Did Jesus Exist?

[Sexton Blake]

Calling MWC...I repeat, calling MWC...your favorite topic has been brought up...

 

I say that Jesus probably did not exist, but this is an unpopular view with historians. According to Ehrman, most historians believe that Jesus existed and was some sort of preacher who later got deified. The issue with that is there is absolutely no evidence to point us to a person who the myth may have evolved from. All we have are the myths themselves. Though Tacitus mentions Christ, there is no reason to assume he is doing little more than retelling the Christian mythology rather than trying to recall a historical account.

 

Ehrman makes lots of money out of books about the NT and Jesus. If it could be shown that it's all mthology, he would be out of a job. So he supports Jesus.

[Sexton Blake]

How the Jesus story was plagiarised from earlier religions:

 

 

[JadedAtheist]

Ehrman makes lots of money out of books about the NT and Jesus. If it could be shown that it's all mthology, he would be out of a job. So he supports Jesus.

 

Well, it will never be shown that it is mythology. He doesn't really have anything to lose. I just think the current clique says Jesus existed and he likes to stick with the pack if anything.

[qadeshet]

Bible historians, like Ehrman, start with the assumption of an historical Jesus. Mainstream historians start with primary evidence to establish historical facts. We have no contemporary accounts, or archeological evidence, to establish any kind of historical Jesus. Secondary evidence, like the Gospels or Epistles, have to be validated by primary evidence to be of any use. The Gospels are allegories that describe the Sun's journey through the 12 signs of the Zodiac. After all the mythical elements are removed, there is no historical Jesus left to discover.

 

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

[mcdaddy]

Christians immediately will say yes, but on another forum, atheists are queueing up to say yes too though he was a normal human.Yet we have not the slighterst evidence that Jesus existed other than hearsay accounts.

 

Good day. I'm in the normal human camp. On the basis of the criterion of embarrassment. Things Jesus purported to have done and said which are embarrassing to future Christians.

 

Such as baptism by John the baptist. Would indicate subservience to John to baptist or being a groupie.

 

And telling followers that he has only been sent to the Jews. Not a good selling point to gentiles.

 

Whether the stories are fable or part fable, is perhaps not as important a point as the accounts are riddled with contradictions and many many errors

 

Yes, Jesus did start preaching to the jews but when they rejected him (the jews know Gods do not have sons), Jesus was forced to go to the gentiles.

 

I don't know how this ties in exactly, but I would say that the Jews did have a concept of god(s) having son(s). Deuteronomy 32:8-9, psalm 29:1 & 89:6 etc. Israelite religion was based off Canaanite religion in large part.

[Guest Valk0010]

Christians immediately will say yes, but on another forum, atheists are queueing up to say yes too though he was a normal human.Yet we have not the slighterst evidence that Jesus existed other than hearsay accounts.

 

Good day. I'm in the normal human camp. On the basis of the criterion of embarrassment. Things Jesus purported to have done and said which are embarrassing to future Christians.

 

Such as baptism by John the baptist. Would indicate subservience to John to baptist or being a groupie.

 

And telling followers that he has only been sent to the Jews. Not a good selling point to gentiles.

 

Whether the stories are fable or part fable, is perhaps not as important a point as the accounts are riddled with contradictions and many many errors

 

Yes, Jesus did start preaching to the jews but when they rejected him (the jews know Gods do not have sons), Jesus was forced to go to the gentiles.

 

I don't know how this ties in exactly, but I would say that the Jews did have a concept of god(s) having son(s). Deuteronomy 32:8-9, psalm 29:1 & 89:6 etc. Israelite religion was based off Canaanite religion in large part.

But there are various other OT verses saying, god is one and there is no other (Not exactly something you want to have if your a god that actually has a trinity). The implication in saying that even as a response to other religions of the day is, that god is one god and not one god three parts.

[Guest Valk0010]

Bible historians, like Ehrman, start with the assumption of an historical Jesus. Mainstream historians start with primary evidence to establish historical facts. We have no contemporary accounts, or archeological evidence, to establish any kind of historical Jesus. Secondary evidence, like the Gospels or Epistles, have to be validated by primary evidence to be of any use. The Gospels are allegories that describe the Sun's journey through the 12 signs of the Zodiac. After all the mythical elements are removed, there is no historical Jesus left to discover.

 

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

If the gospels were a total fabrication and jesus was a myth, you would not say, have Matthew trying to correct Mark's obvious contradiction about Joseph of Arimathea. Or the various countradictions that make the text unreliable as proof of the supernatural. You would know for certain, who visited the tomb first, or whether there were actually guards at the tomb (both very impossible to rationalise contradictions). If the gospels were total fabrications, those kinds of problems wouldn't exist. And since there not total fabrications, why say that jesus was mythical? I know it sounds like a wierd rip off the apologetics arguement for gospel reliability, and it sort of is, but its true to a degree. The contradictions prove the story is at least somewhat genuine. And an a embellished, historical jesus, is still a historical jesus.

[mwc]

If the gospels were a total fabrication and jesus was a myth, you would not say, have Matthew trying to correct Mark's obvious contradiction about Joseph of Arimathea. Or the various countradictions that make the text unreliable as proof of the supernatural. You would know for certain, who visited the tomb first, or whether there were actually guards at the tomb (both very impossible to rationalise contradictions). If the gospels were total fabrications, those kinds of problems wouldn't exist. And since there not total fabrications, why say that jesus was mythical? I know it sounds like a wierd rip off the apologetics arguement for gospel reliability, and it sort of is, but its true to a degree. The contradictions prove the story is at least somewhat genuine. And an a embellished, historical jesus, is still a historical jesus.

Are you sure you have ever read any myths? Not the harmonizations generally presented but the various myths themselves. Even a quick stop by Wikipedia can usually show the many differences in most popular myths. They're not lacking in contradictions or any of the issues you mention.

 

A quick example of this is the infancy of Zeus. A very important god to be sure. But from Wikipedia:

Infancy

 

Rhea hid Zeus in a cave on Mount Ida in Crete. According to varying versions of the story:

1. He was then raised by Gaia.
   
2. He was raised by a goat named Amalthea, while a company of Kouretes— soldiers, or smaller gods— danced, shouted and clashed their spears against their shields so that Cronus would not hear the baby's cry (see cornucopia).
   
3. He was raised by a nymph named Adamanthea. Since Cronus ruled over the Earth, the heavens and the sea, she hid him by dangling him on a rope from a tree so he was suspended between earth, sea and sky and thus, invisible to his father.
   
4. He was raised by a nymph named Cynosura. In gratitude, Zeus placed her among the stars.
   
5. He was raised by Melissa, who nursed him with goat's-milk and honey.
   
6. He was raised by a shepherd family under the promise that their sheep would be saved from wolves.
   

That's six variations of a single piece of this extremely important god's life. The thing is most people considered this real history.

 

mwc

[Guest Valk0010]

If the gospels were a total fabrication and jesus was a myth, you would not say, have Matthew trying to correct Mark's obvious contradiction about Joseph of Arimathea. Or the various countradictions that make the text unreliable as proof of the supernatural. You would know for certain, who visited the tomb first, or whether there were actually guards at the tomb (both very impossible to rationalise contradictions). If the gospels were total fabrications, those kinds of problems wouldn't exist. And since there not total fabrications, why say that jesus was mythical? I know it sounds like a wierd rip off the apologetics arguement for gospel reliability, and it sort of is, but its true to a degree. The contradictions prove the story is at least somewhat genuine. And an a embellished, historical jesus, is still a historical jesus.

Are you sure you have ever read any myths? Not the harmonizations generally presented but the various myths themselves. Even a quick stop by Wikipedia can usually show the many differences in most popular myths. They're not lacking in contradictions or any of the issues you mention.

