Why You Should Doubt The Historicity Of Jesus

I always like to share new discoveries in blogging. Here is a good blog that I’m enjoying recently. They’ve just posted an entry about whether Jesus existed. Good stuff. Stop by Tragic Farce, say hello and explore a bit.
The reading material at the end of the video is at:http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philosophy-2011.html and http://www.richardcarrier.info
I’ve been looking for some information that is a bit more scientific than what we usually see regarding this topic. I personally think that there is no credible evidence for the existence of the Jesus who did miracles etc. In the video Carrier discusses how to make up history in just one generation. It doesn’t really take that long. The Chinese have erased ‘Tank Man’ from their history in about 20 years. Chinese under the age of 20-ish do not know about Tank Man and when shown a picture of him stopping the tanks cannot imagine why he is doing what he is. Completely gone from history as far as they know.

And for some extra viewing:

And for extra reading – pick at your own risk:  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+wasn%27t+sacrificed

Tragic Farce

As Richard Carrier explains in this talk given at a skeptic’s conference at the University of Wisconsin at Madison last spring, most academics who are paid to think, write and teach about Jesus will tell you that, while it’s really impossible to know for certain if Jesus was a historical figure, even the most secular of scholars in the field agree with near certainty that he probably did exist in some form or other. The key word there, of course, is the weasel word “probably.” Carrier doesn’t say so here, but these scholars are also very impatient with the alternative idea that Jesus probably wasn’t historically “real,” even though the degree of difference in certainty between their position and Carrier’s (and my) position is virtually non-existent. What the “historicists” have that Carrier and I don’t have is numbers in the academy who agree with them. That’s all they…

View original post 222 more words

Advertisements
  1. Hi Mal,

    Have you read the “Historicity of Jesus” in Wikipedia yet?

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

    If you don’t believe in a “written record”, then how can you say that anything in history is actually “real”? If written records don’t cut it, this can be applied to ANY written records then. If nothing written convinces you that something happened in the past – then that should be applied to ALL written records, shouldn’t it?
    robin

    • What I posted is a new look at the evidence, such as it is. A process that has been happening for nearly 2000 years. The Wikipedia article doesn’t have an update that includes this analysis.

  2. Hi Mal,
    If Jesus never existed then where did the years on our calendar start from? What happened at year 0? If you say it wasn’t Jesus, then what was it that made most of the world start from that year 0?
    robin

  3. Calendars are man made. The dates can start and stop when the author wants them to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

    When Pope Gregory changed from Julian to the calendar named after him, he dropped 10 days. Ten days that never happened. Because it was the Pope who ordered this new calendar they decided to go ahead and keep year 0 as the estimated year of the nativity. The calendar was not decreed by a deity. It starts counting at his birth. We now know that all dates for the nativity are only guesses. You would think that the Jews would have written that down, but no.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

    There is arbitrariness involved. The choice to count from the supposed birth of Jesus happened long after he was supposedly crucified, and has little to do with the historicity of Jesus the man. In much the same way, Dec 25th is not the date of birth for Jesus, it’s just when the church decided they would celebrate it so they could convert pagans to Christianity. The Christian church has a long record of renaming things, adopting traditions from pagans, and since they were in control for a long time the calendar reflects their preferences and not some immutable truth.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: