If Jesus was merely a fictional figure, why would the Jews still accept basically-all-the-time that he was/is only a prophet, without even any categorically refuting his historical existence - knowing that the whole race of Jews so many of them during the era were always observing and annoying about the development and consequences for this particular piece of history. For promotion of a new God concept/definition. Especially they never like the Jesus idea. They would kill the Jesus figure by all means, politically/ scholarly/ theologically/ legally/ etc. Perhaps there should have been a number of writings/literature about this issue. Why not? Where are they? Were they completely and totally destroyed by any Christians purposely? When and how? Without encountering any objections by Jews, physically or else??? ???
I think you'd find Jews look at the claims made about Jesus with similar incomprehension to that which Christians generally apply to Mohammed. The character has no real meaning to them. When it is to do with religion, a story is stronger than any fact. So the best way to reject one story is to create another, which in the case of Jews, tells how Bible Jesus does not embody the qualifications of Messiah. After all as the Jesus figure was supposed to have been a Jew, maybe they would know.
1. I don't know much about other criticisms coming from any Jews leaders responding to the hard sayings in the bible from Jesus about Jews religious leaders of the era. Saying their (some of them) hypocritical acts would make them go to hell (something like that). How many Jews leaders (or religious leaders of any faiths) would respond in a peaceful way as if the Jesus figure is purely a fiction, by not trying to challenge the fictional figure in full strength. Instead, just clam by saying he is merely a prophet. The probability would be truly slim. Please note that I personally do not think/consider Jesus was/is a religious leader. As mentioned/explained a few times in detail before. 2. It appears to me your explanation and logic above was weak, as I think Mohammad is a real person, not a fictional figure. Your logic implies indirectly Jesus is Also a real person, not a fictional figure. Just like Mohammad. 3. ...
Who says Jews always responded in peaceful ways? When the Roman Empire persecuted Jewish Christians, Judaism was enjoying special status which gave it priority over breakaway insurgent Jewish cults such as Christianity. So why wouldn't institutionalized Jews actively encourage the Jewish dissident's downfall by any means possible including violence, which of course they did. For instance the Jewish authorities under the Roman Empire enjoyed certain tax emptions which Christian Jews also claimed for the same reason of being Jewish. However Rabbis would then expel Jewish Christians from Judaism, having a direct impact on large numbers, causing them to face execution for making false representation. No doubt the addition of 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...' was one of the more pragmatic rules Jewish Christians were obliged to think up after their revolt against the prevailing Jewish orthodoxy in order to overcome that harsh reality. So no, Jewish leaders did not always respond peacefully. But neither did Christians after Constantine's conversion. Yet the aggressive anti-Semite hatred and religious wars do not stop Christians describing theirs as the Judeo-Christian religion! Considering the intense antipathy and aversion and downright hatred that exists against "the Christ killers", what would be your probability of that!? So it comes as no surprise that Jews would take the line of calling fictional Jesus a prophet while at the same time dismissing any idea of Messiah. As I said in religion you counter one story, not with fact, but with another story. After all when push comes to shove, Jews are only essentially worshipping a fictional God entity also. Even hypocrisy has bounds in the end. I'm at a loss to see how you can possibly think what I say implies Bible Jesus to be a real person. And to be frank, that you think Mohammed was a real person bears no relationship to the fact that the figure has no sound grounding for historicity either. Like Jesus, Mohammed is contrived around 100 years after his supposed death. Prophets tend to pop up that way. Islamic text is in all reality, no less an article of blind faith as are the Gospels. Both written as stories around a century after the events they refer to, with not one reliable word or record, note, mention or acknowledgement of either beforehand. No contemporary reference or indications at all of either being prophets at the time of their supposed lives, in fact no trace of any kind. offering neither any sound evidence for historical existence. These great messianic concepts have no affect at the time but only impress retrospectively, long long after someone starts to write the story it seems. Those are very telling indicators present in all things fictional.
Thanks Stu for your input. I think the issue is a very interesting one. And you seem knowledgeable in it. I hope I could understand more bout the issue. With an open mind, hopefully. What I can do is to provide more questions, many more. 1. I think Mohammad did have his own writing. And his writing did accept the existence of Jesus, directly or indirectly, without anything disqualifying Jesus outright. Except that Jesus was only a prophet. I don't understand why? That means both the Jews and Mohammad did not totally reject the possibility or reality of the Jesus figure. Or stating any qualifications subject to many questions about whether Jesus was truly exist once on earth. I don't think this seemingly simple question about the true existence of Jesus had not been mentioned or challenged by the Jews and/or Mohammad alike. Why not? If yes, there should have been literature for serious discussion that had been resolved but today you and me have not learned the literature yet. 2. Referring to the link about Santa Claus, we need to know there must be a source of originating the Santa figure. Whether the figure is originated from a real person or a collective people. As mentioned before, the students of the ear wanting to study philosophy and religions were keen to find the best teachers and schools. Why there was so mention of criticisms that well-known to the public about the fictitious Jesus figure by so many other philosophy schools, other than religions? For criticising the original documents that derived fictitious figures like Jesus. Just very curious!