 

A quick example of this is the infancy of Zeus. A very important god to be sure. But from Wikipedia:

Infancy

 

Rhea hid Zeus in a cave on Mount Ida in Crete. According to varying versions of the story:

1. He was then raised by Gaia.
   
2. He was raised by a goat named Amalthea, while a company of Kouretes— soldiers, or smaller gods— danced, shouted and clashed their spears against their shields so that Cronus would not hear the baby's cry (see cornucopia).
   
3. He was raised by a nymph named Adamanthea. Since Cronus ruled over the Earth, the heavens and the sea, she hid him by dangling him on a rope from a tree so he was suspended between earth, sea and sky and thus, invisible to his father.
   
4. He was raised by a nymph named Cynosura. In gratitude, Zeus placed her among the stars.
   
5. He was raised by Melissa, who nursed him with goat's-milk and honey.
   
6. He was raised by a shepherd family under the promise that their sheep would be saved from wolves.
   

That's six variations of a single piece of this extremely important god's life. The thing is most people considered this real history.

 

mwc

Cool didn't know that. Thanks.

[Guest Valk0010]

This is not so much a arguement against mythicists as more just a general thing I have noticed about the question.

 

Does it really matter if he existed or not?

 

I guess it would matter to people in seminaries or those who want to write a book on christianity but as far as say, dealing with WLC trolls, does the question really have any relevance?

[mwc]

So,MWC, just out of curiosity though its a bit of a derail on my part. Does the argument that the contradictions in the gospel accounts make the gospel accounts unreliable and therefore unbelievable have any play with you? You seemed to imply it doesn't work according to you. I was just curious if that was a correct understanding on my part? And if that is correct then, why not?

Unreliable? As what?

 

Do the six versions of the Zeus infancy story make it unreliable?

 

That would depend now wouldn't it? Unreliable as what? For whom?

 

So that I'm not just asking questions the infancy of Zeus didn't get in the way of people believing in Zeus. This is a fact. I doubt I even have to cite it since it's basically a common knowledge that people worshiped Zeus over a large area over a large period of time. This is with all those stories being available and known. And he isn't the only god with these types of variations hanging over his head.

 

I see the gospels are variants pertaining to various sects based on their needs. It's similar to how these variations for any myth happened. Different groups needed to personalize the story for their local needs for a variety of reasons. This didn't stop anyone from accepting the story and Zeus.

 

Keep the above in mind and understand that there are no xians running around preaching a unified story. So if one of four or five sects come to you and teach you their personal gospel could you tell it wasn't some singular unique gospel and you should turn them away? And what if someone else comes to you and tells you a very nearly identical story would you even be able to tell? What is the real difference in the synoptics for some random person? Nothing. They're identical. Paul's is the only real odd-man out and he's more than a few contradictions. G.John didn't arrive until the 2nd century sometime and didn't have much of a dog in this early fight.

 

Further are they unbelievable?

 

Again, is the story of Zeus unbelievable? That all depends. I accept it as myth. It makes sense to me. I have no problems with it as such. If you're asking me to accept that Zeus is alive and to build a temple to him then I do have to decline. No amount of rewrites on the story will do that.

 

mwc

[mcdaddy]

Christians immediately will say yes, but on another forum, atheists are queueing up to say yes too though he was a normal human.Yet we have not the slighterst evidence that Jesus existed other than hearsay accounts.

 

Good day. I'm in the normal human camp. On the basis of the criterion of embarrassment. Things Jesus purported to have done and said which are embarrassing to future Christians.

 

Such as baptism by John the baptist. Would indicate subservience to John to baptist or being a groupie.

 

And telling followers that he has only been sent to the Jews. Not a good selling point to gentiles.

 

Whether the stories are fable or part fable, is perhaps not as important a point as the accounts are riddled with contradictions and many many errors

 

Yes, Jesus did start preaching to the jews but when they rejected him (the jews know Gods do not have sons), Jesus was forced to go to the gentiles.

 

I don't know how this ties in exactly, but I would say that the Jews did have a concept of god(s) having son(s). Deuteronomy 32:8-9, psalm 29:1 & 89:6 etc. Israelite religion was based off Canaanite religion in large part.

