Richard Dawkins and Jesus??

[AtheistVirus]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...

[J.F. Gaul]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized. Granted, all of the events of Jesus' life that we have in the Gospels are copied/borrowed from earlier sources, including the Old Testament, but on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

I'm afraid Dawkins isn't the one who is misinformed in this case...

[Toto]

The idea that some person existed behind the Jesus legend is standard conventional wisdom in most of academia. The idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity started as the worship of a spiritual savior is too new and too complicated to explain for most non-specialists. Dawkins is not a specialist in this very narrow field, and he is just going by what most people tell him on an issue that doesn't actually make much difference for most people.

But even a purely human Jesus is enough to say that Christianity is not the truth.

For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

[Vampyroteuthis]

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

[J.F. Gaul]

As a side note, I always get a chuckle out of the Christians that say the Gospels must have been right about Jesus because the early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Apparently, they have never heard of the Jonestown Massacre or other such incidents.

[J.F. Gaul]

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/Smiling%20Jesus%20300%20pix.jpg

It's Jesus. Yay!

[Lord_Terrible]

I think it goes a little too far when dispelling the myth of Christianity to deny Jesus even existed. Saying he existed and was only human is the most logical route as it agrees with the evidence (Tacitus, Roman execution records etc) and doesn't make it seem like he is the SoG.

Merely 'Jesus was a human man who lied a lot' should suffice.

[AtheistVirus]

For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

I'm not interested in biases and pandering, if there is already enough direct and circumstantial evidence of Jesus's nonexistence why not say "probably didn't exist" instead of "probably did exist", negative probability is more solid than positive, isn't it?

[J.F. Gaul]

if there is already enough direct and circumstantial evidence of Jesus's nonexistence why not say "probably didn't exist" instead of "probably did exist"

Perhaps because there isn't enough direct and circumstantial evidence of his nonexistence?

[Clivedurdle]

The idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity started as the worship of a spiritual savior is too new and too complicated to explain for most non-specialists.


Not sure it is a complicated idea.

Does it not just require a change of mindset, for example by reading the New Testament as you would read Norse or Greek Myths, realising that the difference of having one god and one son and it being about saving the universe does not actually differentiate the story from those of Hercules for example.


And when was the historical core hypothesis first promulgated and by whom? Was it not a reaction to something?


Reading the Bible is very different to most other books. When do you get elsewhere people telling you what it says and having huge institutions telling you what the party line is?

This amount of dis and mis information will cause problems, but maybe like the Gordian knot it is easy to cut!

[AtheistVirus]

When do you get elsewhere people telling you what it says and having huge institutions telling you what the party line is?


Exactly, just this gives validity to go negative on the probability...you just have to make parallels and go outside the fallacious religious symbolic field of inherent legitimacy.

[Clivedurdle]

Roman execution records

Sorry?

Further details please!

[Vampyroteuthis]

Roman execution records

Sorry?

Further details please!

I think those were shredded with the Enron docs. :p

[Toto]

For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

I'm not interested in biases and pandering, if there is already enough direct and circumstantial evidence of Jesus's nonexistence why not say "probably didn't exist" instead of "probably did exist", negative probability is more solid than positive, isn't it?

I guess it just comes down to the cultural fact that if you say Jesus never existed, the person you are talking to may take it as a DIRECT personal attack on the very basis of their being - much more so than saying that God doesn't exist. Then their brain will go into defensive overdrive mode and whatever hope you had of communicating will be gone.

That's just my experience.

[Clivedurdle]

Children manage to survive learning Santa doesn't exist, so why the adult temper tantrum about this?

[Vampyroteuthis]

Toto, I agree.

[Gamer4Fire]

I thought that Jesus was such a popular name at that time that there were hundreds of Jesus'. Just pick one who happened to be a carpenter.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm


It's a good case but it's not the consensus as of yet.

Since this isn't even his field, why should he even bother with it until there is a consensus amongst scholars who actually study this issue?


I got to say, I'm fairly sympathetic to the mythical Jesus idea, but you just sound like a sport fan shouting : ''How can you doubt the Sox will win the world series!'' Hey, they have a good team but I'm not betting the farm until the other teams ave been eliminated.

[DBT]

I think there's a reasonable possibility that the Jesus myth was based on a charismatic preacher going by the name of Yeshua Ben Yoseph. There is not much to go on but considering Paul/Saul was a near contemporary and Christianity was already getting established by word of mouth, it seems unlikely that there ws no basis whatsoever for the movement.

[purple_kathryn]

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/Smiling%20Jesus%20300%20pix.jpg

It's Jesus. Yay!

I am most impressed by his perfect, bright white teeth.