Open mindedness, questioning, curiosity. Commendable attributes First, I think you'll find there is no actual historical evidence at all giving providence to any writings of Mohammed. As mentioned previously, nothing whatsoever appears about him until around 100 years after his supposed death when Islam gets invented...except... ... a sliver of Greek text gives one tiny mention of the appearance of a false prophet during the Arab invasion of Siria. To those wanting to be convinced, apparently that is sufficient to prove it was the prophet Mohammed. Second, I'm confused as to why you might think one lot of prophet seekers be they Jews or Mohammed (Islam) must or would need reject other different prophets. Muslims say the Jesus character was a guide for everyone toward the prophet Mohammed, who is in turn supposed to be the only true revealer of Allah. Jews don't deny Jesus but say he wasn't the Messiah and neither is Mohammed and as for Jews, whatever the Messiah might be, it hasn't arrived yet. No doubt they had all learned off of the Romans, that inclusiveness can assist the growth and success of your own project. By accommodating Pagans , Jews, Christians, whatever into their Empire, they were able to make peace once they had conquered. It might be argued Constantine was the start of the demise after going all Christian on everyone. I don't see why Jews need disqualify Jesus or Mohammed nor insist they didn't exist. Religion is more about politics than it is about reflecting accurate history. Well as far as Santa goes, you omitted to include imagination as a category source. It goes without saying, real people or not and imaginary concepts can be used as the source for a fictional character. As far as students go, I'm not sure even the best schools and teachers coming from a culture and society suffused with religion are going to equip students with historically accurate critical information, especially on the subject of religion! Under such circumstances a lot information would also be coming from authors or sources which are themselves steeped in religious bias, which unhappily to some degree remains the case. Within the history of how religion indoctrinated every aspect of public society, and how it no longer can so easily (pleased to say), fictitious Jesus emerges.
1. Having read absolutely little about Mohammad, I cannot provide any comments on your points about him. I just heard most Muslims studied very hard his written words. I have had no ideas at all how and where his written words coming from. There must be a source for that, whether the source was a single person or a group of people for their collective wisdom, no matter right or wrong! There must be research done on this source to investigate and verify whether from Mohammad or else. 2. Same questions about the ultimate source(s) of the written words spoken by Jesus. 3. This topic is all about probability. The probability of the words written/spoken by a single person should be much much higher than by a group of people that would extremely difficult for them to agree on their diversified views and words, also generating zero arguments among them during limited period of time. imo In other words, there should be a leader among those people for producing a fictional figure and then quite a number of his words and theory/philosophy. Due to arguments among the group members, one by one each would leave the group for insisting individual's opinion. 4. My personal view has been based on the facts of: A. Justin - the Christian martyrdom and a converted Stoic student. He was not actually a Stoic. B. Galen - the personal physician of Marcus Aurelius, who 'considered Christianity nothing more than a "third-rate" philosophy'. He was not a Stoic. But a very talented physician. C. The Gospel of Mary - centred on Nature and reason, rather than any miracles. D. Paul - the one once willing to kill many believers of Jesus and probably (I guess) destroying all evidences related to Jesus until he produced his own writing in the bible as evidence of Jesus. E. The Acts in the bible - mentioning about Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. F. Many of the words from Jesus in the bible provide certain consistence - most likely derived from a single person's wisdom rather than collectively from a group of people. Disregarding whether the theory from Jesus was/is original or else. G. The existence of 12 closely allied followers - who would have to provide consistent lies by each one of them if Jesus was merely an imagination of a truly fictional figure. And some of them actually died for their silly lies - for what. Many others as well, including the stupid Justin. 5. Nearly all of the above points have been mentioned before with links for books/webpages or else. My personal view is I would not categorically the historical existence of Jesus as an independent thinker, just like many of the philosophers/ scholars or some atheists. 6. Not trying to seek or get a right or wrong conclusion/answer. Just an opinion worth 2 cents! LOL
Sure, but far better than opinion would be external historical or archaeological evidence to support the existence of either Jesus or Mohammed. There is non. Nothing. Not one jot enough to show either did actually exist. Only naive stories, gullibility, claims, assertion, lame argument, indoctrination, dissemblance or blind ignorant faith. Nothing which conforms with the most basic ordinary critical historical scrutiny which everything must provide to confirm historicity.
Here is another question. Stoicism was supposed "the most prominent and widely respected philosophy of the day." Perhaps everyone basically can become a student of Jesus. However, only some people can become a student of philosophers. Requiring to learn so many things for so many years. Stoicism might be one of the hardest. One thing cannot be easily explained is after (and during the process of) Christianity superseding Stoicism as a more popular and dominant theory, non of the Stoics would write down anything about the problematic issue regarding whether Christianity was based on a true or fake existence of Jesus? And whether Jesus was a fictional figure or historical teacher? Personally I don't think All the Stoics of the era would keep just silence if anyone among them could feel any problematic issues, particularly Jesus' existence, directly! Or comments/ criticisms on Jesus's teaching. Other than from Justin's? My guess is there must have had some, but already disappeared and long gone, no more anything could be found by nowadays. Very very curious indeed!