Would the world have been better off without Jesus? [Archive]

DoubtingStephen

30th October 2007, 12:17 PM

Is there a way to quantify an answer?

The character named Jesus in accounts created many decades after his supposed death does not seem so bad to me. He was a revolutionary, an iconoclast, he hated the those-times equivalent of our modern day Republican party (the Pharisees), and he got violently angry with those exploiting religious afflictions as a means to getting rich - so we can guess what he might have thought of the still-dead Jerry Falwell.

He rebuked Fundamentalists for their eagerness to condemn others, and he seemed very friendly to professional sex workers.

He never advocated invading a foreign country based on a pack of lies, and he never pretended torture was not torture while ordering his minions to commit torture.

No, the possibly fictional character Jesus was not the worst guy that ever lived. The difficulties we have today are with folks who claim to represent him in modern day society.

If in fact such a person did exist, I'd say he did nothing to make the world a worse place to live. He might have scored higher with me if he had been an atheist though.

Apology

30th October 2007, 12:27 PM

Since it's all sheer speculation, I will give a sheerly speculative answer. Without Jesus, we could still expect Judaism (as it was at the time of the Old Testament) to progress along in the same direction it was already headed prior to Jesus. That leaves a question as to whether OT Judaism would have spread and experienced the popularity that Christianity did without the charismatic figure of Jesus. It's not really safe to imagine that all people who are Christians now would be Jews instead in this fictional Jesus-free world. Neither is it safe to assume that they would just be non-religious. It's possible that Judaism, without Jesus' meddling, may not have flourished the way Christianity has, and that some other belief might have rose to prominence in Christianity's absence.

Even if we are willing to assume that all Christians today would have stayed Jews if Jesus had not existed, we'd then have to make the argument whether a world with more Jews and no Christians is better, worse, or even much different than a world that does have Christians. On top of that, since we can't say how Judaism would have progressed without Christianity's influence, we really can't say how much or how little it would have reformed itself since the OT times, or how those archaic beliefs might have carried down or been practiced now without Christianity's interference. It's an interesting question, but one that can never really be answered.

I don't see the idea of Christianity never existing as the same as religion being removed from society, so I can't really say, "Oh yes, society would have been much better if nobody had ever heard of Jesus Christ." We have to wonder if worse beliefs than Christianity might have evolved to replace it if it had never existed.

SynapticDancer

30th October 2007, 12:55 PM

It is difficult to answer first because it is difficult to define in operationalized terms. Define "better" as a start, and keep in mind what would be "better" according to one person might be far worse according to another. Perhaps we might as a whole hold a different position on things such as sex before marriage, homosexuality, morality, war, poverty etc. How would you define what is a 'good' change, and what might be a 'bad' change?

Further, there are two centuries worth of confounds to account for. For example, the various interpretations of the teachings of jesus. If you remove jesus, then who knows what these folks might have interpretted instead? In all the generations since the time that jesus is supposed to have lived, there is an awful lot of influence both small and great, on an awful lot of people, both good people and bad, who then would go on the influence countless others, in both good ways and bad. For this, it would be virtually impossible to examine all of the variables when you remove jesus from the equation. (The use of the words 'good' and 'bad' in the above paragraph still maintain their highly subjective interpretations)

Finally, consider this. Whether we like it or not our lives have all been influenced by jesus, directly and indirectly. The same holds true for thousands of other influential, historical figures whose life and work had some great effect on society. The world would be a different place, perhaps not equally different but different still, if there never was an Elvis, a Lenny Bruce, a George Bush, a Marilyn Monroe, a Ghandi, a mother Teresa. We may sit here and decide which of these (and many other) figures we would like to have seen done without, but there presence has already had an effect, which in many ways motivated your even considering how the world might be better without. The fact that you asked the question demonstrates that Jesus has had some influence on you (your thinking, your world views, etc.) so taking him out of the equation would also take your ponderence of the detriment he may or may not have caused in your view out of the equation, and there might be unintended repercussions of that, no?

Beerina

30th October 2007, 01:02 PM

I know the universe would be better off without God, who's preparing to throw the vast majority of people who ever lived into Hell.

A kindly, if misguided, creator who resurrected you and sent you on your way without fear of pain or death would be vastly superior to Yahweh.

DOC

30th October 2007, 01:07 PM

You should read the book "What if Jesus had never been born" and you'll be amazed at the number of ways humanity is better off because of Christ.

cloudshipsrule

30th October 2007, 01:10 PM

There probably wasn't a jesus and we STILL got Christianity out of the deal

I think actual historical documents, aside from the bible, tend to lend credence to Jesus having actually been a real being.

Soapy Sam

30th October 2007, 01:12 PM

The middle east has religion like dogs have fleas.
Had Christianity and Islam not happened , similar but slightly different ones probably would have.

Had Christianity happened a century earlier, in the days of the Roman republic, history might have differed . But that's science fiction.

cloudshipsrule

30th October 2007, 01:13 PM

If religion would have still come into existence as we know it today, then I'd say Jesus being part of the equation has added balance to what otherwise might have been purely radical christian sects.

schlitt

30th October 2007, 01:22 PM

As has been pointed out, any answer to this question is unverifiable speculation.
People often underestimate how variable reality is. One minute change in the past would exponentially change the state of things, and the possibilies range from "we would all be living in a utopia" to "Humanity would be long extinct" and everything in between.

H3LL

30th October 2007, 01:35 PM

Lothian

30th October 2007, 01:39 PM

Jesus who ?

bjornart

30th October 2007, 01:52 PM

Is there a way to quantify an answer?

No.

Ichneumonwasp

30th October 2007, 01:56 PM

I cannot recall the details - someone may know.

I understood that Christianity was chosen by a Roman emperor as the most politically expedient. (Was it Constantine?).

I believe there were other hot contenders for the "official" religion.

If I have remembered right, without Jebus it would have been one of the others?

Need help with the details or if I'm talking bollocks...Thanks.

.

It was Constantine, but not chosen out of political expediency. The best fit is that he genuinely converted to Christianity before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but didn't really know what that meant (until later). The big change recently in the Empire was that a huge bureaucracy had built over the previous 100 years and with Diocletian as a near autocrat Constantine was able to parley his now autocratic rule (after the civil war that occurred when Diocletian stepped down) into favors within the bureaucracy, so that it was advantageous to become a Christian. This, coupled to the fact that he crated a "new Rome" in Byzantium where he could call the shots completely helped the Eastern Empire rapidly transform in an Empire dominated by Christianity. The new religion would have been lost if Julian had his way and re-instituted pagan worship, but he got himself killed by the Persians which certainly looked like a judgment against the pagan gods. All the following Emperors were Christian too.

ponderingturtle

30th October 2007, 02:21 PM

You should read the book "What if Jesus had never been born" and you'll be amazed at the number of ways humanity is better off because of Christ.

Sure as long as you atribute all the benefits and none of the problems that western europe developed in the past 500 years to christianity you can do great!

For example comunism is very much based on a reaction to christianity, so it is an effect of christianity.

H3LL

30th October 2007, 02:56 PM

It was Constantine, but not chosen out of political expediency. The best fit is that he genuinely converted to Christianity before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but didn't really know what that meant (until later). The big change recently in the Empire was that a huge bureaucracy had built over the previous 100 years and with Diocletian as a near autocrat Constantine was able to parley his now autocratic rule (after the civil war that occurred when Diocletian stepped down) into favors within the bureaucracy, so that it was advantageous to become a Christian. This, coupled to the fact that he crated a "new Rome" in Byzantium where he could call the shots completely helped the Eastern Empire rapidly transform in an Empire dominated by Christianity. The new religion would have been lost if Julian had his way and re-instituted pagan worship, but he got himself killed by the Persians which certainly looked like a judgment against the pagan gods. All the following Emperors were Christian too.

Thanks for that. fascinating.

Your confirming Constantine reminded me where I read what I said:

The Calendar: The 5000 Year Struggle to Align the Clock and the Heavens and What Happened to the Missing Ten Days (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Calendar-Struggle-Heavens-Happened-Missing/dp/1857027213/ref=sr_11_1/203-4355952-0031105?ie=UTF8&qid=1193777003&sr=11-1)

By - David Ewing Duncan

A fine book and recommended. An easy and fascinating read.

Page 56. 1st edition: OCR scan:

Constantine would also adopt one of the East's chief religions, reversing 3 So years of largely secular rule - symbolized by Caesar's calendar - in a move that would soon fuse the political and military might of a still-potent empire with what would become an even more potent state religion.

At first it was not entirely clear which religion. During these troubled time Romans embraced several popular sects, most of them from the East - everything from a pseudoreligious brand of Neo-Platonism to Christianity and the worship of the sun. Keenly aware of this diversity, the always expedient Constantine seemed willing to embrace virtually any religion that might serve his political needs, despite his story - told much later - about the Christian god and the flaming cross of gold at the Mulvian Bridge. In fact, at the time he credited his victory over Maxentius to more than one god.

To please the pagans of Rome, he erected the Arch of Constantine, which dedicates his triumph to Rome's old deities - and remains one of the best-preserved and most imposing triumphal arches in present-day Rome. Constantine also flirted with the popular cult of the sun-god Mithras at the time of the battle since the Mithraists also held sacred a symbol similar to a cross. Certainly such a twin billing would have pleased the large numbers of both Mithraists and Christians in his army.

Only over the course of several years did Christianity gradually win out, perhaps because the Christians offered a more effective power base, or because Constantine found the tenets and organizational structure of the Christian Church easier to co-opt and merge into the existing imperial structure. Another, simpler reason may have involved Constantine's mother, the British-born Helena (248-328)........

ravdin

30th October 2007, 03:15 PM

Which Jesus do you mean?

There was the historical figure. Even we skeptics generally agree that he was a real person, who made some trouble with the local authorities and was nailed to a cross for his trouble. I doubt the world would be better or worse off if he had never existed.

Then there's the "imaginary friend" Jesus. He likes to carry people on the beach when there's a beautiful sunset, leaving behind one set of footprints. How romantic!

Unfortunately, that particular Jesus has been the inspiration for much darker and uglier visions than the insipid beach metaphor. I also think that a similar apparition would have been invented if the real Jesus had never been born. I think we all would have done just fine without him.

Kaylee

30th October 2007, 03:26 PM

FWIW, once a Christian asked me what I thought about Jesus and I said that I was glad that he had existed and that his form of Christianity took off because otherwise I suspected that polygamy would still be widespread.

Also FWIW, when asked, I label myself as a Reconstructionist Jew.

DoubtingStephen

30th October 2007, 03:50 PM

Jesus who ?

I think he was referring to Jesus Rodriguez, our next door neighbor's gardener. Jesus blows
all of the leaves away with a leaf blower.

firecoins

30th October 2007, 04:07 PM

I think actual historical documents, aside from the bible, tend to lend credence to Jesus having actually been a real being.
does this mean he could have been something other than human?

Madalch

30th October 2007, 04:38 PM

does this mean he could have been something other than human?
Yes, he could have been a completely fictional character.

The entire question is pointless, since there's no evidence he existed in the first place.

Would the world have been better off if there had never been a King Arthur? Would the world be worse off if Beowulf hadn't slain Grendel and its mother? Would the world be a better place if the One Ring had been destroyed by Isuldur instead of waiting around for Frodo?

Tough questions, and I'm sure we will never truly know the answers....

Ichneumonwasp

30th October 2007, 05:29 PM

H3LL,

Constantine would also adopt one of the East's chief religions, reversing 3 So years of largely secular rule - symbolized by Caesar's calendar - in a move that would soon fuse the political and military might of a still-potent empire with what would become an even more potent state religion.

At first it was not entirely clear which religion. During these troubled time Romans embraced several popular sects, most of them from the East - everything from a pseudoreligious brand of Neo-Platonism to Christianity and the worship of the sun. Keenly aware of this diversity, the always expedient Constantine seemed willing to embrace virtually any religion that might serve his political needs, despite his story - told much later - about the Christian god and the flaming cross of gold at the Mulvian Bridge. In fact, at the time he credited his victory over Maxentius to more than one god.

To please the pagans of Rome, he erected the Arch of Constantine, which dedicates his triumph to Rome's old deities - and remains one of the best-preserved and most imposing triumphal arches in present-day Rome. Constantine also flirted with the popular cult of the sun-god Mithras at the time of the battle since the Mithraists also held sacred a symbol similar to a cross. Certainly such a twin billing would have pleased the large numbers of both Mithraists and Christians in his army.

Only over the course of several years did Christianity gradually win out, perhaps because the Christians offered a more effective power base, or because Constantine found the tenets and organizational structure of the Christian Church easier to co-opt and merge into the existing imperial structure. Another, simpler reason may have involved Constantine's mother, the British-born Helena (248-328)........

well, that is certainly one interpretation. I'm not sure that all scholars of the late Roman Empire would agree. That he believed in other gods is, I think, undeniable. He seems to have adopted the Christian god as one among many who could help him in the upcoming battle (if it is true that he converted at that time -- he didn't openly profess his faith until many years later). One chose one's gods at the time based on how effectively they helped in this world (which is why I mentioned that he didn't really know what Christianity meant at the time -- I'm sure he only saw this as a strong god who could help him beat up on Maxentius).

There is a common misperception that he made Christianity the "state religion", something that he was not capable of doing. I think the characterization that Christians provided a strong power base at that time is incorrect. While Christianity seems to have grown significantly in the uncertain times following the Severin dynasty I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that it was anywhere close to a majority religion before Constantine.

Constantine spent a great deal of time with church councils, calling the council of Nicea and involving himself in the Donatist controversy. He certainly did not seem to be going through the motions. Yet, he also was a terrible Christian killing his wife and eldest son. IIRC one of them was boiled in oil, but I may have that wrong.

While it is debatable whether or not he converted immediately before the battle of the Milvian bridge or whether it occurred later, I think it seems pretty clear that he meant it, that he really did convert. Of course, this didn't stop him from being a murderous *******. And, yes, there were many options that could have chosen -- Mithraism being one of primary options; but Isis worship probably had a better chance than Mithraism (just my opinion).

Apology

30th October 2007, 08:47 PM

I'm not at all convinced that Jesus actually existed. There's reason to believe based on circumstantial evidence that the story of Jesus may have been based on stories of prophets from previous, now-dead religions. There's also plenty of evidence that, if Jesus did indeed exist, his life was so fictionalized and overglorified in the Bible that the "real Jesus" bore little resemblance to "Biblical Jesus."

Here's a whole Google Image Search page of people who think that Jesus may not have actually existed, and why:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jesus+did+not+exist&btnG=Google+Search

However, all the websites on the first page are atheist websites and can be presumed to be somewhat biased against Jesus, so it's up to everyone to decide for themselves if they want to believe in Historical Jesus or not. I don't usually bother to argue against Historical Jesus' existence because even most unbelievers accept that he existed, so it basically accomplishes nothing and pisses people off. I offer it here to those who might be interested in looking into it.

SynapticDancer

30th October 2007, 09:13 PM

Apology

30th October 2007, 09:24 PM

Whether Jesus existed as a human life at one point or another does not relate to the original question. We can all safely assume that, fiction or non-fiction, there is an historical figure named Jesus Christ. The question is whether or not humanity would be better off without Jesus, which perhaps we can agree is at the very least a concept of a person, if not an actual person who existed and then people told all kinds of stories about after he died. To that end, (whether he walked the earth or not) the absence of the concept of Jesus could not be quantified, let alone be determined as being better or worse than a world with a concept of Jesus.

I completely agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that both God and Jesus exist as concepts for everyone whether they believe in the actual existence of the two or not.

I also agree that it would be impossible to determine if the world would be better or worse if no one had ever heard of Jesus Christ. There are just too many variables and possibilities to consider.

H3LL

31st October 2007, 06:08 AM

...lots of interesting stuff....

Thanks for that response. Appreciated.

.

Southwind17

31st October 2007, 06:26 AM

Is there a way to quantify an answer?

How about counting the number of beards to trim?

Georg

31st October 2007, 08:12 AM

I think actual historical documents, aside from the bible, tend to lend credence to Jesus having actually been a real being.

Which documents?

There was the historical figure. Even we skeptics generally agree that he was a real person, who made some trouble with the local authorities and was nailed to a cross for his trouble.

No, we don´t. Show the evidence, please.

We can all safely assume that, fiction or non-fiction, there is an historical figure named Jesus Christ.

No. Show the evidence please.

How do all of the quoted posters come to this conclusion? I´d really like to know. I´m not biased, because even if there was a historical person with that name, that would have nothing to with him being a god, so even his proven existence wouldn´t change my view on religion. But, as far as I know, the jury is still out on that one.

cloudshipsrule

31st October 2007, 02:27 PM

Which documents?

For one, the bible was written by individuals using source material from other documents, which were written around the time Jesus is said to have existed. People often forget that the bible is actually a historical document with historical facts in it. The writers of the gospel can be prepared to writers today who write on current topics. Some of the writing will be historically accurate, some will have bias.

There is actually good information on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I think the majority of historians agree that Jesus existed. Whether he was God is another debate.

Apology

31st October 2007, 02:33 PM

For one, the bible was written by individuals using source material from other documents, which were written around the time Jesus is said to have existed. People often forget that the bible is actually a historical document with historical facts in it. The writers of the gospel can be prepared to writers today who write on current topics. Some of the writing will be historically accurate, some will have bias.

There is actually good information on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I think the majority of historians agree that Jesus existed. Whether he was God is another debate.
The following is a list of writers who all lived at the time of Jesus. They were prolific writers who were interested in world events and would have mentioned Jesus if they had known about him.

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Not one of them did. Almost all the evidence for Jesus comes from the bible and from people who did not actually know him, and the few pieces of evidence outside of that are sketchy at best.

J. Arthur Hastur

31st October 2007, 02:37 PM

Yes, there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed, the earliest writings that do mention him don't appear until what, 200 years after his alleged death? Very strange for the highly literate Jewish society in Judea.

Mashuna

31st October 2007, 02:48 PM

I wouldn't know what to shout when I hit my thumb with a hammer.

Darth Rotor

31st October 2007, 03:20 PM

Is there a way to quantify an answer?

So long as you write it in Arabic (Tours, Charles Martel), or Turkish (Vienna, 1699) perhaps.

DR

J. Arthur Hastur

31st October 2007, 03:51 PM

I wouldn't know what to shout when I hit my thumb with a hammer.

JEBUS!

Darth Rotor

31st October 2007, 04:11 PM

I wouldn't know what to shout when I hit my thumb with a hammer.
JEBUS!
A hearty "awsheet" or "frock me!" suffices for some of us.

DR

Cosmo

31st October 2007, 05:14 PM

Would the world be worse off if Beowulf hadn't slain Grendel and its mother?

Um, have you seen Grendel's mother? Damn straight we're worse off now that she's dead!

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/images/beowulftrailer.jpg

Elind

31st October 2007, 07:52 PM

This OP raises a question in my mind, that could perhaps be speculated on with a little more confidence than simply wondering what form religions would have taken without Jesus and related religious belief stifling every scientific advance since.

If we say that the industrial revolution had us stepping on the moon some 300 years after it started; give it 400 years to be safe.

That question is, what type of governance, (could be atheist or even some very different form of religion) would it have taken for humanity to have placed a man on the moon by say the year 500?

Southwind17

1st November 2007, 05:01 AM

That question is, what type of governance, (could be atheist or even some very different form of religion) would it have taken for humanity to have placed a man on the moon by say the year 500?

More to the point, what type of rocket?! ;)

Lonewulf

1st November 2007, 05:15 AM

Georg

1st November 2007, 09:04 AM

For one, the bible was written by individuals using source material from other documents, which were written around the time Jesus is said to have existed. People often forget that the bible is actually a historical document with historical facts in it. The writers of the gospel can be prepared to writers today who write on current topics. Some of the writing will be historically accurate, some will have bias.

There is actually good information on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I think the majority of historians agree that Jesus existed. Whether he was God is another debate.

I´d be interested in the part I bolded from your quote. What other documents? Are there any that were written by "eyewitnesses" or at least by people that lived at the same time as the J-man (if he was a living person, that is), not a couple of decades afterwards?
So far, I´ve heard of none and therefore am still not convinced. What do you think of Apology´s list:

The following is a list of writers who all lived at the time of Jesus. They were prolific writers who were interested in world events and would have mentioned Jesus if they had known about him.

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian

Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Not one of them did. Almost all the evidence for Jesus comes from the bible and from people who did not actually know him, and the few pieces of evidence outside of that are sketchy at best.

Thanks for that, Apology.

Anyone else got good sources about the authenticity of Jesus?

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 09:08 AM

Which documents?

No, we don´t. Show the evidence, please.

No. Show the evidence please.

How do all of the quoted posters come to this conclusion? I´d really like to know. I´m not biased, because even if there was a historical person with that name, that would have nothing to with him being a god, so even his proven existence wouldn´t change my view on religion. But, as far as I know, the jury is still out on that one.
Indeed, there isnt' a single document outside of the NT that tells us anything about Jesus. All of the early documents usually used to support a historical jesus only mention early christians, of which there is no argument against.

The earliest christian texts we have are from Paul, who didnt think jesus was human, but a god who emptied himself of power, and was then crucified by the archons, and afterwords was bestowed with the title of Jesus.

this alone is enough to completely discredit all of the gospels. If Jesus was just a title bestowed upon a godman, he is lowered to the same level as Enoch, who became a god after being taken up, and was given a throne next to YHWH's ...

ponderingturtle

1st November 2007, 09:14 AM

I completely agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that both God and Jesus exist as concepts for everyone whether they believe in the actual existence of the two or not.

I also agree that it would be impossible to determine if the world would be better or worse if no one had ever heard of Jesus Christ. There are just too many variables and possibilities to consider.

You can also really debate how much real effect Jesus had on the shape of christianity that evolved.

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 09:17 AM

There are really only 4 sources that have any merit.

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

Josephus is universally considered a forgery, I've written a whole paper on his ONE PASSAGE, where Josephus, a Jew, claims Jesus is the messiah. Some scholars have attempted to salvage SOMETHING out of his passage, but this is pure speculation, and I think the whole passage can be dismissed.

Tacitus mentions the burning of Rome by Nero, and how he blamed it on the christians.

Suetonius basically just backs up Tacitus on this point.

Pliny (who was friends with Tacitus, I.E. may have collaborated on their views of Christians) wants to know how to prosecute these cultists.

And that's it. Everything else is even more spurious than these. Below are the full quotations, if anybody is interested.

JOSEPHUS "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, "Antiquities" XVIII, iii, 3, See Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church" (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 92ff.

TACITUS "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, avaiIed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..."

Tacitus, "Annals" xv, 44. The Oxford Translation, Revised. (New York Harper & Bros., Publishers, 1858), p. 423.

SUETONIUS "Punishment [by Nero] was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Suetonius, "The Lives of the Caesars," Nero xvi. Loeb Classical Library English translation by J. C. Rolfe. (London: William Heinemann; New York G. P. Putnam's Sons), Vol. II, p. 111.

PLINY "They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called on to deliver it up..."

Pliny, "Letters" X, xcvi. Loeb Classical Library. English translation by William Melmoth, revised by W. M. L. Hutchinson. (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), Vol. II, p. 103

ponderingturtle

1st November 2007, 09:19 AM

Indeed, there isnt' a single document outside of the NT that tells us anything about Jesus. All of the early documents usually used to support a historical jesus only mention early christians, of which there is no argument against.

Not quite true, there are all of the Apocrypha that did not make it through the review by committee.

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 09:23 AM

Not quite true, there are all of the Apocrypha that did not make it through the review by committee.

Indeed, but of those, do any of them really tell us anything that is better than the accepted texts?

I will concede, however, that the infancy gospels are very interesting.

But come on, one of the apocryphal gospels has jesus walking out of his tomb as a giant, with his head above the clouds, and behind him a giant talking cross ...

SynapticDancer

1st November 2007, 09:31 AM

[/QUOTE] No. Show the evidence please.

How do all of the quoted posters come to this conclusion? I´d really like to know. I´m not biased, because even if there was a historical person with that name, that would have nothing to with him being a god, so even his proven existence wouldn´t change my view on religion. But, as far as I know, the jury is still out on that one.[/QUOTE]

Here is evidence.

We are in the midst of a discussion surrounding a figure named Jesus Christ. When the OP asked the question regarding whether the world would be a better or worse place without Jesus, everyone who responded (and I'll go so far as to say anyone who would have read it) knew the figure of which he spoke.

Whether Jesus was ever a flesh and blood human being is not the point. Existence as a concept is still a matter of existence, and it still can have an influence over one or more people.

