Did Jesus Exist?

[dibby]

Hi guys...just habving a thought about this subject.

 

Given the very controversial nature of whether Jesus lived or not, it seems to me that it doesn,t make any sense to base a literal faith in Jesus as a person. Learn from his messsage and wake up spiritually , yes. But how can you base a faith upon Jesus as a person if it is not absolutely CERTAIN that he lived? Let alone being alive today! It seems we cannot KNOW for sure whether he lived, or not, because we were not there.

 

Most christians don,t start out from looking at the evidence for Jesus. It seems they have some kind of conversion, or spiritual experience which is then interpreted as Jesus "coming into their heart". This then puts the people who have this experience, and accept this interpretation, in the position of HAVING to believe and justify that Jesus existed because they have based their whole experience on the belief that it IS Jesus they are in relationship with. Clearly, this then means that they have already accepted a position irrespective of any evidence.

 

Jesus is not true to christians because of historical evidence, but because they believe they are in a relationship with him. So maybe christians who believe this way, won,t care what the evidence is.....their mind is made up.

 

 

Maybe this is the subject of another thread.....but I would be interested what you all think about this.

[dibby]

Yes guys. I don,t want to take this thread off course so I have started a new topic called 'Existence of Jesus and Experience of Jesus' if you want to respond.

Thanks

[Antlerman]

It's amazing the little things that start personal revolutions. My partner did end up liking late 1990's and early 2000's alternative bands like The Kry, The Waiting, etc., but he just doesn't see the light about Amy Grant! He says that vinyl is much better than CD. He's a stereophile...

That's alright I guess. I have an album of the Trapp Family singers that I like to put on when it's snowing on the weekends. My partner says I'm out of my mind, but that could be because I always say to her whenever I put it on how that "mid-century Austrian folk-music always makes me feel all silly inside."

 

Actually your partner would be an audiophile if he prefers the sound of vinyl over digital mediums. A stereophile to me is someone's who's more into the gear. I love cool gear too, but give me the music first. On a good system vinyl will shame anything that comes out on CD. The downside of it is, that they skip a lot when you're trying to listen to them in your car, plus they warp pretty bad if you leave them on your dash in the hot sun.

 

(If he's an audiophile, it must pain him to no ends to hear Amy Grant being played on his system! BTW, tell him I'm putting in some Old-Stock Telefunken tubes into my phono-preamp today! See if he knows what that means.)

[currentchristian]

Hi guys...just habving a thought about this subject.

 

Given the very controversial nature of whether Jesus lived or not, it seems to me that it doesn,t make any sense to base a literal faith in Jesus as a person. Learn from his messsage and wake up spiritually , yes. But how can you base a faith upon Jesus as a person if it is not absolutely CERTAIN that he lived? Let alone being alive today! It seems we cannot KNOW for sure whether he lived, or not, because we were not there.

 

Most christians don,t start out from looking at the evidence for Jesus. It seems they have some kind of conversion, or spiritual experience which is then interpreted as Jesus "coming into their heart". This then puts the people who have this experience, and accept this interpretation, in the position of HAVING to believe and justify that Jesus existed because they have based their whole experience on the belief that it IS Jesus they are in relationship with. Clearly, this then means that they have already accepted a position irrespective of any evidence.

 

Jesus is not true to christians because of historical evidence, but because they believe they are in a relationship with him. So maybe christians who believe this way, won,t care what the evidence is.....their mind is made up.

 

 

Maybe this is the subject of another thread.....but I would be interested what you all think about this.

 

This is a very interesting thesis, Dibby. Ultimately, you may be quite right. Remember Thomas, the doubter. He had to see with his own eyes and feel with his own hands. He was given that privilege. But what did Jesus say next, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Maybe Jesus was talking about believing by faith, not by sight. Can one believe in Jesus and the resurrection without believing that these are literal, historical events? Is this what Jesus is saying? I accept these events as historical, but what about those who believe they are ahistorical?? Why can't they believe in some other way?

 

You mentioned a new thread you had started about it. Where's that at?

 

-CC in MA

 

-CC in MA

[jauggy]

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

After Moses came down from the mountain, and saw all his people worshipping a golden cow, he ordered the golden cow worshippers to be massacred. But he even gave them a choice to change sides. Why did they believe this nonsense if it could get them killed?

 

25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

<p>

27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

 

 

It is possible that the Xtian cult started with the founders not knowing that they would be persecuted, just like the golden cow worshippers.