[Gamer4Fire]

http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/Smiling%20Jesus%20300%20pix.jpg

It's Jesus. Yay!

I am most impressed by his perfect, bright white teeth.

Perfect? He lacks canines.

[thebeave]

http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/Smiling%20Jesus%20300%20pix.jpg

It's Jesus. Yay!

I am most impressed by his perfect, bright white teeth.

Well, when you can turn water into wine, then whitening your teeth is nuthin'.

[LeoM]

Here's an interesting discussion on Jesus here

On The psychic life of jesus

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/07/the-psychic-lif.html

[AtheistVirus]

I thought it's a fact that Nazareth didn't even exist in the time of "Jesus", isn't that a pretty good indicator?

[Mal Malenkirk]

I thought it's a fact that Nazareth didn't even exist in the time of "Jesus", isn't that a pretty good indicator?

No it's not a fact, it's a theory based on the fact that Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT.

We have archeological evidence that site was inhabitated since the bronze age (-2000 BC or so).

The question would be at which point in time did a jewish village named Nazareth could be considered to exist on the site? Outside the NT, the earliest source are two or three centuries AD. That's why some people speculate the place didn't exist until later. But that's silly IMO. If it's quoted in the NT (earliest is about 50-60 AD), we can expect it already exist at that point. How much of a stretch is it to assumne it existed in 0 BC?

In my opinion this is more an argument in favour of the village being insignificant at the time than inexistant. Yes it goes contrary to what the bible says, but it's in keeping with the supposed exploits of Jesus not having been recorded by any contemporary historian whereas those of John the Baptist were.

Tiny jewish hamlets and Jewish preachers were two dimes a dozen around 0 BC. It just seems easier to believe that Jesus was one of these preachers of no consequence who lucked out in an excellent post mortem reprensetation than to assume he didn't exist at all.

Mark's NT just isn't allegorical enough in my opinion. The first evangil written is the least fantastical of the four. It's not even clear if there was a litteral or just spiritual resurection, for example. The later ones are much more filled with fantastic elements.

If Jesus had started as a myth and was then accepted as truth, it would have been the other way around, IMO. Mark's evangil would be the most fantastic of them all and the later ones would have tried to ground the story in reality more.

Again, I like the Jesus Myth theory. I'd like for it to be true and it's not without meat on its bones. But it's not nearly as well established as you think it is. Quite a bit of wishful thinking on your part, IMO. You want it to be true so aren't being fair minded on the subject.

''Our faith is prone to lend its ear
To anything which we desire or fear.''
-The Wolf and the Fox, Lafontaine

[-Jay-]

This seems a better fit over in BC&H.

regards,

NinJay
GRD Mod

[Doug Shaver]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed,
Because that is the prevailing opinion among people qualified to have opinions about Jesus' historicity. In particular, most professional historians accept it. Dawkins is not a historian, professional or otherwise, so you can't fault him for deferring to their judgment.

[aa5874]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized. Granted, all of the events of Jesus' life that we have in the Gospels are copied/borrowed from earlier sources, including the Old Testament, but on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

There is no evidence that Jesus Christ was just a preacher who was executed, anywhere, either inside or external of the NT and early church writings.

[Roland]

I am most impressed by his perfect, bright white teeth.

Perfect? He lacks canines.

Could it be that canines simply hadn't evolved yet at the time the picture was taken? :Cheeky:

[Gamer4Fire]

Perfect? He lacks canines.

Could it be that canines simply hadn't evolved yet at the time the picture was taken? :Cheeky:

Sure, back when lions, tigers and bears ate fruit and veggies and the entire world was a fluffy happy place.

[spamandham]

Most scholars accept that Jesus existed.

Most scholars are Christians and can not be expected to be unbiased.


...on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

Is there any scholarly work that has actually examined the evidence objectively and arrived at this conclusion?

[fatpie42]

...on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

Is there any scholarly work that has actually examined the evidence objectively and arrived at this conclusion?

E.P. Sanders? Yeah, I know that he isn't perfect as far as scholars go, but his view is this. He reckons that, if Jesus is historical (which he seems to think very likely on the sole basis of the Bible *sighs*), Jesus would most likely be an apocalyptic preacher who was executed for the ruckus he made in the temple.