This is the topic we are discussing, not whether or not a virgin truly did or did not give birth to a living, breathing son of god. To that end, you are right that there is no proof, nor of the claims about his divinity. However, you are wrong is saying he does not exist as an historical figure; if he did not we would not be having this discussion.

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 09:35 AM

No. Show the evidence please.

How do all of the quoted posters come to this conclusion? I´d really like to know. I´m not biased, because even if there was a historical person with that name, that would have nothing to with him being a god, so even his proven existence wouldn´t change my view on religion. But, as far as I know, the jury is still out on that one.

Here is evidence.

We are in the midst of a discussion surrounding a figure named Jesus Christ. When the OP asked the question regarding whether the world would be a better or worse place without Jesus, everyone who responded (and I'll go so far as to say anyone who would have read it) knew the figure of which he spoke.

Whether Jesus was ever a flesh and blood human being is not the point. Existence as a concept is still a matter of existence, and it still can have an influence over one or more people.

This is the topic we are discussing, not whether or not a virgin truly did or did not give birth to a living, breathing son of god. To that end, you are right that there is no proof, nor of the claims about his divinity. However, you are wrong is saying he does not exist as an historical figure; if he did not we would not be having this discussion.

He may have historicity as an idea, but that really doesn't make him any better than Hercules, who was also later given a historical backdrop to led credibility to his myth.

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 09:36 AM

Would the world be better off without Frodo Baggins?

SynapticDancer

1st November 2007, 09:37 AM

I´d be interested in the part I bolded from your quote. What other documents? Are there any that were written by "eyewitnesses" or at least by people that lived at the same time as the J-man (if he was a living person, that is), not a couple of decades afterwards?
So far, I´ve heard of none and therefore am still not convinced. What do you think of Apology´s list:

Thanks for that, Apology.

Anyone else got good sources about the authenticity of Jesus?

Are we authenticating Jesus, or are we discussing whether or not his impact can be quantified in such as way as to determine if the world would be a better place had he not "existed"? I admire your interest in proof, but you are veering away from the actual topic.

SynapticDancer

1st November 2007, 09:38 AM

Would the world be better off without Frodo Baggins?

This is my point exactly.

Georg

1st November 2007, 10:06 AM

Are we authenticating Jesus, or are we discussing whether or not his impact can be quantified in such as way as to determine if the world would be a better place had he not "existed"? I admire your interest in proof, but you are veering away from the actual topic.

Maybe for me it is important to know if we discuss a hypothetical question or something real?

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 10:10 AM

Maybe for me it is important to know if we discuss a hypothetical question or something real?

IMB is right.

Wether or not we are dealing with the words of a authentic person, or the words of a complete fiction, we STILL have to deal with the fact that people take those words as truth.

would be world be better off without those words ever being written down/ascribed?

Georg

1st November 2007, 10:30 AM

IMB is right.

Wether or not we are dealing with the words of a authentic person, or the words of a complete fiction, we STILL have to deal with the fact that people take those words as truth.

would be world be better off without those words ever being written down/ascribed?

If the OP would have been in your words (the bolded part) I´d agree.
Since it wasn´t.........

And I´m sure Frodo´s influence on humanity trumps Jesus´anytime.:)

cloudshipsrule

1st November 2007, 10:52 AM

These aren't my own words, but this is a compilation of sources referring to Jesus and/or Christ around the time of Jesus' life:

CORNELIUS TACITUS was a Roman historian born in about 53 AD. Writing in his 'Annals' (c. 110 AD) about the reign of Nero, he describes how Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome. He states that "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS was a Jewish historian who became commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee in AD 66, just after the time of Jesus. He writes in his 'Antiquities'

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Josephus also refers in his 'Antiquities' to James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" and how he was put to death in AD 62 after accusation by Annas the High priest.

JUSTIN MARTYR (about AD 150) addressed his 'Defence of Christianity' to the Emperor Antonius Pius and in it describes Jesus' crucifixion, how he was nailed to the cross and how his clothes were divided among the soldiers by casting lots. He also refers the Emperor to "the 'Acts' which were recorded by Pontius Pilate", these being Pilate's own report of the crucifixion which Justin supposed the Emperor had access to.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (c. 120-180 AD) who lived in the second century was scornful of Christ but described how he "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine" because of it. So even those who opposed Christianity accepted the reality of Jesus and some basic facts about his life and death.

MARA BAR-SERAPION, around AD 73, wrote to his son a letter which is now in the British Museum. In it he refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

PHLEGON was a first century historian whose 'Chronicles' have now been lost, but is quoted by other early writers. He mentions the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus saying that "an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon".

PLINY THE YOUNGER (c. 61-113 AD) was governor of Bithinia in Asia Minor around AD 110 and wrote to the emperor Trajan concerning Christians. He had been putting Christians to death for their faith and making them bow down to Trajan's statue. He records how, in their defence, the Christians described their meetings for worship which included singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".

SUETONIUS (c. 69-122 AD) another Roman historian, the source of most of what we know of the caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian, refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'. He reports how Claudius expelled the christians from Rome in AD 49, which is mentioned in Acts 18 v 2. Suetonius also writes of the punishment of Christians by Nero.

TERTULLIAN (c. 155-220 AD) in a defence of Christianity called 'Apology' (AD 197), mentions this exchange between Tiberius and Pontius Pilate. "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."

Tertullian therefore records that Tiberius understood the claims that Jesus was God and made his own decision 'in favour of Christ', only to have his decision overruled.

Wouldn't posting a list writers who didn't mention Jesus be like a conspiracy theorist asking a skeptic to prove a negative?

ponderingturtle

1st November 2007, 11:03 AM

cloudshipsrule

1st November 2007, 11:11 AM

What's the consensus among actual historians?

deathmunkee

1st November 2007, 11:33 AM

What's the consensus among actual historians?

The consensus is that there was some person behind all of the legend.

BUT, every Jesus historian seems to find their own personal Jesus (excuse the Depeche Mode reference).

What I mean is, socialist scholars find a socialist jesus, feminists a proto-feminist Jesus, etc etc etc

Just look at the differing opinions within the Jesus Seminar fellows! Do we have this much debate over Alexander the Great?

SynapticDancer

1st November 2007, 04:25 PM

Maybe for me it is important to know if we discuss a hypothetical question or something real?

The question of whether or not the world would be a better place or not if there never had been a Jesus (in reality or concept alone) can only be hypothetical because it asks us to ponder a scenario that is different from what we have experienced already. How can it be anything other than hypothetical?

Ichneumonwasp

1st November 2007, 05:44 PM

Indeed, there isnt' a single document outside of the NT that tells us anything about Jesus. All of the early documents usually used to support a historical jesus only mention early christians, of which there is no argument against.

The earliest christian texts we have are from Paul, who didnt think jesus was human, but a god who emptied himself of power, and was then crucified by the archons, and afterwords was bestowed with the title of Jesus.

this alone is enough to completely discredit all of the gospels. If Jesus was just a title bestowed upon a godman, he is lowered to the same level as Enoch, who became a god after being taken up, and was given a throne next to YHWH's ...

Not really correct. First of all the title was "Christ", not "Jesus". Secondly, it is not at all clear and probably wrong that Paul thought of Jesus in purely gnostic terms. I don't see how you can makes sense of First Corinthians without Paul believing that Jesus existed, died and resurrected. The whole point of First Corinthians was that this was supposed to be a resurrection of the body and that it was going to happen soon because Jesus was the first fruits -- Paul specifically argued against the belief that the resurrection was merely spiritual.

ETA

But a very good discussion of the only four semi-contemporary sources that mention Jesus. Really when you get down to it none mention Jesus. They only mention Christians or are forged later additions like in Josephus.

For what it's worth, I think the best evidence that there was a person underneath all the layers of myth is the testimony of Paul that there was another community that seems to have been lead by James. I think Paul's theology makes more sense if he really believed that there was a person who had died and been resurrected and there seem to be others separate from Paul who thought something similar maybe. They seemed to have been followers of someone named Yeshua. I don't think we can know much else about him, though.

Apology

1st November 2007, 05:58 PM

-writers who wrote about Jesus-

Please note that all the authors you quoted made their statements long after Jesus was dead. None of them actually knew him. It is likely that they accepted Jesus' historical existence because others believed his existence.

Also, I don't think that it can be proven that Jesus didn't exist. The long list of writers is circumstantial evidence that supports the concept that Jesus didn't exist. Really, it boggles the mind that Justus of Tiberius did not mention Jesus, as he was from Galilee (as Jesus was) and wrote a world history text about the time of Jesus' life. I would not have failed to mention a prophet like Jesus if he was born in California just like me; I would have mentioned it simply for the bragging rights.

The only reason I even brought up the possibility of Jesus' historical non-existence is because someone said that all of us agree that he did exist historically. I don't usually make this argument because I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist to prove Christianity wrong. There are plenty of other reasons to believe that.

Elind

1st November 2007, 06:17 PM

You'd need the infrastructure, some measure of globalization, an industrial age, and then the motivation.

Not to mention the access to the resources that would be required, not to mention the minds to make it happen.

Possible? Yes. Easy to have occurred at the time? Probably not.

Possibly not, but the question implies why? The only one I can think of is not enough people, although I haven't researched the number estimates at the time. Note that I gave a comfortable margin of at least 100 years, perhaps 200, to compensate for that.

Of course that totally ignores the original question of what such a society could have believed to be blessed with no Popes.

Elind

1st November 2007, 06:19 PM

More to the point, what type of rocket?! ;)

Hot shot incense of course, with a touch of weed.

Ichneumonwasp

1st November 2007, 06:23 PM

Possibly not, but the question implies why? The only one I can think of is not enough people, although I haven't researched the number estimates at the time. Note that I gave a comfortable margin of at least 100 years, perhaps 200, to compensate for that.

Of course that totally ignores the original question of what such a society could have believed to be blessed with no Popes.

500 CE? Bad time for it. There was a demographic collapse shortly before that contributed to fall of the Western Empire. Then there was a terrible plague that set back the Byzantine Empire in the 600s. Too much death and destruction at the time for rockets.

Elind

1st November 2007, 06:31 PM

500 CE? Bad time for it. There was a demographic collapse shortly before that contributed to fall of the Western Empire. Then there was a terrible plague that set back the Byzantine Empire in the 600s. Too much death and destruction at the time for rockets.

Well, by industrial revolution I did imply that they might have figured out what fleas, viruses and bacterial were about, as well as how to mine ore and build rockets. Seems to me that your objections are one of the easier ones that could have been avoided long before the moon became a target, just like it eventually turned out.

CapelDodger

1st November 2007, 06:32 PM

I guess all one can do is to make some wild speculations.

Defeatist :).

No Jesus = no Christianity and quite possibly a different Islam.

As deathmunkee pointed out, "There probably wasn't a jesus and we STILL got Christianity out of the deal". We being Christendom, well west of Mecca.

But who knows what would be in Christianity's place, or if there would be anything like it?

We have a sample of one - history's like that - and Christendom was the continuation of the mainland Roman Empire. Christianity was moulded to that purpose, or a similar one. It was intended more as a prop to the political structure than the fall-back position it became.

Start the story at the birth of Constantine the Great and run it through to Luther ... Jesus had nothing to do with it. If not him, some other cypher from about the same time. Something like the Catholic Church was going to come out of the European Roman Empire. And there's nothing Jewish about the Catholic Church.

Ichneumonwasp

1st November 2007, 06:47 PM

Well, by industrial revolution I did imply that they might have figured out what fleas, viruses and bacterial were about, as well as how to mine ore and build rockets. Seems to me that your objections are one of the easier ones that could have been avoided long before the moon became a target, just like it eventually turned out.

How was any of that to happen, though, is the point. The Roman Empire was built on conquest and slavery. Slave societies don't need industry, so they would not think that way.

Christianity wasn't a force until after Constantine, and by that time, the demographic collapse had already begun.

Christianity or no, 500 CE with a rocket makes no historical sense. The industrial revolution wasn't really held back by Christianity anyway. It was molded by other historical factors.

CapelDodger

1st November 2007, 06:58 PM

The consensus is that there was some person behind all of the legend.

BUT, every Jesus historian seems to find their own personal Jesus (excuse the Depeche Mode reference).

There's no excuse. M'kay?

I'm of the opinion that there was one particular chap who had a very bad day, if all the references could be traced back. What seems to have happened very quickly is that the attributes of all sorts of players of the time became attached to Jesus. It could be his insignificance that made it possible. You can't mess with John the Baptist - too well known - but you can stick bits of him on Jesus and mess with that. Who knows from Jesus, when you come down to it? He left not a ripple on history, in his day.

Elind

1st November 2007, 07:01 PM

How was any of that to happen, though, is the point. The Roman Empire was built on conquest and slavery. Slave societies don't need industry, so they would not think that way.

Christianity wasn't a force until after Constantine, and by that time, the demographic collapse had already begun.

Christianity or no, 500 CE with a rocket makes no historical sense. The industrial revolution wasn't really held back by Christianity anyway. It was molded by other historical factors.

We should perhaps have a separate thread on this, as it may not be polite to digress so much, but I don't think your points address the question of what needed to be different. Instead you describe what was.

I'm not convinced slavery is relevant. Who says they don't need industry? Slave labor can be very effective. Ask any non union member.

I cannot claim for sure that Christianity (or any other equivalent) held back the industrial revolution as such, but we do know that it held back every single major advance in human understanding. It is hardly a stretch to imagine that for every Newton there were a hundred innovators either burned or terrified by their local church leaders, who we will never know about.

Ichneumonwasp

1st November 2007, 07:17 PM

We should perhaps have a separate thread on this, as it may not be polite to digress so much, but I don't think your points address the question of what needed to be different. Instead you describe what was.

I'm not convinced slavery is relevant. Who says they don't need industry? Slave labor can be very effective. Ask any non union member.

I cannot claim for sure that Christianity (or any other equivalent) held back the industrial revolution as such, but we do know that it held back every single major advance in human understanding. It is hardly a stretch to imagine that for every Newton there were a hundred innovators either burned or terrified by their local church leaders, who we will never know about.

Well, personally, I think it is an issue of emphases in the different societies and the way we think of energy. In slave holding societies slaves are the energy source. It takes a big shove to force people into a different mode of thought. When slaves are removed you need to find labor saving devices.

One of the big agricultural revolutions occurred after the Black Death because the labor supply was so depleted. The food surplus created by these changes created a new surplus of people which helped fuel emerging capitalism, which arose in part because of changes in the trade possibilities after the Vikings stopped killing everyone and the Muslim stronghold in the East broke, etc. In other words, it seems a little simplistic to suppose that a religion had such a strong negative influence when all these other factors were at play.

We can only argue from what was and speculate within limits. The infrastructure of the world was barely affected by Christianity in 500 CE. It was the structures of the Roman Empire that dominated at that time.

I'm also not certain how Christianity held back the rest of human thought. Perhaps another thread would be helpful if you would want to discuss it. You may be right, but I don't see how it was Christianity that caused the problems of the Dark Age.

Apology

1st November 2007, 07:17 PM

Start the story at the birth of Constantine the Great and run it through to Luther ... Jesus had nothing to do with it. If not him, some other cypher from about the same time. Something like the Catholic Church was going to come out of the European Roman Empire. And there's nothing Jewish about the Catholic Church.

I agree with this view. I believe that if Constantine had been faced with the choice of choosing between a host of different religions, excepting only Christianity for the purpose of the argument, he would have chosen the religion that could best be used to manipulate the people. The second-best choice probably wouldn't have been less oppressive than the original choice, so to speak. Most likely, things would not have improved very much, if at all.

However, first we'd have to agree that changing history enough to remove Jesus' influence wouldn't change history enough to keep Constantine from rising to power ;)

CapelDodger

1st November 2007, 07:22 PM

For what it's worth, I think the best evidence that there was a person underneath all the layers of myth is the testimony of Paul that there was another community that seems to have been lead by James. I think Paul's theology makes more sense if he really believed that there was a person who had died and been resurrected and there seem to be others separate from Paul who thought something similar maybe. They seemed to have been followers of someone named Yeshua. I don't think we can know much else about him, though.

James, like John the Baptist, is too well-known to be messed with. The older and more influential brother of Jesus (by many accounts). The James-Paul interaction is about the status of Jesus (where it's not about consorting with gentiles). I don't see James conceding precedence to Jesus in there.

A lot of James was pasted onto Jesus later on.

CapelDodger

1st November 2007, 07:38 PM

I agree with this view. I believe that if Constantine had been faced with the choice of choosing between a host of different religions, excepting only Christianity for the purpose of the argument, he would have chosen the religion that could best be used to manipulate the people. The second-best choice probably wouldn't have been less oppressive than the original choice, so to speak. Most likely, things would not have improved very much, if at all.