But there are various other OT verses saying, god is one and there is no other (Not exactly something you want to have if your a god that actually has a trinity). The implication in saying that even as a response to other religions of the day is, that god is one god and not one god three parts.

 

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?!?!!??!

 

THE BIBLE HAS A CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!!!1!11!!!!!!

 

YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeee.....................!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[mcdaddy]

Bible historians, like Ehrman, start with the assumption of an historical Jesus. Mainstream historians start with primary evidence to establish historical facts. We have no contemporary accounts, or archeological evidence, to establish any kind of historical Jesus. Secondary evidence, like the Gospels or Epistles, have to be validated by primary evidence to be of any use. The Gospels are allegories that describe the Sun's journey through the 12 signs of the Zodiac. After all the mythical elements are removed, there is no historical Jesus left to discover.

 

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

If the gospels were a total fabrication and jesus was a myth, you would not say, have Matthew trying to correct Mark's obvious contradiction about Joseph of Arimathea. Or the various countradictions that make the text unreliable as proof of the supernatural. You would know for certain, who visited the tomb first, or whether there were actually guards at the tomb (both very impossible to rationalise contradictions). If the gospels were total fabrications, those kinds of problems wouldn't exist. And since there not total fabrications, why say that jesus was mythical? I know it sounds like a wierd rip off the apologetics arguement for gospel reliability, and it sort of is, but its true to a degree. The contradictions prove the story is at least somewhat genuine. And an a embellished, historical jesus, is still a historical jesus.

 

All it says is others hijacked Mark and wrote it to suit their liking. Doesn't "prove" an HJ.

[mcdaddy]

This is not so much a arguement against mythicists as more just a general thing I have noticed about the question.

 

Does it really matter if he existed or not?

 

I guess it would matter to people in seminaries or those who want to write a book on christianity but as far as say, dealing with WLC trolls, does the question really have any relevance?

 

It does to me. If Jesus "really existed" then there's a .0000001% chance I could be wrong and xianity could be "true". If he's just a mythical character then that drops it to 0%.

[mwc]

This is not so much a arguement against mythicists as more just a general thing I have noticed about the question.

 

Does it really matter if he existed or not?

 

I guess it would matter to people in seminaries or those who want to write a book on christianity but as far as say, dealing with WLC trolls, does the question really have any relevance?

If Jesus of Nazareth is the Divine Son of God as actually depicted in the Holy Bible? Yes. This matters very much.

 

But HJ's and MJ's aren't arguing that point. So it matters a lot less.

 

The question, even the Divine Jesus, will almost always turn into a discussion about how early Christianity came to exist (and spread) as opposed to anything really having to do with a Jesus. Something like..."If <your jesus> then explain how <christianity>" or "Why Christianity?"

 

mwc

[dagnarus]

It does to me. If Jesus "really existed" then there's a .0000001% chance I could be wrong and xianity could be "true". If he's just a mythical character then that drops it to 0%.

 

What if the gnostics are right? Aren't you and everyone else on this board still going to hell?

[mwc]

I thought up a quick, familiar not necessarily perfect, example to that will hopefully make sense of all this:

 

Who started Mormonism?

 

If you say Joseph Smith then he's your human Jesus.

 

If you say the angel Moroni (or Nephi) then he's your mythical Jesus.

 

If you believe the story as-is then you're a Mormon and this example doesn't apply but you're into Paul's territory and can see the confusion this causes.

 

mwc

[stryper]

According to the Micheal Teachings, Jesus was a 7th level Old King. He was married but had no children. Enjoyed a rugged life. and was the manifestation of the infinite soul. This would put him in the same category as Confucius, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Zoroaster, probably one other in the current recorded history of humanity.

 

The academic record doesn't record anything of Jesus's life other then in the Bible.

 

To reconcile the two, I usually think of it like this. How many lives are actually recorded in history? Chances are a man named Jesus probably did exist. He was a religious leader who performed "miracles" similar to how faith healer do today. He probably was killed by the Romans and the records were lost, because he wasn't seen as that important at the time.