[Antlerman]

This is a very interesting thesis, Dibby. Ultimately, you may be quite right. Remember Thomas, the doubter. He had to see with his own eyes and feel with his own hands. He was given that privilege. But what did Jesus say next, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Maybe Jesus was talking about believing by faith, not by sight. Can one believe in Jesus and the resurrection without believing that these are literal, historical events? Is this what Jesus is saying? I accept these events as historical, but what about those who believe they are ahistorical?? Why can't they believe in some other way?

 

You mentioned a new thread you had started about it. Where's that at?

 

-CC in MA

 

-CC in MA

You asked about dibby's thread. It's here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=13447

 

I just wanted to mention here that you are you very close to understanding why literalist Christianity actually does more harm to their faith than good.

[mwc]

Maybe I'm too late but I was reading along John and it made me think about what Antlerman (and many others for that manner so I'm not finger pointing ) espouse on a regular basis and that is faith is separate from works. Basically, we're talking about Paul's definition. However, G.John seems to take a different view on this and this verse is the one that caught my eye:

 

John 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, a great number of people came to have faith in his name, after seeing the signs which he did.

 

There are other, similar, verses in John as well (I'm not so sure about the synoptics). But as you can plainly see their faith was a result of seeing the miracles (signs) as opposed to the blind faith of modern times (and post Acts really).

 

So the expectation of something to base your faith upon doesn't seem so unreasonable at all and, in my opinion, even has biblical support.

 

As far as posting something on topic for the thread, here's my bit. We had a number of post alluding to xians, "christs" and but nothing that specifically said "Jesus" or anything that would be him specifically (except maybe Josephus).

 

A quick turn to the gospels gives us the following:

Matthew 24:24 For there will come up false Christs, and false prophets, who will do great signs and wonders; so that if possible even the saints might be tricked.

 

Mark 13:22 Because there will be false Christs and false prophets, and they will give signs and wonders in the hope of turning even the saints from the true way.

Notice that it doesn't say "people will follow fake Jesus'," but the broader term "Christs?" So how many people were already following a fake "christ?" How would they know? How would a historian tell one from another? A follower of (a) "Christ" is a "Christian." As has been established the Gnostics weren't "Gnostics" but "Christians." They weren't "fake" in any way and a historian would accept their witness as readily as any other. So what "Christians" were these historians reporting about? Who was their "Christ?"

 

We can't know this and as such their testimony is useful only to establish that "Christs" and "Christians" existed. We cannot establish the existence of a specific "christ" (ie. Jesus of Nazareth) in a specific time and/or place. Only the conflicting biblical testimony remembers that name.

 

mwc

[Jun]

A quick turn to the gospels gives us the following:

 

Matthew 24:24 For there will come up false Christs, and false prophets, who will do great signs and wonders; so that if possible even the saints might be tricked.

 

Mark 13:22 Because there will be false Christs and false prophets, and they will give signs and wonders in the hope of turning even the saints from the true way.

 

Notice that it doesn't say "people will follow fake Jesus'," but the broader term "Christs?" So how many people were already following a fake "christ?" How would they know? How would a historian tell one from another? A follower of (a) "Christ" is a "Christian." As has been established the Gnostics weren't "Gnostics" but "Christians." They weren't "fake" in any way and a historian would accept their witness as readily as any other. So what "Christians" were these historians reporting about? Who was their "Christ?"

 

We can't know this and as such their testimony is useful only to establish that "Christs" and "Christians" existed. We cannot establish the existence of a specific "christ" (ie. Jesus of Nazareth) in a specific time and/or place. Only the conflicting biblical testimony remembers that name.

 

mwc

 

Wow!

 

Now THAT was a very thought provoking post. Thank you mwc.

[currentchristian]

Maybe I'm too late but I was reading along John and it made me think about what Antlerman (and many others for that manner so I'm not finger pointing ) espouse on a regular basis and that is faith is separate from works. Basically, we're talking about Paul's definition. However, G.John seems to take a different view on this and this verse is the one that caught my eye:

 

John 2:23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, a great number of people came to have faith in his name, after seeing the signs which he did.

 

There are other, similar, verses in John as well (I'm not so sure about the synoptics). But as you can plainly see their faith was a result of seeing the miracles (signs) as opposed to the blind faith of modern times (and post Acts really).