However, first we'd have to agree that changing history enough to remove Jesus' influence wouldn't change history enough to keep Constantine from rising to power ;)

On the latter point, Constantine cut his way to power by military and political excellence, not religion. Only then did his mind turn to solving the evident malaise that had fallen over the Empire.

On one track he made a break with the old by building Constantinople, on another he needed a new sensibility to replace an outdated "Romanness". Constine's mother was, as it happens, Christian and at her shoulder was a Bishop Eusebius. Just what the doctor ordered.

Without Jesus there'd still have been an equivalent Eusebius.

Apology

1st November 2007, 07:48 PM

On the latter point, Constantine cut his way to power by military and political excellence, not religion. Only then did his mind turn to solving the evident malaise that had fallen over the Empire.

On one track he made a break with the old by building Constantinople, on another he needed a new sensibility to replace an outdated "Romanness". Constine's mother was, as it happens, Christian and at her shoulder was a Bishop Eusebius. Just what the doctor ordered.

Without Jesus there'd still have been an equivalent Eusebius.

Now to that I'd have to agree. One might even argue that if there hadn't been Constantine, there would have been another like him. Good point.

Elind

1st November 2007, 08:13 PM

Well, personally, I think it is an issue of emphases in the different societies and the way we think of energy. In slave holding societies slaves are the energy source. It takes a big shove to force people into a different mode of thought. When slaves are removed you need to find labor saving devices.

One of the big agricultural revolutions occurred after the Black Death because the labor supply was so depleted. The food surplus created by these changes created a new surplus of people which helped fuel emerging capitalism, which arose in part because of changes in the trade possibilities after the Vikings stopped killing everyone and the Muslim stronghold in the East broke, etc. In other words, it seems a little simplistic to suppose that a religion had such a strong negative influence when all these other factors were at play.

We can only argue from what was and speculate within limits. The infrastructure of the world was barely affected by Christianity in 500 CE. It was the structures of the Roman Empire that dominated at that time.

I'm also not certain how Christianity held back the rest of human thought. Perhaps another thread would be helpful if you would want to discuss it. You may be right, but I don't see how it was Christianity that caused the problems of the Dark Age.

I didn't say that Christianity caused the problems of the dark age, I suggested that it was influential in not preventing it (along with any other similar beliefs), or delaying recovery from it.

I don't buy how slave labor prevents development of any other "energy" source any more than horses did. Call it cheap labor if you will, nothing more. We have that today, we just don't label it the same and the methods of control are somewhat more sophisticated than a whip.

I can't imagine the black death provided a bounty of surplus of food. There was plenty of land for the populations of the time, and who sowed and harvested all that extra food for the survivors?

After the Vikings stopped killing everyone?? Surely you jest?

Jorghnassen

1st November 2007, 11:22 PM

We should perhaps have a separate thread on this, as it may not be polite to digress so much, but I don't think your points address the question of what needed to be different.

There already is a long and old thread on this, it was called "Is Christianity slowing us down?" or something very similar (maybe "Is religion..."). Use the search feature.

Redtail

2nd November 2007, 01:53 AM

Um, have you seen Grendel's mother? Damn straight we're worse off now that she's dead!

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/images/beowulftrailer.jpg

I am the Ripper! I am the slasher! I am the thief in the night... I... AM... BEO wait, didn't somebody do this last year?

Georg

2nd November 2007, 02:45 AM

These aren't my own words, but this is a compilation of sources referring to Jesus and/or Christ around the time of Jesus' life:

snip

Thanks a lot for the work. I´m still not convinced because it seems a bit strange for me that none of the writers alive during Jesus´ supposed lifetime had anything to say/write about him.

The question of whether or not the world would be a better place or not if there never had been a Jesus (in reality or concept alone) can only be hypothetical because it asks us to ponder a scenario that is different from what we have experienced already. How can it be anything other than hypothetical?

I probably have not expressed my thoughts properly, sorry for that.
You are right, the question is hypothetical anyway. For me it still makes a difference if we ask this hypothetical question about a Jesus that actually lived or if we ask this hypothetical question about a Jesus that was invented.

Ichneumonwasp

2nd November 2007, 06:00 AM

I didn't say that Christianity caused the problems of the dark age, I suggested that it was influential in not preventing it (along with any other similar beliefs), or delaying recovery from it.

How? Provide a mechanism with examples. This is history that I don't know.

I don't buy how slave labor prevents development of any other "energy" source any more than horses did. Call it cheap labor if you will, nothing more. We have that today, we just don't label it the same and the methods of control are somewhat more sophisticated than a whip.

Not slave labor. What I was getting at was the societal structure underneath it that supported slavery. Rome was built on conquest. It's entire structure was built on war, so the new folks get limited citizenship but only if they provide soldiers, so we have more war, so we capture more land, so those folks have limited citizenship but only if they provide soldiers, rinse, repeat.

And the output of all that is slaves. The society was based that way. People lived very nicely -- those at the top -- and saw no need to put enormous resources into untried developments. They just needed more slaves for the work and the military was very happy to provide them.

I can't imagine the black death provided a bounty of surplus of food. There was plenty of land for the populations of the time, and who sowed and harvested all that extra food for the survivors?

I didn't say that it did. What I siad was that with the huge demographic collapse of the Black Death there weren't enough workers around to cull all the fields. There were many results, but two big ones were that the general standard of living improved for most people (those who survived were financially much better off and they could demand higher wages -- this is one of the major reasons why Richard II had to deal with angry mobs demanding relief from taxes; the peasants simply had more power.), and since there were fewer workers there was a huge incentive to develop labor saving devices (one being Jethro Tull's seed drill, another the iron plow -- later developments but part of the trend in Agricultural Revolution that hit after the Black Death). Prior to this, society had been fairly stagnant with some improvements but no huge improvements in technology and agriculture in the West.

We are hierarchical creatures and when systems function, we tend to stay in our heirarchies. The famines that hit Europe before the Black Death (in part a result of the Little Ice Age, but in part a result of huge population growth and over-farming of Europe) and then the Black Death itself changed the European complexion. When peasants suddenly had power, they sought more. They suddenly had some leisure and money, so they sought finer goods, and the just emerging wool and cloth business that fueled the Italian Renaissance did just that. The ensuing Agricultural Revolution helped fuel the coming Industrial Revolution.

It wasn't Christianity that held us back. It was us being us and the structures that we inherited from the Roman Empire and translated into feudal Europe. Those economic structures had little or nothing to do with Christianity.

After the Vikings stopped killing everyone?? Surely you jest?

To a certain extent, yes, it was meant tongue in cheek. But, Viking raids disrupted the trade possibilities of the South. What eventually emerged to help fuel capitalism was the wool trade between the south and England. That wasn't really possible while the Vikings could raid caravans. The Vikings controlled trade in the North (they traded fairly extensively) and the Muslims controlled the southern routes to the East -- that combination seems to have had a huge impact on the course of the Dark Age and why Europe was cut off from "civilization" (with the Muslim stronghold on trade to the East probably being the biggest issue since they cut off the Vikings being able to get many goods as well).

SynapticDancer

2nd November 2007, 10:32 AM

I probably have not expressed my thoughts properly, sorry for that.
You are right, the question is hypothetical anyway. For me it still makes a difference if we ask this hypothetical question about a Jesus that actually lived or if we ask this hypothetical question about a Jesus that was invented.

If we say he never existed in the flesh (a position you seem to be leaning towards and one that I'm not really sure either way, but for arguments sake), is it not true that he still has had an enormous influence?

Whether Jesus is a character in a non-fiction book, or a fiction book, it doesn't matter, he is still a character, and a prominent one for that matter. Whether he was made up in the first place or not, for the past two thousand years history has had a Jesus. To go a few steps further, there really isn't evidence to demonstrate the existence of the god who is presumed to have sired him. But, certainly you can see that as a just concept or a real life diety, god has made a considerable impact on humankind?

I think the crux of what the OP is asking is whether or not the world we be better if you remove that influence. I still think there are too many confounds, and really no way to objectively operationalize it into a testable hypothesis. Better for you might not be better for me, so how would you define 'better' and how would you then measure it?

Elind

2nd November 2007, 03:12 PM

How? Provide a mechanism with examples. This is history that I don't know.

