Who or what was Jesus Christ?

[Denarius]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

Defending that position will turn into a debate about the merits of religion... because the only way I can answer thalassa and Denarius when they ask "does it matter?" is to say "yes" and explain why... and I've already gotten into trouble for that in another thread. So I will simply leave it as it is.

That's nothing to do with my point though, my point is the entirely secular notion that there is no more a reason to deny Jesus' existence than that of any other historic figure.

When I say "it doesn't matter" I am taking the point that whether some physical dude existed that we based the Jesus figure on, that changes nothing in that the Jesus figure exists now regardless.

Say what you want about religion and it's merits, but that is mostly irrelevant to my point. We could have the same discussion about Aesopp, Boudicca, or any of the Caesars.

[LeviImmortal]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

My answer to the OP's question is that I think that Jesus is fictitious.

I'm leaning towards fictitious. But it beckons the question, how could a fictitious figure have such a profound affect on the course of history? It's equally difficult to believe that of group of people in BCE conspired in a dusty hut to extend the Torah and add in a testament that featured the supposed son of God. It seems there must have been some sort of outside influence on that.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

I'm leaning towards fictitious. But it beckons the question, how could a fictitious figure have such a profound affect on the course of history? It's equally difficult to believe that of group of people in BCE conspired in a dusty hut to extend the Torah and add in a testament that featured the supposed son of God. It seems there must have been some sort of outside influence on that.

The effect of fictitious figures on the course of history is a thesis-worthy subject of its own. (Think "Star Trek" here.)

Missionaries go, today, into remote areas and tell indigenous people about Jesus and they believe, because someone who appears more powerful and knowledgeable said so. Who knows what may have happened centuries ago, when there were less people on Earth, and communication was very limited?

[LeviImmortal]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

The effect of fictitious figures on the course of history is a thesis-worthy subject of its own. (Think "Star Trek" here.)

Missionaries go, today, into remote areas and tell indigenous people about Jesus and they believe, because someone who appears more powerful and knowledgeable said so. Who knows what may have happened centuries ago, when there were less people on Earth, and communication was very limited?

I'm not saying his existence or non-existence has had a bearing on whether or not the religion could spread. Of course, especially in desolate areas, any religion or idea can gain followers en mass regardless of its founding or basis. But it just doesn't add up logically in terms of how the idea of Christ and its central founding came about, assuming he did not exist. It would be pretty awesome though if whatever group of people came up with the New Testament as an act of rebellion against the Jewish tyrants. That would be the only explanation if in fact it is fiction.

[Heka]

I'm leaning towards fictitious. But it beckons the question, how could a fictitious figure have such a profound affect on the course of history? It's equally difficult to believe that of group of people in BCE conspired in a dusty hut to extend the Torah and add in a testament that featured the supposed son of God. It seems there must have been some sort of outside influence on that.

William Tell is fictional, but I'm reading a book now on how his legend helped in the formation of Switzerland and how the myth has pulled the country together more than once.

Wouldn't surprise me if ficticious characters or events shaped the course of history more than the truth.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

That's nothing to do with my point though, my point is the entirely secular notion that there is no more a reason to deny Jesus' existence than that of any other historic figure.

And my point is not so much that I deny it, as it is that I am not convinced.

The onus is on the claimant to prove, not on the skeptic to disprove.

I have not seen convincing evidence that Jesus existed... thus I don't believe that he ever did.

I feel the same way about Homer and Socrates... and maybe Shakespeare...

When I say "it doesn't matter" I am taking the point that whether some physical dude existed that we based the Jesus figure on, that changes nothing in that the Jesus figure exists now regardless.

Based on that line of reasoning, Santa Claus exists.

Yet, I don't think that very many (adult) people would argue with me, when I say that Santa is fictional.

Here is the thing, though... I am not trying to convince anyone, I am not trying to engage in debate, I am SIMPLY answering the OP's question of "what do you think?"

I am actually trying REALLY hard to avoid debating the point, since the last time I did so outside of the Atheist board, I got slapped down... yet you seem insistent on picking a fight.

If the fact that I am not convinced that a historical Jesus existed bothers you so much that you HAVE to argue it with me, take it to PM... because the discussion will doubtlessly lead to me having to explain why it matters if Jesus existed, which WILL result in me saying things that will be insulting to the Christian religion, and the mods don't take kindly to that.

[Denarius]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

And my point is not so much that I deny it, as it is that I am not convinced.

The onus is on the claimant to prove, not on the skeptic to disprove.

I have not seen convincing evidence that Jesus existed... thus I don't believe that he ever did.

I feel the same way about Homer and Socrates... and maybe Shakespeare...

It seems to me like you are conflating skepticism with denialism. The skeptic would hold that there is insufficient evidence to say that any of the above existed, yes... but they would also hold that there is just as little evidence suggesting that they did not exist.

You are not holding the neutral position here, rather a contrary position.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

It seems to me like you are conflating skepticism with denialism. The skeptic would hold that there is insufficient evidence to say that any of the above existed, yes... but they would also hold that there is just as little evidence suggesting that they did not exist.

You are not holding the neutral position here, rather a contrary position.

I am stating that there is no reason to believe in something without evidence.