 

So the expectation of something to base your faith upon doesn't seem so unreasonable at all and, in my opinion, even has biblical support.

 

Good point, mwc. I wonder how strong this "faith" in his name was, once the "signs" stopped coming? That's the thing about signs, I think. Look at the Israelites following the exodus event. What wonderful signs they were allowed to see! Yet, these signs did not keep them in line very long at all. What a mess those people were. Poor Moses. Signs, perhaps, satisfy our emotions; but do they ultimately satisfy our reason? I don't know. Sometimes, I think I'd love for an angel to appear to me, but I think that's my emotional brain talking. My reasonable brain thinks otherwise. At least I think my reasonable brain thinks otherwise.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

We can't know this and as such their testimony is useful only to establish that "Christs" and "Christians" existed. We cannot establish the existence of a specific "christ" (ie. Jesus of Nazareth) in a specific time and/or place. Only the conflicting biblical testimony remembers that name.

 

Wow!

 

Now THAT was a very thought provoking post. Thank you mwc.

Well, I appreciate that.

 

Anyhow, this got me thinking about what I said about Josephus. I certainly cannot translate his writing for myself but I do have copies of his writings already translated. I then went to the appropriate passage and the last line reads as follows:

 

"And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

 

This line, at face value, obviously means that Jesus of Nazareth is the origin of Christians. However, could it not also mean that there is simply a "tribe" or sect or Christians named after him as well? Just as there are supposedly 12 tribes of Israel and there would be a patriarch of each tribe of Israel. There could be many tribes of Christianity and he would simply be the namesake for this particular "tribe" that Josephus is commenting on.

 

Is this "tribe" the one mentioned in Acts? "The Way" or is it yet another "tribe" we're unaware of? Perhaps an early gnostic movement or something that died out that we may never know about or lies buried for us to discover?

 

While I do think this is an interpolation, it is possible that it is only a partial interpolation, and like others of the day there is a mention of Christians here. I don't know. I'm only tossing out ideas. I could do the same for the Christians that were supposedly burned in Rome (Jesus followers or followers of Fred the Christ?) or the ones Pliny Speaks about. Josephus just happens to mention Jesus by name, albeit, in a very non-Jewish way (which is what begs the question of authenticity).

 

mwc

[mwc]

Good point, mwc. I wonder how strong this "faith" in his name was, once the "signs" stopped coming?

So then this begs the question of knowing human nature, why use signs at all? If the results are so piss poor then then it would tell me that they aren't the way to go but yet it's the first thing used. Virgin birth ring any bells? Sounds like a sign.

 

Remove them all from the gospels and all you have left is some guy that wandered back and forth Judea for awhile, preached a few things others already said (a bit more concise maybe), got arrested and died. So what then, is your faith in? Without the supernatural your faith is pointless (I'm not pointing my finger directly at you...it just so happens you do believe this stuff).

 

The Pharisees and Sadducees had pretty much this same disagreement. The former believed in the supernatural (angels, demons and resurrection from the dead) while the latter did not. However, the Pharisees believed that prophecy and the like had ended. The xians did not when they came on the scene. So reading the bible you can see it's full of that stuff. Now where is it? Oh yeah, at the end of Acts, it's ended for xians too (Paul gets a short exemption but the supernatural is said and done for the most part...until the "end times" which is, off the top of my head, what the Pharisees believed...history does love to repeat itself).

 

That's the thing about signs, I think. Look at the Israelites following the exodus event. What wonderful signs they were allowed to see! Yet, these signs did not keep them in line very long at all. What a mess those people were. Poor Moses. Signs, perhaps, satisfy our emotions; but do they ultimately satisfy our reason? I don't know. Sometimes, I think I'd love for an angel to appear to me, but I think that's my emotional brain talking. My reasonable brain thinks otherwise. At least I think my reasonable brain thinks otherwise.

Considering that whole event is just one giant, made up, story there really is no problem for Moses but I see what you're trying to say. However, again, YHWH chose signs as his first method of conversion because he must have thought it best. His "son" did the same thing. The same "god" chose the same exact method for a reason and that reason must be that it is the best way to give people faith. Or, is Paul right, and all the things that YHWH did simply a curse? If so, and sonny is following in his footsteps then this too is a curse?

 

If I choose to argue the Exodus as if it truly happened and it was all real then here's the deal. No matter the troubles it was the only time in history (that I can think of) that a god appeared to an entire nation at once. It was unique. It wasn't that those people chose to believe or not it was whether or not they thought that their god was capable of competing with the other gods that they were going up against (can YHWH deliver the goods?). Making people wander the desert and handing them manna (among some other things) while spitting out all sorts of rules for feeding this god right back really isn't as awe-inspiring as it might sound so I understand their hesitation. Then punishing them some more and handing their inheritance to their kids really isn't a way to solidify that "loving" relationship you're looking for. Nonetheless, here we are 3000 years later and the Jewish religion is still hanging on.

 

So why not offer up signs since it worked 3000 years ago? So why not offer up signs since it worked again 2000 years ago?

 

Like I said. Paul (and others) argue that works destroy faith. That evidence is really the antithesis of faith. I merely showed that the bible supports another view. A view that says signs can actually create faith. That signs can be the foundation for faith (and the religions themselves). Perhaps I am pointing out a contradiction. Perhaps I am pointing out that differerent people have different needs. Take it for what you will.

 

mwc

[Mr. XC]

Anyhow, this got me thinking about what I said about Josephus. I certainly cannot translate his writing for myself but I do have copies of his writings already translated. I then went to the appropriate passage and the last line reads as follows:

 

"And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

I do not think that this line from the Testimonium Flavianum matters, as it is likely that the entire passage about Jesus was inserted at a much later date. You may already have been aware of this, but here are a couple of references I found on the subject:

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century.

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/sco...ser/hojfaq.html

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus.

[mwc]

I do not think that this line from the Testimonium Flavianum matters, as it is likely that the entire passage about Jesus was inserted at a much later date. You may already have been aware of this, but here are a couple of references I found on the subject:

Thanks for the info but you assumed correctly when you said I probably already knew the beliefs about the Testimonium Flavianum. Normally, I would agree with you outright (I do believe that text is, from what we know, more than likely a xian interpolation), but I was making a slightly different point where if a concession is made that Josephus was speaking of xians, without dispute, then depending on how that one line is read we still can't know if he is speaking of the xians that wrote the texts we have gathered in the bible today. Anyhow, even though I've quoted Mr. XC the rest of the posting is just sort of off the top of my head (aren't most of them?) to the topic in general.

 

Perhaps he is speaking in reference of another group, or "tribe" in the translation I used, altogether?

 

The concession that Josephus mentions xians in the late 1st century is a minor one. As an aside I personally think that he did so directly (via something like partial-authenticity position) or via a xian interpolation simply because I think the xians would have destroyed his works otherwise and therefore the slight support they felt he offered their cause kept these treasures intact for us today.

 

We know that xians did exist. The question is when, where and what is their origin. The bible claims Jesus of Nazareth. However, the bible also warns against pretenders. Why? It's a pretty standard defense mechanism. So we know that there were enough "fake" christs running around that a warning had to be included in the product. Were any of these people named Jesus? The bible says that even the "saints" (the people that shouldn't be fooled) just might be fooled by one of these phony christs.

 

The thing about this is how do we know that if this "Jesus" that went around preaching was the original or a copy? Perhaps there was an earlier "Christ" by the name of Ralph (yes, Ralph the Christ) and he did all sorts of great things that you or I wouldn't believe because they were so fantastic. On top of that he says "After me, the original, will be a bunch of fakes. Don't fall for their lies." For the most part no one does but here comes "Jesus" and his merry "public relations" men. They do the hard sell and Ralph is forgotten from history. They overlay Jesus on top of Ralph's life and there's your new hero. How would anyone know that their "Christ" (Ralph) is now a different "Christ" (Jesus) if they just called him "Christ" all the time? Some might question but if you tell them they were confused and got the name wrong and that Ralph was a pretenders name and Jesus was the real ones name (and none of this is in writing for the most part) who's going to know? Maybe Ralph even plays the part of a bad guy in the new story just to make sure people know he's not to be trusted? Now Ralph's Christians are automatically Jesus' Christians by default and to the outside observer they're not going to investigate too deeply to notice. A christ is a christ of course of course (go watch Mr. Ed to understand ). I'm basing some of this on the games played on the disciples of John the Baptist (who despite not wanting to be seen as a Messiah was clearly thought of that way by his followers...some of which switched camps to xianity early on while others stayed loyal).

 

But, would people fall for a fake Jesus? We know there was a fake Nero that fooled many people. It's certainly plausible when you take the idea of this fake Nero along with everything the bible, and Jesus, has to say about fake Christs.

