It is. Furthermore, as an atheist, I don’t feel like believing in the existence of Jesus compromises my position any. On the contrary, I’ve confused a few less-informed Christians by telling them that I believe Jesus existed but I don’t believe he was divine.
Besides that, stories like the Nativity seem to pretty much just be myth.
Oh sure. The supernatural claims need evidence and there is nothing at all for that. I used to hold more or less the same position (historical Jesus; supernatural claims are to be dismissed), but just based on cultural inertia. I honestly don’t know what the mainstream historical position is at this point. In any case, I wonder what they use as evidence of the existence of the character of Jesus being a real person.
Essentially, we have non-Christian sources claiming he existed from only a few decades after he died. Furthermore, no ancient critics of Christianity argue that Jesus didn’t exist. Then there are aspects of the story that you’d assume early Christians wouldn’t want to make up. This includes him being baptised by John the Baptist. It’s a little embarrassing for the alleged Messiah to be baptised by someone considered to be a normal dude. Sure Christians have kinda retconned its significance but if you were making it up whole-cloth why would you make that part of the story?
Similarly, the crucifixion. Try and take your mind back 1900 years. Crucifixion is a humiliating punishment, designed to shame criminals. If you were creating a mythical figure, in that time, why on Earth would you have him die that way? It doesn’t make much sense. To suppose Jesus is a wholly mythical figure is necessarily to suppose he’s an invention. Sure, maybe you could make a compelling anti-hero from the crucifixion story but you want to be fabricating the world’s first universal religion. Why make your job harder by so closely associating your so-called Messiah with a method of execution often associated with petty thieves and brigands?
It’s interesting to flip over to the talk portion of that page. When reading through the article, I wondered about some of the language myself. Seems I was right to read through the Talk tab…seems the best way to describe the consensus is that he was more likely to exist than not. But that’s really about as strong a position as can be put forth (honestly) by the advocates of a historic Jesus.
I mean correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think I said any different? All we are reasonably sure of is:
He existed.
He was baptised by John the Baptist.
He was crucified.
However, any non-Christian who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, as the original commenter did, discredits all of us non-Christians who find it ridiculous to believe that this man was the Messiah.
I’m honestly curious as to what sort of evidence you’d like to see? By the standards of ancient history, Jesus of Nazareth is a reasonably well-attested figure.
It is. Furthermore, as an atheist, I don’t feel like believing in the existence of Jesus compromises my position any. On the contrary, I’ve confused a few less-informed Christians by telling them that I believe Jesus existed but I don’t believe he was divine.
Besides that, stories like the Nativity seem to pretty much just be myth.
Oh sure. The supernatural claims need evidence and there is nothing at all for that. I used to hold more or less the same position (historical Jesus; supernatural claims are to be dismissed), but just based on cultural inertia. I honestly don’t know what the mainstream historical position is at this point. In any case, I wonder what they use as evidence of the existence of the character of Jesus being a real person.
The Wikipedia article has a pretty good summary.
Essentially, we have non-Christian sources claiming he existed from only a few decades after he died. Furthermore, no ancient critics of Christianity argue that Jesus didn’t exist. Then there are aspects of the story that you’d assume early Christians wouldn’t want to make up. This includes him being baptised by John the Baptist. It’s a little embarrassing for the alleged Messiah to be baptised by someone considered to be a normal dude. Sure Christians have kinda retconned its significance but if you were making it up whole-cloth why would you make that part of the story?
Similarly, the crucifixion. Try and take your mind back 1900 years. Crucifixion is a humiliating punishment, designed to shame criminals. If you were creating a mythical figure, in that time, why on Earth would you have him die that way? It doesn’t make much sense. To suppose Jesus is a wholly mythical figure is necessarily to suppose he’s an invention. Sure, maybe you could make a compelling anti-hero from the crucifixion story but you want to be fabricating the world’s first universal religion. Why make your job harder by so closely associating your so-called Messiah with a method of execution often associated with petty thieves and brigands?
It’s interesting to flip over to the talk portion of that page. When reading through the article, I wondered about some of the language myself. Seems I was right to read through the Talk tab…seems the best way to describe the consensus is that he was more likely to exist than not. But that’s really about as strong a position as can be put forth (honestly) by the advocates of a historic Jesus.
I mean correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think I said any different? All we are reasonably sure of is:
However, any non-Christian who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, as the original commenter did, discredits all of us non-Christians who find it ridiculous to believe that this man was the Messiah.
I’m not sure of any of those three. The consensus seems to be that it’s probably more likely he existed vs. not. But there is no real evidence for it.
I’m honestly curious as to what sort of evidence you’d like to see? By the standards of ancient history, Jesus of Nazareth is a reasonably well-attested figure.