The explanation is as follows:

1) The gospels all describe a prophecy of a great event which will happen soon and it is described as happening within their own lifetime. There are clear signs that this prophecy became somewhat embarassing later on as we have Paul explaining why so many people have died while still waiting for the event to come, we have John's gospel saying that actually Jesus hadn't said that any of the disciples would survive to see this event, and we finally have 2 Peter reminding us that a day for God is 1000 years for us as an explanation for why it is taking so blooming long (and I'm sure even he doesn't envisage it taking as long as 2000 years for this event to happen.) This prophecy is clearly an embarassment so Sanders suggests that this makes it likely to be one of the original teachings, not something added later. As such, if the main teachings come from an actual historical Jesus, it's not so controversial to claim that Jesus expected a cataclysmic event to come soon, probably involving bringing the 'kingdom of God' to earth.

2) Jesus is described as being hated by the pharisees and the high priests. In the case of Jesus' arguments with the pharisees, even what we read in the gospels is not any more controversial than the kinds of debates they would have with one another. It's absurd to claim that the pharisees would want to kill Jesus on the basis of it and in any cases the gospels claim that the high priests were responsible for Jesus' death anyway.

The high priests are said to charge Jesus with blasphemy, but we are also told that the trial had a problem with conflicting witnesses. Jesus is eventually condemned on the basis of some only mildly controversial comments. As such we might reasonably gauge from the described events that the trial was somewhat rigged. They wanted Jesus to be condemned for the start. The high priest, before sentencing Jesus, tears his garments, which is seen as a sign of mourning and might have been a way to convince the audience that what Jesus had said should be taken as a grave slight against God.

Since at the trial people keep making reference to destroying the temple, the event most in line with the temple in all of the stories concerning Jesus would be knocking down the stalls of the money changers. As such, Sanders suggests that the high priests worried that Jesus might cause a riot on the basis of this event. As such, they would have wanted to kill Jesus because in the event of a riot Roman troops would come to break it up and they would use a great deal of force in doing so, leading to much loss of life.


Objective enough for you? Whether right or wrong, surely it still counts as a scholarly work?

[J-D]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htmWhy on earth are you asking us whether Dawkins has read this article or not? How on earth would we know? If you actually want to know the answer to this question, why don't you try asking Dawkins? That's the sensible course of action.

And if you don't actually want to know the answer to this question, I can't think of one good reason for asking it.Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...

[Clivedurdle]

I'm in must correct errors on internet mode, so apologies!

What is this about Mark being least mythological? Did I fantasise stuff about voices in clouds, doves, going to mountains, feeding thousands with fish and bread, talking with the devil?

How can you have degrees or proportions of mythology?

I think there is a real need to look in detail at the history of the historical Jesus.

The xian Jesus - please read any statement of belief, creed etc, is on the lines of fully god fully man. That is not a historical formulation.

Next question, where and when did these ideas of variations on a what sort of bloke from Palestine - son of high priest, carpenter, nutter, radical preacher etc is this bloke arise? Where and when is this first discussed, why? What is the co-evolution of these ideas? Who proposed what, who responded, so that we ended up on the hj track?

It looks to me like an assumption - there has to be a person - a historical core - to explain this.

But it is only a working hypothesis. There is an alternate - myth.

Logically both hypotheses should be treated equally and studied to see what happens.

But they are not. There are huge assumptions and repetitions of gossip - like execution records and x says Chrestus, with no open look at all of the evidence.

Why is all the earliest archaelogical evidence of fish symbols and similar again? Who did the Assyrians say were critical in passing knowledge to humans? Why are fish stories so prevalent in the gospels?

I'd be very cautious with historical cores.

[Clivedurdle]

Oh and I really must defend the pharisees again! They were not as portrayed in the gospels! That is a propaganda position! Which raises - why is this Jesus character portrayed as giving such a misleading view of the pharisees?

Pharisee
Jewish history

Main

member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 bc–ad 70). Their insistence on the binding force of oral (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/430763/Oral-law) tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought. When the Mishna (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/385262/Mishna) (the first constituent part of the Talmud) was compiled about ad 200, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law.
The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasidean (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/256567/Hasidean)s. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/515862/Sadducee), i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit;http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/455129/Pharisee

Jesus in fact is portrayed as a confused Sadducee - not one jot not one tittle, but eating corn on the Sabbath. It would be the Sadducees - not the Pharisees - who would complain about that.

What does this sort of error say about how much the authors actually know about Judaism and therefore their authenticity?

Why exactly are we not looking at a Greco roman play set in a romantic war torn location using major themes of oriental cults and evolving into a worldwide cult?

[Solo]

The idea that some person existed behind the Jesus legend is standard conventional wisdom in most of academia. The idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity started as the worship of a spiritual savior is too new and too complicated to explain for most non-specialists.


Would it not be be fair to say, Toto, that the "new and complicated" idea of the origin of the Jesus myth has not yet been presented in a way acceptable to academic specialists ?