 

According to Acts the originals were supposed to be called "The Way" but we never hear this. Perhaps it was "The Christian Way" (or "The Way of Christ") and to xians "Christian" is redundant and omitted it? We can't know unless we find more information so we get to speculate. The point of this is that perhaps this is just one "movement." Paul makes no mention that his movement is "The Way." Acts attempts to "glue" these two together but Acts has enough problems bridging "The Way" and Pauline xianity. Paul and the other epistles further warn against fake gospels. How many were going around? We don't know. Were they all called Christianity? We don't know. How many "Christs" were there? We don't know. How many were named "Jesus?" We don't know. How many were in Judea? We don't know.

 

Which Jesus, which Christ, which christians, which christianity, which of any of these were any of the early historians referring to at any given time? We don't know.

 

What we do know is that people assume one thing and that they all refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Someone that we can't even be sure existed. Someone that people two thousand years ago weren't even certain existed:

 

2 John 1:7 Because a number of false teachers have gone out into the world, who do not give witness that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Such a one is a false teacher and Antichrist.

Yes, this is a later book but the point remains. Within a hundred years after the fact and people are questioning outright whether or not this guy existed (this is most likely a defense against gnostics or some other such sect or "tribe" but Jesus based Christian nonetheless). This is xian on xian "violence" at it's roots.

 

So the question remains. Did an actual "Jesus" live and breath and walk around doing anything much less die or not? Did the mythical Jesus arise from the physical or the other way around? We see the fight was already being waged at the start. We hear the deafening silence of history (ie. the same information that is presumed lost in the siege of Jerusalem is somehow the same "evidence" G.Luke managed to get his hands on when he wrote his "historically accurate" gospel). We see the inconsistencies of the stories (told from the points of views, not of those who witnessed anything, but of the "tribes" of xians the books were written for). We see the parallels with the other myths of the day. We see later xians giving conflicting reports. We see the "official" church backfilling information and destroying everything that disagrees with them. The creation of creeds to fill in the "gaps" of their theology (god or man? Neither! Both! Depends! monotheism or polytheism? Neither! Both! Depends! etc.).

 

I don't think there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. I think there was a Jesus of the gospels. A story book Jesus. One that grew into reality. Actually, he is the Genesis story. He was spoken into existence. Literally the word became flesh...but only by his human creators and only in legend. Eventually, once his story was written down, he entered history and that was that.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

We know that xians did exist. The question is when, where and what is their origin. The bible claims Jesus of Nazareth. However, the bible also warns against pretenders. Why? It's a pretty standard defense mechanism. So we know that there were enough "fake" christs running around that a warning had to be included in the product. Were any of these people named Jesus? The bible says that even the "saints" (the people that shouldn't be fooled) just might be fooled by one of these phony christs.

 

I always read the warning from Jesus that "many would come in my name saying that I am the Christ and will deceive many" not to mean that there would be false Christs (Messiahs), although there were pretenders to the throne, but that many would come in the name of Jesus, saying that Jesus was the Christ, but they would someone deceive many into a false idea about him or what he was about or what he willed. Kindda like what the RCC did for about 1500 years or many beat-you-over-the-head-with-the-Bible Christians do today??

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

According to Acts the originals were supposed to be called "The Way" but we never hear this. Perhaps it was "The Christian Way" (or "The Way of Christ") and to xians "Christian" is redundant and omitted it? We can't know unless we find more information so we get to speculate. The point of this is that perhaps this is just one "movement." Paul makes no mention that his movement is "The Way." Acts attempts to "glue" these two together but Acts has enough problems bridging "The Way" and Pauline xianity. Paul and the other epistles further warn against fake gospels. How many were going around? We don't know. Were they all called Christianity? We don't know. How many "Christs" were there? We don't know. How many were named "Jesus?" We don't know. How many were in Judea? We don't know.

 

Which Jesus, which Christ, which christians, which christianity, which of any of these were any of the early historians referring to at any given time? We don't know.

 

What are the "problems" Acts has bridging "The Way" and Paul's Christianity?

 

For Paul, just about anyone not teaching/preaching precisely as he was, was under a cloud of suspicion. Remember those days when many on this forum thought their little Christian group was the most correct? Same for Paul.

