not, write anything. To say one way or the other, is to 'assume,' that historical record is necessarily accurate, without omission or addition; selective reference. One has to consider differing language translations, ones ability to articulate meaning, such that another understands, and that it accurately portrays actual events.

All one can truly say is that, as far as they know, he either did or he didn't, such that there shall always be some percentage of uncertainty as to absolutely, truthfully knowing, which can never be negated with certainty.

I basically agree with you, and I think the way I phrased it in my previous post agrees with what you said. In many ways the OP is irrelevant to Christianity given the role played by the concept of inspiration.

But, what has never come up, is why Jesus might not have written. You will note that I never disagreed with chaz's claim that illiteracy was high. I suspect it was. What I disagreed with was his attempt to extend a general statistic to a particular person. It's just supposition, but if illiteracy was so high, what good would it have done Jesus to write? When Christians began to write, it served other purposes: 1) Documentation for the future, 2) A way to clarify certain points, 3) communication between distant churches and persons.

Claiming that it can't be known whether Jesus wrote something is not true. It would be one thing if historians alive at the time were writing about him, if tours were being given shortly after his alleged death, taking people to the place where he allegedly died, if there were some evidence for his existence, but there is nothing. He did not exist. And if he did write something, then one would think there would have been numerous copies made? Other people would have critized what he wrote. Yet, nothing of the kind exists. Jesus did not walk the earth, he is simply a made-up man, playing the role of an ancient pagan story that existed centuries before he was even allegedly born.

ForgedinHell wrote:

Resha Caner wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no way to 'know,' if in 'fact,' Jesus ever did, or did not, write anything. To say one way or the other, is to 'assume,' that historical record is necessarily accurate, without omission or addition; selective reference. One has to consider differing language translations, ones ability to articulate meaning, such that another understands, and that it accurately portrays actual events.

All one can truly say is that, as far as they know, he either did or he didn't, such that there shall always be some percentage of uncertainty as to absolutely, truthfully knowing, which can never be negated with certainty.

I basically agree with you, and I think the way I phrased it in my previous post agrees with what you said. In many ways the OP is irrelevant to Christianity given the role played by the concept of inspiration.

But, what has never come up, is why Jesus might not have written. You will note that I never disagreed with chaz's claim that illiteracy was high. I suspect it was. What I disagreed with was his attempt to extend a general statistic to a particular person. It's just supposition, but if illiteracy was so high, what good would it have done Jesus to write? When Christians began to write, it served other purposes: 1) Documentation for the future, 2) A way to clarify certain points, 3) communication between distant churches and persons.

Claiming that it can't be known whether Jesus wrote something is not true. It would be one thing if historians alive at the time were writing about him, if tours were being given shortly after his alleged death, taking people to the place where he allegedly died, if there were some evidence for his existence, but there is nothing. He did not exist. And if he did write something, then one would think there would have been numerous copies made? Other people would have critized what he wrote. Yet, nothing of the kind exists. Jesus did not walk the earth, he is simply a made-up man, playing the role of an ancient pagan story that existed centuries before he was even allegedly born.

Your logic is flawed! You say things that you cannot actually know with certainty. Your words above, are those that only fools say! Anyone that would listen to you would be likewise, a fool.

Just because the idea of a god is facile, and the claims of Christians about miracles is bonkers, this is no reason to reject the assertion that someone called Jesus had some sense nailed into him 2000 years ago.
The main reason is because the degree of collusion required for such a hoax would be far beyond the capacities of the early Christians.
Although laced with idiotic stories and banal claims about divinity (which were common to most prophets of the time btw), there is no single person born around that time for whom there is more evidence for his existence.
You might as well challenge the existence of Emperor Augustus as Jesus. Augustus, like Jesus was also divine - the living embodiment of a God, as were many of his successors.
Divinity amongst morals was a pretty common coin in those times, and we should no more believe Jesus' divinity any more than we should accept the same of Alexander the Great or Herod who after claiming his divinity was torn apart by angry crowds.
The problem is not the existence of a man, but the moronic claims, ordinary and common at the time, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Downright assertion of the negative in this regard is the act of the brain dead.

chaz wyman wrote:Just because the idea of a god is facile, and the claims of Christians about miracles is bonkers, this is no reason to reject the assertion that someone called Jesus had some sense nailed into him 2000 years ago.
The main reason is because the degree of collusion required for such a hoax would be far beyond the capacities of the early Christians.
Although laced with idiotic stories and banal claims about divinity (which were common to most prophets of the time btw), there is no single person born around that time for whom there is more evidence for his existence.
You might as well challenge the existence of Emperor Augustus as Jesus. Augustus, like Jesus was also divine - the living embodiment of a God, as were many of his successors.
Divinity amongst morals was a pretty common coin in those times, and we should no more believe Jesus' divinity any more than we should accept the same of Alexander the Great or Herod who after claiming his divinity was torn apart by angry crowds.
The problem is not the existence of a man, but the moronic claims, ordinary and common at the time, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Downright assertion of the negative in this regard is the act of the brain dead.