That's kind of like proving a negative is it not? My opinion was simply that "history" shows a consistent opposition to innovation and new knowledge, particularly any that was previously based on being in the realm of "the will of God". Things like disease, weather and so on.

Not slave labor. What I was getting at was the societal structure underneath it that supported slavery. Rome was built on conquest. It's entire structure was built on war, so the new folks get limited citizenship but only if they provide soldiers, so we have more war, so we capture more land, so those folks have limited citizenship but only if they provide soldiers, rinse, repeat.

And the output of all that is slaves. The society was based that way. People lived very nicely -- those at the top -- and saw no need to put enormous resources into untried developments. They just needed more slaves for the work and the military was very happy to provide them.

I don't buy that as a fundamental. All societies have had slavery at one time or another, sometimes by names like indenture. Control of slaves by those at the top was no different from control of money by those at the top today. Slavery was not the primary principle, control was; including control of their own.

I didn't say that it did. What I siad was that with the huge demographic collapse of the Black Death there weren't enough workers around to cull all the fields. There were many results, but two big ones were that the general standard of living improved for most people (those who survived were financially much better off and they could demand higher wages -- this is one of the major reasons why Richard II had to deal with angry mobs demanding relief from taxes; the peasants simply had more power.), and since there were fewer workers there was a huge incentive to develop labor saving devices (one being Jethro Tull's seed drill, another the iron plow -- later developments but part of the trend in Agricultural Revolution that hit after the Black Death). Prior to this, society had been fairly stagnant with some improvements but no huge improvements in technology and agriculture in the West.

OK. I can buy that, but I suspect there was also another factor involved, which may have been a more cohesive society with greater cooperation between greater numbers, which leads to my point below.

We are hierarchical creatures and when systems function, we tend to stay in our heirarchies. The famines that hit Europe before the Black Death (in part a result of the Little Ice Age, but in part a result of huge population growth and over-farming of Europe) and then the Black Death itself changed the European complexion. When peasants suddenly had power, they sought more. They suddenly had some leisure and money, so they sought finer goods, and the just emerging wool and cloth business that fueled the Italian Renaissance did just that. The ensuing Agricultural Revolution helped fuel the coming Industrial Revolution.

And would that not have resulted in more unified "nations", whose resources could better be combined to build things like enormous cathedrals, and eventually rockets?

My thought is that of the many factors at play, the most dominant one is nation building and social cooperation towards common goals. That doesn't always have to be voluntary or altruistic, and perhaps the way for humans to have reached the moon by the year 500 would have been if the Roamn empire had held all of Europe together by force, and remained as clever as it once was. I don't think the slavery issue is significant in that regard.

It wasn't Christianity that held us back. It was us being us and the structures that we inherited from the Roman Empire and translated into feudal Europe. Those economic structures had little or nothing to do with Christianity.

But the Roman empire had very admirable structures once. One could imagine that they might have managed to hang on and build a unified Europe.

To a certain extent, yes, it was meant tongue in cheek. But, Viking raids disrupted the trade possibilities of the South. What eventually emerged to help fuel capitalism was the wool trade between the south and England. That wasn't really possible while the Vikings could raid caravans. The Vikings controlled trade in the North (they traded fairly extensively) and the Muslims controlled the southern routes to the East -- that combination seems to have had a huge impact on the course of the Dark Age and why Europe was cut off from "civilization" (with the Muslim stronghold on trade to the East probably being the biggest issue since they cut off the Vikings being able to get many goods as well).

This description fits to a T the situation in the Caribbean and the Americas during the age of the pirates. However in truth it did not last very long and was not overly difficult to overcome once the will was there. The Vikings had their way for a time because everyone else was small and on their own, but the Vikings were settlers and traders too, so I would imagine that they often had a taste of the same medicine, and I doubt they were the only bad guys around.

If we are talking about the times up to 500 AD, wasn't Islam still a glint in Muhammad's grandfather's eye?

I think what was needed was a Roman type empire with a zen philosophy that said it was one's life's work to question everything (or whatever definition of scientific principles that is appropriate for solemn occassions).;)

Ichneumonwasp

3rd November 2007, 07:45 AM

That's kind of like proving a negative is it not? My opinion was simply that "history" shows a consistent opposition to innovation and new knowledge, particularly any that was previously based on being in the realm of "the will of God". Things like disease, weather and so on.

Not really like proving a negative, I don't think. If we propose that Christianity held back progress so firmly, then there should be easy examples.

I don't think Christianity, for all its many faults, was any more conservative than other Roman institutions. The Romans were incredibly conservative long before Christianity was a force in the world. Christianity doesn't seem so much to have changed their outlook as to have fit into it.

I don't buy that as a fundamental. All societies have had slavery at one time or another, sometimes by names like indenture. Control of slaves by those at the top was no different from control of money by those at the top today. Slavery was not the primary principle, control was; including control of their own.

I don't mean it as a fundamental. It was the infrastructure that supported slavery that was one important feature in maintaining the conservative outlook in the Empire. I am certainly not arguing that slavery once in place is unassailable. Rather, slavery once in place tends, in general, to be a force for conservatism and against industrial development. Ridding your economy of slavery can be a very disruptive process. The presence of slavery in the Roman world was one of the features that retarded rapid industrial development. Christianity had little to do with this.

And would that not have resulted in more unified "nations", whose resources could better be combined to build things like enormous cathedrals, and eventually rockets?

My thought is that of the many factors at play, the most dominant one is nation building and social cooperation towards common goals. That doesn't always have to be voluntary or altruistic, and perhaps the way for humans to have reached the moon by the year 500 would have been if the Roman empire had held all of Europe together by force, and remained as clever as it once was. I don't think the slavery issue is significant in that regard.

The Romans did build impressive structures, so I'm not sure what your point here is. Their emphasis was very different from that of an industrial nation, however, which is why they did not reach the moon. It had nothing to do with Christianity. Unless you want to create a completely different Roman Empire with an entirely different emphasis, Christianity had essentially no effect within the Empire until the last 150 years prior to 500. Before Constantine the Romans were not on course to build a rocket. They were on course to devolve into the Middle Ages, Christianity or no.

But the Roman empire had very admirable structures once. One could imagine that they might have managed to hang on and build a unified Europe.

I think I may understand now. Are you arguing from Edward Gibbon's stance that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire? I don't think much recent scholarship supports that idea. The Christian Eastern Empire certainly persisted until 1453, so it clearly is not the case that Christianity destroys empires. The western portion of the empire turned into western Europe because of many different forces that conspired against it.

This description fits to a T the situation in the Caribbean and the Americas during the age of the pirates. However in truth it did not last very long and was not overly difficult to overcome once the will was there. The Vikings had their way for a time because everyone else was small and on their own, but the Vikings were settlers and traders too, so I would imagine that they often had a taste of the same medicine, and I doubt they were the only bad guys around.

If we are talking about the times up to 500 AD, wasn't Islam still a glint in Muhammad's grandfather's eye?

I think what was needed was a Roman type empire with a zen philosophy that said it was one's life's work to question everything (or whatever definition of scientific principles that is appropriate for solemn occassions).;)

The Roman Empire with a Zen philosophy would not have been the Roman Empire.

Yes, Islam did not exist until the 600's. It's importance historically was to help push the West into the Dark Ages by cutting off trade with the East. But it was not part of the political fall of the western portion of the empire. But that empire was not in any way on track to build a rocket when Christianity came to power. I don't see how Christianity particularly held back the process by which we eventually did reach the moon except from the perspective that philosophy was side tracked into theology for a long time and most of the smart people spent time trying to understand how Christian mythology was supposed to work.

Elind

3rd November 2007, 03:37 PM

I think we are debating at cross purposes here. Other than the significance of slavery I'm not really contesting what you say, but you are analyzing history; I was imagining what it would take to have a different history to get humans to the moon by 500 AD.

The Romans are here because they were advance, disciplined, and military sophisticated. The Christians are here because they (and propably any other religion of significance), in my opinion, have always been a drag on human understanding of their existence.

Having said that, I proposed that what it would have taken was a conquest of large territory and resources, and consolidation into a viable strong nation. Potentially one could have imagined the Romans doing that if they had evolved sufficiently. Secondly it would have taken a strong directed attitude towards knowledge. It may be too far a stretch to imagine a society of atheists, but it seems to me conceivable that there could have been a religion where the primary commandment from a god was that humans were created to test their worth, and the test was how well they could understand AND replicate the way the universe works. Kiss ass would send you to hell. Publishing great new knowledge would get you to heaven.