Dawkins is not a specialist in this very narrow field, and he is just going by what most people tell him on an issue that doesn't actually make much difference for most people.


But the point is that Dawkins is a bright academic who would know which sources he should consult on a given subject. Why would he even consider embracing a theory which has no academic backing at present ?



For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

I do not know why the Jesus of faith has to be "defeated" to begin with. In case you haven't heard, you don't have to buy into it. You live in a society where it's ok to believe anything you want. You have no more right to take away holy biscuits from others because you believe they are not holy, than they have the right to tell you what your kids will learn in school. God provided us with a solution to himself and religion a long time ago. He put reason into our heads which tolerates foolishness, and makes him unnecessary for the chores of everyday living. To simplify things for us, he removed the religious content from words like respect and decency.

So, I would want to take a close look new idolatry which were to replace Jesus Christ expiring on the cross which symbol evidently allows the freedom to make of it what you will. And if you think human psyche can exist without "idols" you are seriously misinformed. You only have to read the history of the French Revolution to understand what I am telling you.

Live and let live, Toto.

Jiri

[Clivedurdle]

And if you think human psyche can exist without "idols" you are seriously misinformed.

Exodus 20
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4-6: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth....

Is the idea of the one god the problem?

[Reason]

That Dawkins would be ignorant (not likely) of the controversy of Jeebus' existence is not really relevant. After all, Dawkins' day job is evolutionary biologist, not theologian.

[Chili]

[
Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized.


But in a world where gnostic is opposite to agnostic one should never accept what a scholar thinks as fact.

[Solo]

And if you think human psyche can exist without "idols" you are seriously misinformed.

Exodus 20
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4-6: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth....

Is the idea of the one god the problem?

No. The problem - if there is a "design" problem - may be in the way our brains have evolved. Arthur Koestler was an entusiastic proponent of the idea that our brains' wiring has a serious defect. (Ghost in the Machine) The human brain, and the species, has unergone a rapid change within the last half a million years, far in excess of what has been anatomically recorded in any other animal. With this rapid expansion of the cranial mass, the older brain was overlaid by the new cortical structures without much communication going on between them. The result has been what Koestler calls "schizobiology": the interactions of the external world have been isolated into the cortical-intellectual functions (which are dorsal in orientation), and the internal 'ganglionic' nervous functions (which are ventral-visceral), supplying internal data of the organism "feelings". These two sides of us, the theory goes, do not fit well together. It is interesting that in medicine, the "separation" of emotion from reasoning has been observed since Galen (who held that thoughts were brain functions but emotions circulated in the vessels of the body). Descartes vaguely intuited the disconnect in the philosophy of the 17th century. There is a more complex, recent model from the 1960's (called Papez-Maclean) which actually separates the brain into three functional entities (archi/meso/neo-cortex) based on phylogenetic acquisition of function. The oldest stratum (a so-called limbic system) for all intents and purposes is actually the old reptilian brain. It forms the inner envelope of the brain stem.

The neo-cortex, in the words, of Paul Maclean, creates an image of the world, which is - as it were - a composite of the external world and internal "states" of the organism. Most of us - when we talk about something happening "out there" do not realize that our brain, while analyzing the outside mixes in (or projects) our imagination into the world. A simple example of this - familiar to all drivers of motor vehicles - is the brain working on an uncertain object lying ahead on the road which the car is approaching. It first suggests - almost always - it is a road-kill, a carcass, and when the car approaches, it "re-assesses" the identity of the object - and its usefulness !

The problem with our brain operating in this way, Koestler thought, is that there is no clear hierarchical subsuming of the emotional to the intellectual. The emotional side of us - having a shorter and more discreet access to our innermost selves, in certain matters always predominates. Among other things, the conative side of us projects our wishes, hopes, and need for security, on symbolic structures and dominant individuals, combining the two into IDOLS.

So, it does not really matter whether the symbolic psychic representation is a Pantheon, and whether the Pantheon sits on Mount Olympus or in Hollywood, or whether the psychic structure is organized around one God, or an idiot who somehow became the president of the United States. Idols will always be there. If we are reasonable, we will not be trying to overthrow idols but manage them : eg. by presidential election, movie selection and by keeping the fire and brimstone limbic fanatics as from access to our civic edifice. Not by waging a war of extermination on them.

[Chili]

Interesting solo but that is what gave us dominion over the species. It is not a defect because the commumication still exist between the two (we call this the HS) until a rewiring is done with the onset of menopause where the Beatific Vision is complimentary and from there the 'older brain' (TOK we call it) is the mother that once was taken from us to remain aloof and send the HS our way whenever she is a in a good mood (enmity between between these two brains = Mary and Magdalene and higher up between Herod and Pilate).

