resources-references, christianity, jesusWhat is the general consensus amongst historians on the identity of Jesus Christ? Was he simply a con-man, an healer, or even — for those theists in the audience — the real deal?
This question can, and has been taken on scientifically.
There are two rather nice Wikipedia articles, Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, on the subject. If you read them both, you’ll find there is a lot of hypothesis and not a lot of evidence.
The question of Jesus’ existence has not been answered satisfactory by any scientifically sound study. There is, of course, some evidence for it, but not enough to get a positive answer.
There is some evidence to suggest that a Jesus existed (a few actually), and that some of the myths are based on his life. But I’m talking of course about the Jesus assumed by the Christian communities.
Note that the same is true for a few other historical figures whose existence we take for granted. There is just a lot more interest in Jesus.
I doubt that Jesus, at least as described in the Bible, ever existed. Little outside the Bible was written about him, and nothing was written about him during his putative lifetime. He wrote nothing himself, suggesting that if he existed he was illiterate. There were plenty of historians in Jesus’ day, none of whom mentioned him. Later historians, such as Josephus and Pliny, mentioned him, but could not have known him if Jesus actually died circa 30 CE. The Gospels are all obviously slightly different versions of an earlier account, and therefore cannot be counted as four accounts of Jewus, but again, all were written at least a generation after 30 CE. There is also no archaeological evidence of Jesus’ existence. Carbon-14 dating has shown the Shroud of Turin to be a piece of medieval artwork. Since the coming of a Messiah was predicted in the Jewish Testament, it is understandable that early Christians would have invented stories suggesting that the prediction had been fulfilled.
I think it would be hard to find a “general consensus” in the atheist community on anything but the most basic topics. That said, I’m not sure how much there is to be gained speculating on the motivations of a man 2000 years dead, whose life we only know of through fragmented, biased, and occasionally contradictory sources.
Edit: To clarify, I don’t mean to imply any disdain for the question itself. I just doubt that we’re in any position to come up with a well supported answer.
Obviously the biblical Jesus did not exist. He wasn’t born to a virgin. He wasn’t the son of God. He didn’t walk on water, or feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes. He didn’t raise Lazarus from the dead, or cure blindness with spit, or go to hell, or talk to the devil, or chase demons out of men into pigs. He wasn’t resurrected and he didn’t take off into the sky in front of witnesses. The biblical Jesus is a myth from start to finish, and everyone of those stories is a lie.
Some people are prepared to toss aside the more than 40 miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and declare that there was, indeed, a man behind the myth - but what sort of man? If we take away his miracles, we are left with a complete nobody who most certainly was NOT the Jesus of the bible.
I agree with Dreg2010, not all atheists hold the same views on things, and I too doubt his he was actually real. If he was, he certainly had a good message to spread, but this seems to have been subverted. I would suggest reading “Sophie’s World”, it puts the views of Jesus and the church in contrast to those that were around at the time.
Pip.
There is no real evidence that jesus actually existed. There is an interesting documentary on that topic called The God Who Wasn't There, which I highly recommend. Many other religions that significantly predate christianity have nearly identical figures in their mythology. I think he was fabricated.
I think Jesus (as he’s written in the Bible) is an amalgam of many different stories that were circulating the middle east at the time. There were certainly people at the time claiming to be messiah, just like there are now. So there’s a grain of truth in the story, but it’s been added to and edited so many times … good luck finding it.
I’m of the opinion that he existed, and possibly as a healer and charismatic speaker.
He was then used and wrapped into an exquisite meme set for control.
obviously not all atheists hold the same belief , I myself disbelieve he even existed but if he did he was in my opinion someone with good intention
There probably isn’t a “general consensus” among atheists over anything (unless you’re good at herding cats.) Even Xian theologians dispute the existance of the Jesus character. There is no independent evidence of such a person, the gospels were written at least a couple of generations after his claimed death, and very few of the statements credited to him can be clearly traced in the texts. The early Xians - including Paul - appear to have seen him as an alegorical character, and it isn’t until you get to the Emperor Constantine and his stitch-up with Bishop Eusebius that you get a clear vote for the literal version (One Nation Under God #2)
For myself, I am completely agnostic on the subject. Whether the story is based on one character or several, or is completely mythical I neither know nor care. The god-man bits are clearly derived from the many other god-man myths of the region, the nice xian philosophy is well enough in itself, but neither original nor requiring a special hot-line to any deity to figure out.
Personally I suspect it’s an interesting meld of Hellenistic philosophy with Jewish Messianic expectations and Egyptian astrological god-myths, with the Jesus character as the “logos” illuminating the path to spiritual enlightenment - through stories and mystery plays. As for the arguement that people wouldn’t mistake a fictional character for a real one, it happens all the time - ask any actor in a popular soap!
Asking what the general consensus of atheists is on ANYTHING is a silly question. The only thing they have in common, for certain, is a conviction that there is no evidence supporting assertions about this thing called God, and hence atheists don’t act or build their lives around said assertions.
That said, it MIGHT… through the transitive property :-) … be a “general consensus” that Jesus was NOT Divine. Since we don’t accept unsubstantiated claims of divinity from ANY “GOD”, Jesus is plum out of luck, too.
There is no consensus is the answer. In truth the closet we have to an eye witness is Paul who never meet Jesus although he claims to have had a meeting with some of the disciples in Jerusalem in the 40's. I belie the first non biblical reference is pleny the younger sometime in the 60s. is The historicity of jesus is a large topic with people devoting their entire scholarly carrier to research a couple of quick links for more information.
I think of Jesus as a composite character, not dissimilar from Robin Hood (there are many viable actual Robin Hood characters, none of them the definite article). This accounts for the inconsistencies within the NT well enough for me.
As for Jesus the political dissenter that was tried and killed, I think he was a genuine historical figure. When his followers, people that genuinely thought he was to signify the kingdom of heaven, was killed as a common criminal they had to wrestle with a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Thus was born the legend of Jesus. Dan Barker had a great exposition of this in Godless.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.