 

All the other stuff about earthquakes and the dead rising and such were mostly likely outright fabrications.

[FeelHappy]

I don't think the later mythical stories about Jesus necessarily mean that a real historical Jesus didn't exist. I know paul didn't mention things like the virgin birth, but I don't see how that proves he didn't exist. Stories about people can often turn into tall tales, take for example the magic contest in the Acts of Peter where peter revives a stale smoked salmon, but this tall tale, fabricated story doesn't mean that a real historical peter didn't exist.

 

For me, I fall into the category of a historical Jesus likely existed. Someone who walked around preaching and had followers but was later crucified. His followers couldn't believe that Jesus died so they read (or listened to) the Hebrew scriptures looking for a crucified messiah and found passages which they could use to prove that Jesus was in fact the messiah.

 

But this brings me to the point that mwc mentioned, if there was a historical jesus, is he the same Jesus who was the son of god, of course not and therefore the resurrected god jesus never existed and I think that's all that matters.

[qadeshet]

There may have been a 1st century Yeshua who had a few followers and got himself executed. This version of Jesus is impossible to disprove. However, the Gospel Jesus never existed and is purely a Myth.

[mcdaddy]

[Guest Valk0010]

Christians immediately will say yes, but on another forum, atheists are queueing up to say yes too though he was a normal human.Yet we have not the slighterst evidence that Jesus existed other than hearsay accounts.

 

Good day. I'm in the normal human camp. On the basis of the criterion of embarrassment. Things Jesus purported to have done and said which are embarrassing to future Christians.

 

Such as baptism by John the baptist. Would indicate subservience to John to baptist or being a groupie.

 

And telling followers that he has only been sent to the Jews. Not a good selling point to gentiles.

 

Whether the stories are fable or part fable, is perhaps not as important a point as the accounts are riddled with contradictions and many many errors

 

Yes, Jesus did start preaching to the jews but when they rejected him (the jews know Gods do not have sons), Jesus was forced to go to the gentiles.

 

I don't know how this ties in exactly, but I would say that the Jews did have a concept of god(s) having son(s). Deuteronomy 32:8-9, psalm 29:1 & 89:6 etc. Israelite religion was based off Canaanite religion in large part.

But there are various other OT verses saying, god is one and there is no other (Not exactly something you want to have if your a god that actually has a trinity). The implication in saying that even as a response to other religions of the day is, that god is one god and not one god three parts.

 

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?!?!!??!

 

THE BIBLE HAS A CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!!!1!11!!!!!!

 

YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeee.....................!!!!!!!!!!!

We agree.

[Guest Valk0010]

This is not so much a arguement against mythicists as more just a general thing I have noticed about the question.

 

Does it really matter if he existed or not?

 

I guess it would matter to people in seminaries or those who want to write a book on christianity but as far as say, dealing with WLC trolls, does the question really have any relevance?

If Jesus of Nazareth is the Divine Son of God as actually depicted in the Holy Bible? Yes. This matters very much.

 

But HJ's and MJ's aren't arguing that point. So it matters a lot less.

 

The question, even the Divine Jesus, will almost always turn into a discussion about how early Christianity came to exist (and spread) as opposed to anything really having to do with a Jesus. Something like..."If <your jesus> then explain how <christianity>" or "Why Christianity?"

 

mwc

You got my point perfectly.

[Guest Valk0010]

This is not so much a arguement against mythicists as more just a general thing I have noticed about the question.

 

Does it really matter if he existed or not?

 

I guess it would matter to people in seminaries or those who want to write a book on christianity but as far as say, dealing with WLC trolls, does the question really have any relevance?

 

It does to me. If Jesus "really existed" then there's a .0000001% chance I could be wrong and xianity could be "true". If he's just a mythical character then that drops it to 0%.

Well it depends on what you mean by Jesus, if you view is, divine as bible recorded it or nothing, then I could see you point. But just because the guy at some level supposedly existed doesn't automatically mean he rose from the dead or healed the sick. That was my point at any rate.