God as the ultimate child abuser

[Dracon II]

The difference between Jesus and Socrates, of course, is that Plato and Xenophon were contemporaries of the latter... and much of their writing (Plato's early dialogues at least, and Xenophon's memorabilia) can quite reasonably be attributed to their personal experience of Socrates. The Gospels were all written after Jesus died by authors who could not have known him (there maybe some overlap between Mark's lifeline and Jesus', but I'm not sure). Some scholars believe that the Gospels (the synoptic ones at least) drew from the same written source, a list of Jesus' sayings (probably not unlike the Gospel of Thomas). The little scholarship that I have read on the subject has drawn fairly convincing parallels between the dominant themes and events of the Gospels with the particular milieus and concerns of the Gospel authors themselves.

That being said... I would find it difficult to believe that Jesus was a complete fiction. Although the Gospels were probably not acquainted with Jesus... it is likely that Paul at least knew people who would at least have been alive and active in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. In fact, he himself would have been at least approaching adulthood at the time of the Jesus' ministry. Of course, Jesus' historicity is only truly relevant to those who either a) believe or b) want to disprove. I'm personally not concerned with whether he actually existed, but rather on how he has (or can be) been interpreted, and the effect he has had. That the mythos of Christ has has such efficacy and has held such currency in the 2000 years hence really renders the historicity of his life irrelevant (until of course, solid evidence can be found... but lets leave that to the archeologists and antiquities dep'ts).

[Dracon II]

Aristophanes is another source on Socrates. Maybe if, as with Aristophanes... we had a contemporary source lampooning or criticizing Jesus rather than a bunch of texts proclaiming his divinity... we would be on firmer ground regarding his existence.

If only Caiaphas had written an Op/ed piece on Jesus' corrupting the morals of the young in the Jerusalem times or something...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dracon II
The difference between Jesus and Socrates, of course, is that Plato and Xenophon were contemporaries of the latter... and much of their writing (Plato's early dialogues at least, and Xenophon's memorabilia) can quite reasonably be attributed to their personal experience of Socrates.

Xenophon's can't. A lot of what he says is cribbed from Plato. Charles Kahn has an interesting and influential book on this. The fragments of other Socratic authors are quite different in their philosophical content from both Plato and Xenophon (my favourite is Aristippus, who missed Socrates' death because he was away on a sex holiday).

There is obviously much more evidence for the existence of Socrates than there is for Jesus, but my main point in the post was to emphasize that even if Jesus existed, it is unlikely that the doctrines imputed to him resemble what he actually said. This is undoubtedly the case with Socrates, who inspired all sorts of philosophical movements that claimed to be the true "Socratic" movement.

The problem for Christians is that they basically need to deny this, and it is a dubious denial at best.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think the jesus didn't exist line is a bit of a parlour game really

but its true that we depend on interpretation of sources

I've read some of the apocryphal gospels and they are very hard to understand because they aren't part of the explained established canon

one thing about the gospels is they are clearly drawn from an oral account or tradition

the beautitudes are good example of this, they are composed in a way that can easily be remembered and retold

many of the parables are like that too

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
actually we have more direct links to Jesus, gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, the letters of Peter, James and John for example

"Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First... most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing."[13]

The problem is that we have no real idea who wrote the synoptic gospels. But the greater problem is that these texts are not neutral reportage, but works with a specifically religious intent.

Yes, I know that ancient historians tend to bias and dishonesty, but it's not hard to spot given disagreements among them and archaeological evidence. The fact that they tend to deal with the powerful and famous helps as well, as these people left a huge footprint among their contemporaries. As for Jesus and his disciples, there is nothing. They are essentially a hole in reality that is filled in by much later authors.

In the case of Jesus and his followers, you likely have a small, obscure sectarian cult which is probably not composed of literate people. Long after the founder is dead (and consider the life expectancy at the time) some people decide to write down a basic account of the founder's life and ideas (which they did not consider separate in quite the way we do).

Now everyone knows from observations of modern small religious sects (and some political parties for that matter) that once the founder dies, there is always some sort of power struggle for who will be the next leader or the correct interpreter of the original leader's doctrine.

Now consider the case of Joseph Smith jr. Smith had the advantage of being an educated and literate individual (and if we are sceptics, an exceptionally creative imagination) who could and did write down his own religious texts and lived in a modern literate culture. Even before Smith died, there were several rival sects based on his ideas. It got somewhat worse after he died. We actually know a lot about Smith independently of specifically religious writings, because he was a somewhat notorious character and often made the papers and attracted the attention of the law. Even with all this documentation, there are still various sects of Mormonism and massive disputes among his followers. The LDS church is dominant, but that is a historical accident, and the claim that they represent Smith's views is obviously partisan to any neutral observer.

If things can be that bad with Joseph Smith, then imagine how much more uncertainty is introduced by having no surviving documents from the leader, and having to rely on second hand reports by virtually anonymous people that are specifically religious works with religious intent – in many cases a series of somewhat wild stories. That is the case with Jesus. We know virtually nothing about him that does not come from a religious source, and we know from our own experience that religious sources are unreliable, particularly given human religious behaviour regarding sect founders.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well, my job consists of poking through ancient texts written in dead languages, many of which mention people whose existence is dubious, and many of which have been continuously vandalized throughout history by people attempting to make them more favourable to their own point of view. I have a healthy scepticism born of much experience.

That's my job.

From what I can gather from your posts, you are some kind of janitor, possibly on furlough from prison.

Now be quiet.

A classist commie. Now I've seen it all.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Elok


A classist commie. Now I've seen it all.

It's not that strange. Communist intellectuals develop an ideology that claims to advance the interests and political/economic/social aspirations of the working class.... and the working class basically says "no thanks". If I was a communist intellectual I'd be pretty pissed off at the workers as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

A classist commie. Now I've seen it all.

What's classist about specialization?

If Wiglaf were an accountant, the argument would still be the same.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
What's classist about specialization?

If Wiglaf were an accountant, the argument would still be the same.

And would you still have intimated that he was an ex-con?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lorizael

And would you still have intimated that he was an ex-con?

Don't you think that he sounds like one?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
Don't you think that he sounds like one?

No - mental facility escapee. Anyways, back on topic. You went several posts without sounding like a jackass; keep it up.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lorizael

No - mental facility escapee. Anyways, back on topic. You went several posts without sounding like a jackass; keep it up.

As Neetch said: "He who fights with jackasses should see to it that he does not become a jackass himself; and when you look into a jackass, the jackass looks into you".

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
As Neetch said: "He who fights with jackasses should see to it that he does not become a jackass himself; and when you look into a jackass, the jackass looks into you".

... the intellectual equivalent of, "I know you are but what am I?" Wow.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Lorizael


... the intellectual equivalent of, "I know you are but what am I?" Wow.

Ah yes... The Playground Nietzsche... edited and translated by little Walter Kaufman jnr. Wasn't much help against the bullies though... what with their naked will to power and all. But we got our revenge in the end with our nerd morality!

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon


The problem is that we have no real idea who wrote the synoptic gospels.

this is a fundamental departure on which your argument rests very heavily

Peter, Mark, Matthew, James, John, Paul, these are all historical figures for whom there is a wealth of evidence

also, I think there is too much emphasis of text wrt Jesus

consider the imagery, now I know you can find a black or indian or chinese image of jesus but if you look at the ancient images of Jesus, paintings, mosaics and sculpture they are all very similar, hauntingly so.

This of course can be refuted as well but you know as well as I that the famous philosophers, kings etc. were rendered in the same way and we accept their authenticity, we have very good idea what they looked like