Did jesus exist ?

[trebor777]

I read somewhere that Richard Dawkins accepts that jesus, or someone very like him, did exist.

I am curious about this. Why does RD, who relies on hard evidence, believe this?

The evidence for jesus is unreliable at best.

help & ideas please ??

Thanks

trebor

[smudge]

Well, no-one else can answer for Mr Dawkins of course...

I'd suggest that Jesus was a common name during the time the Bible was based. That it was a time of political tension. That it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that various figures would have been involved in protesting + rabble rousing at the time. It is reasonable to suggest that one (or more) of these was called Jesus. This may have been the basis of some Bible stories.

Wether this character (or characters ) had magic powers is another matter....

[newatheist]

http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread.php/1120-Did-Jesus-exist

[Matt]

You read it somewhere.

“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122

Hardly an unequivocal assertion reaching further than the graps of evidence. Rather an acknowledgement of the counter argument and it's level of support.

He doesn't "accept that Jesus or, or someone very like him, did exist." He says probably existed. A reflection that there is evidence for Jesus's existence but that it is not conclusive.

[Pebble]

You read it somewhere.



Hardly an unequivocal assertion reaching further than the graps of evidence. Rather an acknowledgement of the counter argument and it's level of support.

He doesn't "accept that Jesus or, or someone very like him, did exist." He says probably existed. A reflection that there is evidence for Jesus's existence but that it is not conclusive.

There is an old argument, that if god did not exist, man would have to invent hkm. I think the same argument extends to 'jesus' or 'mohammed' or budda' etc.

[Drop Bear]

I read somewhere that Richard Dawkins accepts that jesus, or someone very like him, did exist.

I am curious about this. Why does RD, who relies on hard evidence, believe this?

The evidence for jesus is unreliable at best.

help & ideas please ??

Thanks

trebor

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

It's possible,even likely that there was a wandering rabbi with a handful of followers called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yosef in C1st Judea. That he was crucified by the Romans,who did the same to literally thousands of Jews during that period.

Christianity (almost certainly not even called that) began as a strictly Jewish sect.One HAD to be a Jew or convert.That meant circumcision and following all of the commandments laid out in the Torah. (there are 613) ) Then Saul stuck his oar in,and that was the end of that.

Looking at the few teachings actually attributed directly to Jesus, it seems he was simply following rabbinical tradition still practised amongst Hasidic Jews.

I really don't know if there was an historical Jesus or not, and really don't care. There is little doubt in my mind that the Jesus of the New Testament,upon which Christianity is based is pure myth.--just like virtually every other religion on the planet.