[aa5874]

Is there any scholarly work that has actually examined the evidence objectively and arrived at this conclusion?

E.P. Sanders? Yeah, I know that he isn't perfect as far as scholars go, but his view is this. He reckons that, if Jesus is historical (which he seems to think very likely on the sole basis of the Bible *sighs*), Jesus would most likely be an apocalyptic preacher who was executed for the ruckus he made in the temple.

An explanation of an historical Jesus based solely on the Bible is completely and fatally flawed. The Jesus of the Bible is a God that was born of the Holy Ghost was resurrected and went through the clouds on his way to heaven.

Mark 16.6: And he [an angel] said unto them, Don't be amazed, You are looking for Jesus, the Nazarene, who was crucified, He has RISEN; He is NOT here, behold the place where they laid him.

The historical Jesus is not in the Bible, He is NOT there, He has Risen.

[badger3k]

The idea that some person existed behind the Jesus legend is standard conventional wisdom in most of academia. The idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity started as the worship of a spiritual savior is too new and too complicated to explain for most non-specialists. Dawkins is not a specialist in this very narrow field, and he is just going by what most people tell him on an issue that doesn't actually make much difference for most people.

But even a purely human Jesus is enough to say that Christianity is not the truth.

For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

Sorry to disagree, but the mythical Jesus position goes back to German and Dutch scholars from 100+ years ago. It is only "new" in the sense that a historical Jesus concept it older than it.

Re Dawkins, I suspect (but have no evidence) that he really doesn't care. The idea of whether or not a human Jesus existed is irrelevant - if there is no god, then who cares whether a human named Yeshua existed in the past (other than scholars, and those interested in the history of the region or religion, anthropologists, etc).

[Clivedurdle]

Solo, you have resurrected some stuff from the distant past - I read Ghost in the Machine in 1971 and have been puzzled that its insights are not more widely discussed.

It is around here somewhere, thanks

Clive

[Chili]

Sorry to disagree, but the mythical Jesus position goes back to German and Dutch scholars from 100+ years ago. It is only "new" in the sense that a historical Jesus concept it older than it.

.

. . . only because the Reformation introduced him as a real person in a concrete way. The myth was written by the mythmakers and was defended by the mythmakers at all cost until the civilization had reached its high point and was bound to decline after that.

[jules?]

Hmmmm hasn't the concept of a mythical Jesus been around since christians started to worship as gnostics?

[Toto]

Mythicism may be traced back to second century gnostics or 19th century Dutch and German scholars, but the modern formulations are relatively new.

[spamandham]

He reckons that, if Jesus is historical (which he seems to think very likely on the sole basis of the Bible *sighs*),

What I'm interested in, is someone who doesn't start with that assumption.

[jules?]

The 'was Jesus historical' arguement rages on several fronts but from the perspective of what should the default position be I would go with the myth first and go on from there. [i did toe the collective line a few years ago and I am still open to the idea].

If we were to deal with a similar hero such as King Arthur or Merlin then 'scholars' tend towards the mythical with the element of a real person lurking somewhere. Jesus is different and it is telling that from the very creation of Christianity writers were at great pains to point out that their hero really did exist. It is telling because if it was widely accepted they need not have wasted their breath. All the early writers were of the Greco-Roman world and wrote in Greek or Latin [is this correct?] indicating they were never directly connected to the events described.

I agree in some respects with the OP in that if Darkins had said Merlin was probably a great historical man but just a man and not born of an angel/woman then we would probably be quite critical.

[Howay the Toon]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...


Its probably because he would rather not derail whatever discussion he's having at the time into a rather pointless, boring and irrelevant discussion on the evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

[crispy]

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/Smiling%20Jesus%20300%20pix.jpg

It's Jesus. Yay!

Oh that one is exploitable :(

(as in photoshopable)

[Solo]

If we were to deal with a similar hero such as King Arthur or Merlin then 'scholars' tend towards the mythical with the element of a real person lurking somewhere. Jesus is different and it is telling that from the very creation of Christianity writers were at great pains to point out that their hero really did exist. It is telling because if it was widely accepted they need not have wasted their breath. All the early writers were of the Greco-Roman world and wrote in Greek or Latin [is this correct?] indicating they were never directly connected to the events described.

I agree in some respects with the OP in that if Darkins had said Merlin was probably a great historical man but just a man and not born of an angel/woman then we would probably be quite critical.

Imagine, if you will the story od Vivian's entrapment of Merlin, with a bit of Markan twist to it:

When the enchantress conjures a tower around her lover, suddenly her family and friends appear on the set, waving their hands and screaming: 'sorry guys,.... hey guys, yes you.... who are reading this....listen : sorry, no tower.....there is no tower here, really, no way Vivian can do this sort of thing, she's just out of her mind, you see - this is a misunderstanding; we know her and we tell you she has no training in masonic sorcery. Please, excuse her ! .

Now, our reading of the Arthurian legends would sure be different if the mythical panoply in them was being subverted in this wise.

Jiri

[Tuffa Nuff]

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"
Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized. Granted, all of the events of Jesus' life that we have in the Gospels are copied/borrowed from earlier sources, including the Old Testament, but on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..
I'm afraid Dawkins isn't the one who is misinformed in this case...I agree with you, J.F. There probably was a guy called Jesus, whose life was mythologised to become Jesus Christ of religious fame. On the other hand, maybe not. But really why should an atheist care, since if there is no god, then the Jesus story is largely fiction?

[Clivedurdle]

Hmmmm hasn't the concept of a mythical Jesus been around since christians started to worship as gnostics?

But how long has the historical Jesus been around?

Schweizer?

The godman has been around since the beginning, the proto orthodox view may be understood as gnostic with added flesh.


Did any ancients say hey, this godman of yours sounds very like Hercules et al. Or was the problem that then they thought Hercules was real?

[J-D]

The 'was Jesus historical' arguement rages on several fronts but from the perspective of what should the default position beI don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position or why you think there should be one.

[Malachi151]

FYI, I sent a copy of my book (http://www.lulu.com/content/687167) (based on the article you linked) to Dawkin's organization, with a note to pass it on to him. I've never heard back from him or anyone else with his org., so I have no idea what happened with it, but I was indeed trying to inform him on this issue so that at the very least he wouldn't keep proclaiming with certainty that Jesus was such a great guy and moral teacher.

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...

[jules?]

The 'was Jesus historical' arguement rages on several fronts but from the perspective of what should the default position beI don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position or why you think there should be one.

The default or factory settings for history should be based on evidence. King arthur is a good example being literal and myth but further research throws up the possibility of one or more historical candidates. The Historical 'arthurs' offer a foundation for the myths but do not and could not do the magical exploits and in some respects drawing a history of a real person from the myth is futile. Jesus is different, there is a religion based on him being historical so therefore the bias makes logical argument particularly difficult,

There just seems to be a complete lack of objectiveness on the subject.

[jules?]

Hmmmm hasn't the concept of a mythical Jesus been around since christians started to worship as gnostics?

But how long has the historical Jesus been around?

Schweizer?

The godman has been around since the beginning, the proto orthodox view may be understood as gnostic with added flesh.


Did any ancients say hey, this godman of yours sounds very like Hercules et al. Or was the problem that then they thought Hercules was real?

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

[spamandham]

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

I've never heard that. What do you base it on?

[jules?]

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

I've never heard that. What do you base it on?

I think you will find the prophets were awaiting the messiah in the 6th century, and later writers are even more specific such as Dan and especially enoch who describes the messiah in apperance and the fact that he had pre-existed since creation. hence the reason the gospels search and quote 48 [matt] passages to prove JC was the one. which is a bit rubbish really because the messiah; herald of the End Time that never came.

[J-D]

I don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position or why you think there should be one.

The default or factory settings for history should be based on evidence. King arthur is a good example being literal and myth but further research throws up the possibility of one or more historical candidates. The Historical 'arthurs' offer a foundation for the myths but do not and could not do the magical exploits and in some respects drawing a history of a real person from the myth is futile. Jesus is different, there is a religion based on him being historical so therefore the bias makes logical argument particularly difficult,

There just seems to be a complete lack of objectiveness on the subject.I still don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position, or why you think there should be one.

[Dirge]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net


Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.

[Solo]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net

Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.

No surprise there ! My prediction is this : Jesus, when he returns, will be an Atheist too.

Hold it: have a vision !

He will say: sorry, folks, it was a misunderstanding. I did not die for anybody's sins. I apologize to the churches. It really was not my idea to do a church but they have all done a wonderful job trying to keep me up-to-date. This thing with sin: I talked to Dad right afterwards but he kept messing up the guys with the Spirit. Said it would not work any other way. They must look insane; they must talk insane. Otherwise no-one would believe it.

No, the real reason they killed me was, like I said: "they did not know what they were doing". There just wasn't enough science around in them bronze- age-myth days; there was no other reason.

<< end of vision >>

Jiri

[J-D]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net


Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.Richard Dawkins agrees with the things he thinks Jesus stood for. I don't think he's right about what Jesus stood for, or even about what Jesus is said to have stood for in the earliest surviving accounts, or even about what Jesus is said to have stood for in the canonical New Testament, or even about what Jesus is said to have stood for in the canonical Gospels. But in that respect he is no different from most Christians. And in adopting an interpretation of what Jesus stood for which he also agrees with, he is no different from most Christians. But I don't think that's enough to make him a Christian, because Muslims also agree with the things they think Jesus stood for. All the people who call themselves Christians and who regard each other as Christians are theists, and Dawkins isn't. The fact that he agrees with at least some Christians on other points would not be regarded either by Christians or by Dawkins (and those who think like him) as sufficient to make him a Christian. If you want to call him a Christian, nobody can stop you, but in doing so you are using the word 'Christian' in a different way from the way it is generally used, and this can only cause confusion.

[Malachi151]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net


Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.

Dawkins makes himself look like an idiot in that piece. I understand that he's trying to reach out to Christians and not look so bad, but still, from a scholarly perspective he looks like a total moron.

[J-D]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net


Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.

Dawkins makes himself look like an idiot in that piece. I understand that he's trying to reach out to Christians and not look so bad, but still, from a scholarly perspective he looks like a total moron.I feel you are equating ignorance with stupidity, and I don't think that's fair.

[spamandham]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
'Atheists for Jesus' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net


Let's face it. Despite being an Atheist, Richard Dawkins is a deeply committed Christian.

Dawkins makes himself look like an idiot in that piece. I understand that he's trying to reach out to Christians and not look so bad, but still, from a scholarly perspective he looks like a total moron.


...are Solo and I the only ones who saw that article and Dirge's response as tongue in cheek humor?

[Dirge]

Dawkins makes himself look like an idiot in that piece. I understand that he's trying to reach out to Christians and not look so bad, but still, from a scholarly perspective he looks like a total moron.


...are Solo and I the only ones who saw that article and Dirge's response as tongue in cheek humor?

Apparently so.

[Malachi151]

I dunno, I've heard Dawkins say in speeches before that he admires Jesus and thinks that he was a great teacher.

[Dirge]

I dunno, I've heard Dawkins say in speeches before that he admires Jesus and thinks that he was a great teacher.

So did Albert Einstein. Neither Dawkins nor Einstein were Christians by any stretch of the imagination. (I thought the article was amusing so I posted it)They just accept his probable existence.

[Dave31]

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion. There's nothing to corroborate the story outside of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. Lets face it, there's no evidence to demonstrate the character in the bible named Jesus ever existed. It's much more reasonable to conclude the story is a myth.

Dawkins should view this video and read the book before assuming Jesus existed.

"Who Was Jesus?" VIDEO
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3828A6ED4FFA99BCBA6AF9D3710F/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of.aspx

[Doug Shaver]

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion.
The evidence does not convince you that he existed.

It does not convince me, either, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

[aa5874]

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion.
The evidence does not convince you that he existed.

It does not convince me, either, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

But what evidence is there of Jesus that does not convince you? And where exactly do you find this evidence?

I am yet to find anyone who have any evidence to support the hypothesis that Jesus was only human, except to say, it is possible Jesus existed, but this statement has no evidentiary value.

[thedistillers]

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion. There's nothing to corroborate the story outside of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. Lets face it, there's no evidence to demonstrate the character in the bible named Jesus ever existed. It's much more reasonable to conclude the story is a myth.

Dawkins should view this video and read the book before assuming Jesus existed.



As a public personality and prominent scientist, Dawkins has to be careful with what he says. What would be the point for him to endorse a position supported only by a minority of scholars? Surely if you're going to go against a majority of scholars, you need to be very educated on the issue. Dawkins is not. If he would take the MJ position, then people would constantly bring it up and Dawkins would end up being perceived as either an idiot or a crackpot.

Secondly, whether or not there is evidence to "demonstrate" Jesus existed is subjective. First, if there was no evidence at all as some people here claim, then we would not have this discussion. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence, but how credible the evidence is. Dawkins does not have the qualification and knowledge to assess the evidence, so he just goes with the scholar consensus. Maybe if creationists would have the same attitude, we wouldn't have to deal with ignorant BS on a daily basis.

[Dave31]

When do we get to be honest and just admit that there exists no evidence for the Jesus Christ character in the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny?

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

~ The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

~ Who Was Jesus?" page 84

All I've ever heard are the repetitive claims, "Oh, there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence for Jesus." Or the, "well there's no scientific evidence but I still believe..."

If there were any evidence to support the claims, FAITH would not be the main requirement. What is THE very best EVIDENCE for the existence of the character in the bible known as Jesus Christ?

[thedistillers]

If there were any evidence to support the claims, FAITH would not be the main requirement.