Oh, Chaz, once again, trying to make excuses for having no credible evidence for an historical Jesus? It wouldn't have taken any mass conspiracy. There are modern-day examples of urban myths that people believe in, and they were easy enough to create. The reason why Jesus did not exist, why he was never murdered, is because there is not a single shred of any credible evidence for his existence. Just look at your assertion that he was tried and murdered. Show me a single record of him appearing before Pilate? Before Herod? Before anyone? Show me a single record of anyone immediately visiting the site of his alleged murder shortly after it happened? Show me any trial that would have been conducted in the ludicrous manner mentioned in the made-up gospel stories? Your entire claim for an historical jesus is that if enough people believe in the horse crap, then it must be true. That's not a rational argument.

chaz wyman wrote:Just because the idea of a god is facile, and the claims of Christians about miracles is bonkers, this is no reason to reject the assertion that someone called Jesus had some sense nailed into him 2000 years ago.
The main reason is because the degree of collusion required for such a hoax would be far beyond the capacities of the early Christians.
Although laced with idiotic stories and banal claims about divinity (which were common to most prophets of the time btw), there is no single person born around that time for whom there is more evidence for his existence.
You might as well challenge the existence of Emperor Augustus as Jesus. Augustus, like Jesus was also divine - the living embodiment of a God, as were many of his successors.
Divinity amongst morals was a pretty common coin in those times, and we should no more believe Jesus' divinity any more than we should accept the same of Alexander the Great or Herod who after claiming his divinity was torn apart by angry crowds.
The problem is not the existence of a man, but the moronic claims, ordinary and common at the time, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Downright assertion of the negative in this regard is the act of the brain dead.

Let's take a look at the actual evidence, which is something you avoid doing. Calling people who disagree with you "brain dead" does not mean the evidence is on your side. It isn't. Here is an example:
There was a contemporary Roman named Seneca the Younger, (C.3-B.C.E. 65), whose real name was Lucius Annaeus Seneca. He was a Roman leader, as well as a writer and Stoic philosopher. His books survive to this day. He made no mention of Jesus ever having lived, and there are a number of reasons why he most definitely should have.
The first reason why Seneca should have written about Jesus was because he is recognized as the greatest Roman writer on ethics. So, his failure to mention anything about a Jesus living during his time, who allegedly made a great contribution to ethics that was sweeping the Roman countryside makes no sense.

Seneca's book titled Quaestiones Naturales, is still available today, and it contains no mention of the darkness that fell over the earth, or at least the region where Jesus was killed, that lasted for hours. In this book, Seneca writes about such things as eclipses and other natural phenomenon, so it's extremely interesting that he failed to write about an eclipse that he would have witnessed, had it happened. As well as the alleged earthquakes that supposedly happened when Jesus died. No mention of any of this in his book.

Another book written by Seneca, still available, is On Superstition. Being a Stoic, he hated superstition, and in this book, he wrote about every known religion and blated them. However, he makes no mention of Christianity, or Jesus, despite the claims of Christians that Christianity was spreading like wildfire throughout the Roman empire. This is no small matter, as even Augustine, in his treaties, City of God, tried to explain why Senenca made no mention of Christianity. Augustine flubbed it. There is no explanation.

There is also a personal family reason why Seneca should have written something about jebus, had he actually existed. Seneca's older brother was Gallio, who appears in the Bible, in Acts (18:12-13). He was the magistrate who threw Paul's case out of court. Now, why would he have not mentioned to his younger brother something about this Jesus everyone was talking about, since he had to know his brother was deeply interested in such things, and wrote about them? The answer is because there never was a Jesus.

Now, even the Christians know that the failure of Seneca having written anything about an historical jebus proves Jesus never lived. They were so alarmed by this that they actually forged a series of correspondence between Seneca and Paul. The forgeries are easy enough to see through, especially since in all of the authenticated writings of Seneca, including the books I mentioned, there is no mention of Jesus, Paul, Christianity, and there would have been if he was such buddies with Paul. So, when Christians are confronted with historical evidence that proves there was no historical Jesus, rather than recognize the truth and leave their religion, they LIE, they falsify documents, to keep the fraud alive. And who are the "brain dead"? They are the people who claim an historical Jesus existed.