There is no reason to believe that unicorns, dragons, Harry Potter, or the tooth fairy are anything but fictional. There is no way to prove that they don't exist... it is impossible to prove a negative.

Without evidence, I have no reason to believe.

Again, the onus is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

And it seems to me that you just want to argue.

[Denarius]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

Jesus is fiction is a claim though. It very much IS. I'd even go so far as to say that that position is an extraordinary claim.

Both are falsifiable, so it comes down to which is most supported by the evidence. We could certainly have that discussion, though I am by no means any sort of expert, but either way that would be more suited to a new thread I think.

Otherwise it is as I said earlier, the skeptical position is that neither claim has sufficient evidence to be taken as fact. At least as far as I understand given my research on the subject.

I'll just accept that it is what you believe and leave it at that. I'm fine with having a difference of opinion.

[thalassa]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

Jesus is fiction is a claim though. It very much IS. I'd even go so far as to say that that position is an extraordinary claim.

Both are falsifiable, so it comes down to which is most supported by the evidence. We could certainly have that discussion, though I am by no means any sort of expert, but either way that would be more suited to a new thread I think.
.

While I agree with you on the larger point that it doesn't matter...I have to disagree with you that saying that something is fictional is a positive claim. Saying that someone is fictional is saying they don't exist as a flesh-and-blood historical person. You can't prove non-existance. In this, the onus is on the person who thinks that Jesus (or Socrates or Homer, etc) literally lived during a certain time period and did certain things which can be shown in the historical record.

In which case, we should just ignore all history before about 800-1000 AD, and quite a bit after that as well... (Not really, that was just being facetious) Which is why there is a different standard of evidence in archaeology and history, as opposed to...the courtroom, or a physics lab.

And why I don't think it matters.

Perception is a form of reality. I don't doubt that there was a heretical teacher of Judaism 2000 years ago---there were lots of heretical teachers of Judaism back them, it was a time (and I'm totally pulling this from my "History of Religion course 10 years ago" dusty file in my brain) sort of like the explosion of Protestant traditions after Luther. That a Jesus-like figure or figures existed and had a following isn't a crazy idea that requires any stretch of the imagination. That he developed (dare I say) a cult following that inflated his story to mythic proportions isn't unconvincing either. The only bit I take exception with (as a literal event) is the Jesus-as-Christ bit. And, considering my position on mythology, I think its a pretty great myth and I can see why people choose to believe in it (unfortunately many of them also believe it--and no, believing in something as an idea or idea and believing something to be fact are not necessairly the same thing).

The pivotal moment (and problem) of Christianity wasn't Jesus or his following, or his handful of followers...it was the conversion of Constantine.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Who or what was Jesus Christ?

Jesus is fiction is a claim though. It very much IS. I'd even go so far as to say that that position is an extraordinary claim.

No... just no.

I operate from the default of disbelief. My level of disbelief is proportionate to the likelihood of the claim vs the evidence for the claim.

If you tell me that you own a Honda Civic, I am highly likely to take you at your word.
If you tell me that you own a Ferrari Enzo, I am likely to be a little more skeptical.
If you tell me that you own Carrol Shelby's personal Cobra, I am likely to call bullshit, until you provide evidence.
If you tell me that you take it on regular drives across the Pacific, I will insist that you prove it by taking me with you on such a jaunt.

A heretical Jewish rabbi/teacher = Honda Civic
A heretical Jewish rabbi/teacher who was well enough known to be accurately and reliably recorded in history = Ferrari Enzo
A heretical Jewish rabbi/teacher who managed to rally such notoriety, raise enough of a ruckus to be executed by a well-documented Roman official, yet not be mentioned by ANY contemporary historian = Shelby's personal Cobra
The Christ and/or Son of (any) God = driving over the Pacific

I'll grant that there was a proliferation of Apocalyptic Jewish teachers/rabbis about that time... AND Yeshua was a pretty common Jewish name... so was Yoseph... so I concede that there may very well have been a heretical Apocalyptic Jewish teacher/rabbi named Yeshua bin Yoseph (Jesus son of Joseph).. if this is what you are claiming, I'll admit defeat... you flanked me and fought me where I wasn't fighting.... but... if you are claiming anything more than that... I stand my ground.

The historical documentation fails to uphold anything that might resemble Jesus Christ... and a being that did, even a fraction of, the things that the Christ is claimed to have done, WOULD have been documented, by SOMEBODY, MUCH sooner than 60 years later.

The question that the OP asked wasn't what I think about the possible existence of some dude named Yeshua bin Yoseph... the question was:

Alien, Son of God, crack pot, fictional, Achiever of Christ Consciousness, incarnate of Krishna, just a rebel. I've heard it all, but what do you think? Who or what was Jesus Christ?

There is something that I think is important about this question:

The title of Christ was given (which means "Messiah"... and even called to attention in one of the options. It seemed clear to me that the OP was asking about Jesus Christ, not just some dude named Jesus.

And, like "doubting Thomas," until I press my finger into his palms and my hand into his side, I won't believe (which is to say that I will consider it to be fiction). This is not a positive claim, this is a negative claim. This is a demand for evidence.