That's not true. Faith is defined as trust; it does not exclude evidence. Even with excellent historical evidence, we would still require faith to put fully our trust on a person that took the human form 2000 year ago.

When do we get to be honest and just admit that there exists no evidence for the Jesus Christ character in the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny?

Peer review? Scientific scrutiny?

[aa5874]

When do we get to be honest and just admit that there exists no evidence for the Jesus Christ character in the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny?

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

~ The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)

~ Who Was Jesus?" page 84

All I've ever heard are the repetitive claims, "Oh, there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence for Jesus." Or the, "well there's no scientific evidence but I still believe..."

If there were any evidence to support the claims, FAITH would not be the main requirement. What is THE very best EVIDENCE for the existence of the character in the bible known as Jesus Christ?

And further, the Jesus of the NT was a God, that is, all the information about Jesus described him as a God, in effect, there is no information whatsoever for the historical Jesus anywhere.

No one can say when the human only Jesus was born, the name of his parents, if he was a Jew, if he was crucified or how he died, his age at death, or where he was buried.

There is just no evidence or information anywhere in the NT for a Jesus who was just human and not a God.

[spamandham]

Surely if you're going to go against a majority of scholars, you need to be very educated on the issue. Dawkins is not. If he would take the MJ position, then people would constantly bring it up and Dawkins would end up being perceived as either an idiot or a crackpot.

I completely agree. He is doing what is prudent for a man in his position, which is to find common ground from which to make his points, rather than latching onto a public position which would so easily discredit everything else he has to say.

He may or may not really believe Jesus was historical. ....more likely , he just doesn't really care. That isn't his area of expertise nor does it impact any points he makes, nor does it even appear to be a hobby for him.

[Doug Shaver]

The evidence does not convince you that he existed.

It does not convince me, either, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

But what evidence is there of Jesus that does not convince you? And where exactly do you find this evidence?
I gave you a good answer the first time you asked me that question. You ignored me then, and I have no reason to think you'll pay any more attention now.

[aa5874]

But what evidence is there of Jesus that does not convince you? And where exactly do you find this evidence?
I gave you a good answer the first time you asked me that question. You ignored me then, and I have no reason to think you'll pay any more attention now.

I have no resaon to think you really have evidence.

[J-D]

Dawkins makes himself look like an idiot in that piece. I understand that he's trying to reach out to Christians and not look so bad, but still, from a scholarly perspective he looks like a total moron.


...are Solo and I the only ones who saw that article and Dirge's response as tongue in cheek humor?




...are Solo and I the only ones who saw that article and Dirge's response as tongue in cheek humor?Apparently so.I responded to Dirge as being serious, and now that makes me look a fool. But I still see no reason to think that Richard Dawkins was not serious in his article. I think he was serious.

[J-D]

I'm really disappointed in Dawkins view that Jesus PROBABLY existed with no real evidence to support that conclusion. There's nothing to corroborate the story outside of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. Lets face it, there's no evidence to demonstrate the character in the bible named Jesus ever existed. It's much more reasonable to conclude the story is a myth.

Dawkins should view this video and read the book before assuming Jesus existed.

"Who Was Jesus?" VIDEO
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3828A6ED4FFA99BCBA6AF9D3710F/who-was-jesus-fingerprints-of.aspxIt is fatuously pointless to tell us what you think Dawkins he should read and view. If you think he should view the video and read the book, you should tell him, not us.

[J-D]

But what evidence is there of Jesus that does not convince you? And where exactly do you find this evidence?
I gave you a good answer the first time you asked me that question. You ignored me then, and I have no reason to think you'll pay any more attention now.Just out of curiosity, can you point me to that?

[Doug Shaver]

I have no resaon to think you really have evidence.
Yes, you do seem to have made up your mind that there can't be any evidence. That would explain why you keep pretending that I never answered your question the first time you asked it.

[Solo]

...are Solo and I the only ones who saw that article and Dirge's response as tongue in cheek humor?

Apparently so.I responded to Dirge as being serious, and now that makes me look a fool. But I still see no reason to think that Richard Dawkins was not serious in his article. I think he was serious.

That's the problem with fools. They take themselves too seriously (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CEcEwPszfrE).

Jiri

[aa5874]

I have no resaon to think you really have evidence.
Yes, you do seem to have made up your mind that there can't be any evidence. That would explain why you keep pretending that I never answered your question the first time you asked it.

I repeat, I have no reason to think you have any evidence since it is very likely that you would have, at least once more, given me that evidence just to show that you really do.

[Doug Shaver]

I repeat . . .
Yes, we've all noticed that.