Fundamentally this is no different than thinking the way to heaven is to properly interpret the code and meaning in a few simplistic books.

Ichneumonwasp

4th November 2007, 09:40 AM

Elind

4th November 2007, 07:31 PM

OK. I'm not sure I buy that since the whole point of religion is to provide a story that explains the meaning of the world not to provide a set of commands to test the world. But I guess you can do with counterfactuals whatever you wish. I'm not sure such a "religion" could provide the underlying social cohesion necessary to build a strong empire, but I don't know of any empirical means of testing that sort of assertion. Interesting discussion, nevertheless.

?? I don't see why my supposition doesn't qualify for "the meaning of the world". If Jesus had said it, that's what it would have been. ;)

Unfortunately he didn't know much about the meaning either.

Actually, I am not of the opinion that religion (as in church controlled religion) is intended primarily to explain the meaning of the world; it is intended to explain why the flock should accept the meaning presented by the church. There is a subtle difference.

DOC

5th November 2007, 01:39 AM

The following is a list of writers who all lived at the time of Jesus. They were prolific writers who were interested in world events and would have mentioned Jesus if they had known about him.

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Not one of them did. Almost all the evidence for Jesus comes from the bible and from people who did not actually know him, and the few pieces of evidence outside of that are sketchy at best.

This is a false statement

Josephus

mentioned Christ twice and the time where he mentioned James the Just

"Josephus calls James, "the brother {cousin} of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic..."

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist.

Tacitus

the famous Roman historian, who was also a Roman Senator states

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]

Seutonius

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome".[54]

The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[55] among others,[56] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error."

Lucian,

a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

Thallus (who wasn't listed)

mentioned a earthquake and a darkness happening at the same time

Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, in discussing Jesus' crucifixion, wrote that Thallus had described the "worldwide" darkness mentioned in the Gospels:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Apology

5th November 2007, 02:28 AM

This is a false statement

Josephus

mentioned Christ twice and the time where he mentioned James the Just

"Josephus calls James, "the brother {cousin} of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic..."

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist.

Tacitus

the famous Roman historian, who was also a Roman Senator states

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]

Seutonius

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome".[54]

The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[55] among others,[56] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error."

Lucian,

a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

Thallus (who wasn't listed)

mentioned a earthquake and a darkness happening at the same time

Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, in discussing Jesus' crucifixion, wrote that Thallus had described the "worldwide" darkness mentioned in the Gospels:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You're right, none of the people you've listed in this post belong on the list. They were all born after Jesus' time and could not have known Jesus. My bad. That's what I get for not double-checking each and every one.

Now explain the other 34 people on that list who didn't write about Jesus.

DOC

5th November 2007, 03:25 AM

You're right, none of the people you've listed in this post belong on the list. They were all born after Jesus' time and could not have known Jesus. My bad. That's what I get for not double-checking each and every one.

Now explain the other 34 people on that list who didn't write about Jesus.

I wish this famous Oxford historian was alive to answer your question.

The following quote is from Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume "History of Rome":

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

Maybe some of these facts I mentioned earlier are part of the reason for Arnold's belief:

Josephus

mentioned Christ twice and the time where he mentioned James the Just

"Josephus calls James, "the brother {cousin} of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic..."

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist.

Tacitus

the famous Roman historian, who was also a Roman Senator states

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]

Seutonius

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome".[54]

The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[55] among others,[56] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error."

Lucian,

a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

Thallus (who wasn't listed)

mentioned a earthquake and a darkness happening at the same time

Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, in discussing Jesus' crucifixion, wrote that Thallus had described the "worldwide" darkness mentioned in the Gospels:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

timhau

5th November 2007, 04:48 AM

Does the question in the thread title remind anyone else of Stephen Fry's Making History?

Apology

5th November 2007, 01:06 PM

Josephus

mentioned Christ twice and the time where he mentioned James the Just

"Josephus calls James, "the brother {cousin} of Jesus, who was called Christ".[39] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic..."

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist.

Josephus: c. 37 ad - 100 ad. Couldn't have known Jesus. His statement about James says the brother "was called Christ" but doesn't affirmatively state that he was THE Christ.

Tacitus

the famous Roman historian, who was also a Roman Senator states

Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[50]
Tacitus: c. 56 ad - 117 ad. Could not have known Jesus. He's simply relating a story about early Christians here, and stating that Christians said that their religion was named after "Christus".Nobody here is trying to say that there weren't early Christians.

Seutonius

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome".[54]

Well heck, you've got his birthdate right in the quote. He couldn't have known Jesus either.

The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[55] among others,[56] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error."
Close only counts in horseshoes, DOC.

Lucian,

a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

"Second Century" is defined as 101 ad - 200 ad on the Julian calendar. Lucian didn't write a thing until 100 years after Jesus' purported death.

Thallus (who wasn't listed)
They didn't list Thallus because they can't prove who he even was. The works of Thallus are only referenced in the works of Julius Africanus. Thallus may never have existed either.

Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, in discussing Jesus' crucifixion, wrote that Thallus had described the "worldwide" darkness mentioned in the Gospels:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun."
Well unless Julius Africanus was over 200 years old, he couldn't have both known Jesus and been alive to write about it in 212 ad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I got all the information for my post from this exact same page.

CapelDodger

5th November 2007, 03:26 PM

You can also really debate how much real effect Jesus had on the shape of christianity that evolved.

A more productive debate, to my mind, than the historical nature of Jesus.

Far better documented than Jesus is christianity as it evolved in the Roman world and became in effect the continuation of the Roman world. I can't see that as being a unique and happy outcome crucially dependent on the existence of Jesus. Christianity failed dismally in the semitic world, but was a perfect fit for the Graeco-Roman world. Where it later split right down the divide between Eastern and Western Empires.

If not Jesus and Eusebius, some other combination would have produced essentially the same result. A hierarchical religion obsessed with the niceties of dogma and conformism. A mirror-image of the Roman Empire - reading "law" for "dogma".

CapelDodger

5th November 2007, 06:00 PM

Now to that I'd have to agree. One might even argue that if there hadn't been Constantine, there would have been another like him. Good point.

Maybe I read the Foundation trilogy at too impressionable an age :). But then again, I took to it like a duck to water.

To my mind, christianity and Constantine are products of their period, a flap of the butterfly's wing. An historical Jesus is even less influential - a retrospective product of said period. If not Jesus, something else to paste the necessary message on. Yes we're not invincible militarily, but No we're not eclipsed politically. We have a developed philosophy of society that some of you barabrian warlords will find very attractive, and there's a religion to match if you have qualms in that direction. In the good old days, a leader could convert his entire entourage by fiat, gain benefits from membership, and become a saint as promised.

Sainthood is a cheap promise to keep, after all, and the departed is not in the audience. In the audience are people who are now descended from a saint ...

It's all so transparent it's risible, but waddaya gonna do?

"Chirstendom" and "Caucasian" don't overlap by concidence.

deathmunkee

6th November 2007, 08:52 AM

Not really correct. First of all the title was "Christ", not "Jesus". Secondly, it is not at all clear and probably wrong that Paul thought of Jesus in purely gnostic terms. I don't see how you can makes sense of First Corinthians without Paul believing that Jesus existed, died and resurrected. The whole point of First Corinthians was that this was supposed to be a resurrection of the body and that it was going to happen soon because Jesus was the first fruits -- Paul specifically argued against the belief that the resurrection was merely spiritual.

ETA

But a very good discussion of the only four semi-contemporary sources that mention Jesus. Really when you get down to it none mention Jesus. They only mention Christians or are forged later additions like in Josephus.

For what it's worth, I think the best evidence that there was a person underneath all the layers of myth is the testimony of Paul that there was another community that seems to have been lead by James. I think Paul's theology makes more sense if he really believed that there was a person who had died and been resurrected and there seem to be others separate from Paul who thought something similar maybe. They seemed to have been followers of someone named Yeshua. I don't think we can know much else about him, though.

Paul's letters have been so interpolated that there is doubt as to wether the passages dealing with the earthly resurrection in 1 Corinthians are authentic.

And Paul speaks of the title of Jesus being bestowed upon a god, not the title of Christ (Philippians 2:6-11).

I think we could debate Paul's view of Christ for days ... (perhaps we should in a dedicated thread?)