Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
A Further Comment on Poking Holes in My Case ;-)
- From John W Loftus
By John W. Loftus - Author: "Why I Became an Atheist."
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"[A] theory for the origin of a cultic movement"
John W. Loftus claims for some reason that it is important in this debate to present "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". This is actually false. The debate is whether Jesus was a historical figure or not. Such as theory as Loftus would like is a separate issue which he would like to link to the central topic in order to have an opposing position he can attack. This is not helpful in understanding whether Jesus existed or not. This latter requires evidence to support it and so far Loftus is empty-handed on the subject. Few deny that there were believers in a religion centered on Jesus at least from the time of the proselytizing efforts of the apostle Paul. The gospels were all written after the time of Paul and have nothing to suggest their historicity, so we must start with Paul. What evidence is there that there was a religion before he started his proselytizing efforts? Unfortunately, Paul doesn't give much scope for a Jesus-centered religion before his time as he claims that he derived his gospel from a revelation, and specifically not from other people.
Loftus of course can derive from my comments here "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". If he does, he should know that it is not being sold as definitive, but as one alternate means of dealing with the data. One needn't commit to one side or the other in this debate, for I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take a side.
- spin December 23, 2008 12:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is NOT a Separate Issue!
When presenting a case that Jesus did not exist it is not a complete case until or unless one tells us how the Jesus movement started. If you say you just don't know, then that non-answer must be taken into account by someone who is assessing the whole case. He must compare that non-answer to the alternative view, my view. Now you're agnostic about the whole issue so you can get by saying you don't know. But others who do take a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began, if they can.
Besides, being skeptical of the past is easy, isn't it? Anyone can do it. Just say "I don't know," and then pick apart all of the arguments by showing they don't prove their case. What standard of proof you're looking for needs to be explained and justified and shown to be consistent across the board for examining any historical claim. I don't think you would never make a good historian. A historian must make a claim based on the available evidence he has at his disposal, otherwise the number of pages in his book will be extremely small.
- John W Loftus
December 23, 2008 10:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Uncommitted simply means uncommitted
You are having difficulties understanding the simple problem here. I want to see some evidence that Jesus existed. You claim that he did. Demonstrate it. You are acting like a lawyer who has no case, so wants to destroy the case of his opponent to give the impression that he has something to say. This is not a useful approach. You make a claim: you defend it. I can wait until you do and tell you while waiting that you have failed to do your job. You are here making claims. That requires, umm, evidence.
If I make the claim that everything in the universe is shrinking and you say prove it, would you accept a response that you've got no reason to doubt my position is sufficient? I should hope not. A substantive case asks for proof. You seem to suffer from a permanent case of burden shifting.
Where is your evidence that Jesus existed? It is not sufficient to ask how else could christianity have started? I have already provided a functional and more economical alternative based on textual evidence to kick-start you in providing evidence for your own position. You continue not to be forthcoming. You continue to tell me that someone who takes "a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began". You are derailing the subject. The question is not how christianity began, but if Jesus existed. If you cannot see your own problem, then you should seek help.
You need to know that I am well aware of the process of doing history, but unlike you I get my hands dirty with evidence. I consult and cite texts. I tend to use primary sources much more than the people I discuss issues with. A case is made on evidence. If your evidence can be picked apart in a reasoned manner, you haven't done the job. You are left making outlandish claims like "I don't think you would never make a good historian." I think you should read some of the more recent histories. They tend to proffer lots of evidence. I can't get any out of you. I fear you don't understand what is necessary.
- spin December 23, 2008 12:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Are You Asking for?
In my final argument that I posted below you admitted Paul believed Jesus was a real person because Paul believed Jesus was crucified. That's where I said there is nothing left to say to you, because there is nothing much more I can say to you. The case is now closed with you.
Just tell me how you arrived at this conclusion, okay? What evidence is there for this belief of yours, i.e., that Paul believed Jesus was a real person? You do it on the basis of textual evidence, just like me. For you to go on to deny Paul's claim is being reckless with the textual evidence. Who better than Paul to tell us what was the case? If you can deny Paul's testimony to a non-miraculous claim about the original cult leader then you can deny anything. As I meant to say, I don't think you would ever make a good historian.
But just in case I'm wrong about you what kind of evidence are you looking for? If you're looking for a coin with an image on it that says "This is Jesus and yes spin, he was a real person," then that is simply an unreasonable request. In fact, if one can discount textual evidence as easily as you do then only a very rare number of people in the past could be demonstrated to have existed by historians. And even if we found a coin like that you could deny the text engraved upon it just like you deny what Paul said. Again, that's being reckless with history. You would never make a good historian.
- John W Loftus
December 23, 2008 12:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hand holding
This was what I said:
> I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person
> somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be
> meaningless to him. However what he believed doesn't
> necessarily reflect reality, does it? He didn't know a real
> Jesus, so he didn't need one to believe he was real, and
> this was true for his communities who only received Jesus
> from him.
You locked onto the first two sentences and ignored the rest. Not a wise approach to complex issues. Did you note the point about what one believes and what is are not necessarily the same thing? I don't know how to make this clear to you than to say that a belief need not reflect reality. Paul believed that there was a Jesus. Does that belief mean that it was a reality? Doh! You seem to be terribly confused.
As to the fact that their is nothing much more you can say to me, that's too bad, because you've said nothing to your claim that Jesus existed.
The source for my understanding of Paul's belief that Jesus was real comes from 1 Cor 15:12-19. The parallel is between Jesus and anyone else who died. He is arguing against the notion that those who died in christ have perished: if Jesus was not resurrected then no-one can be and Paul and his communities are of all peoples most to be pitied. Jesus was real to Paul, otherwise resurrection wouldn't work.
You then try to argue against my analysis that because Paul had no contact with a real live Jesus, so didn't need one to believe that there was one. You claim that my understanding is reckless with the textual evidence, even though my understanding is strictly base don that evidence. Paul had no direct knowledge of a Jesus and neither did any of his converts and neither did any of the converts of his converts and so on. Is it so hard for you to understand that Paul didn't need a real Jesus to believe that Jesus was real?
What you still cannot fathom is that you are trying to extract history from a collection of traditions without showing any criteria for doing so. I am shocked at your persistent refusal to do the job you claim to to be here for. Your task is functionally like that of a prosecution lawyer. You have to present a substantive case with an array of evidence to bring about your conviction. Instead you sit back in your chair and twiddle your thumbs, waiting for the other person to say something.
One can present irrefutable evidence for the battle of Kadesh and the subsequent treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians. This evidence is derived from materials found both in Egypt and in Hatti. We even have copies of the treaties from both sides. The evidence can be checked. One can then present evidence based on that treaty relationship and so build up a historical web of interrelated information, starting with something extremely tangible and going with the textual evidence from that point.
However, in the case of christianity, so far we haven't got to first base. No-one has demonstrated any evidence which leads to substantiation of the central underpinnings of christianity. If you don't have a place to start then no history can be reconstructed.
Can you extract history from the Arthurian traditions? Did Arthur exist? Can you extract history from the Robin Hood traditions? Did Robin Hood exist? Can you extract history from the Homer traditions? Did Homer exist?
I have tried to clarify your epistemological problem. You need to have a way to show *how* you know what you claim to know. Your attempts at shifting the burden and your insults are not substitute. The historian must deal with epistemology. Your empty-handed approach to history to me is reckless. While you continue to deny your basic responsibility to demonstrate your case, you invalidate yourself from making meaningful statements about history and historians.
- spin December 23, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.