 

In terms of all the speculation, I must come down with the Lex Parsimoniae (Law of Succinctness), Occam's Razor:

 

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem , that is to say, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

 

Yes, I had to look that up, but I feel really smart having done so!!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

So the question remains. Did an actual "Jesus" live and breath and walk around doing anything much less die or not? Did the mythical Jesus arise from the physical or the other way around? We see the fight was already being waged at the start. We hear the deafening silence of history (ie. the same information that is presumed lost in the siege of Jerusalem is somehow the same "evidence" G.Luke managed to get his hands on when he wrote his "historically accurate" gospel). We see the inconsistencies of the stories (told from the points of views, not of those who witnessed anything, but of the "tribes" of xians the books were written for). We see the parallels with the other myths of the day. We see later xians giving conflicting reports. We see the "official" church backfilling information and destroying everything that disagrees with them. The creation of creeds to fill in the "gaps" of their theology (god or man? Neither! Both! Depends! monotheism or polytheism? Neither! Both! Depends! etc.).

 

I don't think there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. I think there was a Jesus of the gospels. A story book Jesus. One that grew into reality. Actually, he is the Genesis story. He was spoken into existence. Literally the word became flesh...but only by his human creators and only in legend. Eventually, once his story was written down, he entered history and that was that.

 

All that you write may be true. But that's a lot of presuppositions and would take a heap of coincidences, coordination, and happy happenstances to have come to be as you say.

 

My historical sense on the matter is that there was a flesh and blood Yeshua of Nazareth who was an extraordinary teacher, preacher, and wonder worker. He caused a stir, angered those in religious and political authority, and was executed. His followers claimed he returned from the dead, and Paul claimed he appeared to him in a vision and was the apex of the revelation of All/Source/Origin/God. History cannot verify these latter events, but history can verify that this resurrection and redemption were believed to be true by billions. I believe it today.

 

-CC in MA

[neverclear5]

My historical sense on the matter is that there was a flesh and blood Yeshua of Nazareth who was an extraordinary teacher, preacher, and wonder worker. He caused a stir, angered those in religious and political authority, and was executed. His followers claimed he returned from the dead, and Paul claimed he appeared to him in a vision and was the apex of the revelation of All/Source/Origin/God. History cannot verify these latter events, but history can verify that this resurrection and redemption were believed to be true by billions. I believe it today.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

I think you'll find that, historically, there might have been a Jesus. It can't be ruled out but theres nothing to say he definitely existed.

The rest is belief and yours seems fairly beniegn so I won't attempt to extract it at the moment unless it starts to metastasise. If the religious were like you then, yay, no more damage caused by religion and a conveiniant crutch for those in need. Thing is, your belief gives strength to a guy with slightly harsher belief, who strengthens a harsher guy, etc. etc. If you can pull a few nutjobs back to your level then great but I'm afraid for now you seem like the kid selling dodgy cigarettes whose money eventually funds al capone.

[currentchristian]

I think you'll find that, historically, there might have been a Jesus. It can't be ruled out but theres nothing to say he definitely existed.

The rest is belief and yours seems fairly beniegn so I won't attempt to extract it at the moment unless it starts to metastasise. If the religious were like you then, yay, no more damage caused by religion and a conveiniant crutch for those in need. Thing is, your belief gives strength to a guy with slightly harsher belief, who strengthens a harsher guy, etc. etc. If you can pull a few nutjobs back to your level then great but I'm afraid for now you seem like the kid selling dodgy cigarettes whose money eventually funds al capone.

 

We must all be on guard against extremism in our views and against extremists in our midst who embrace similar basic premises but allow them to become malignant and metasticize (I'm stealing your fine example) such that it leads to war and hatred. Atheists must be aware of this, too. The thing is, we are all so alike and we are so equal that we all have the same potential tendencies. Therefore, we must all be on guard against extremism in our political, social and theistic/atheistic views.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Did Jesus exist? And if so, what is the non-religious historical evidence?

 

I find religious and non-religious people with vested interest insisting that Jesus existed but the evidence is slow in coming forth. An atheist produced one sentence from Pliny the younger. I think that sentence is ambiguous and would like to discuss these ambiguities, but he started describing my emotional condition and intellectual capacities in rather unflattering terms when I attempted this. When even atheists have so much vested in Jesus' existence, I don't know where to turn for an open discussion of the topic.

 

I know there are some ex-pastors/ministers/preachers on here. Surely somebody knows enough about these things and has searched them out to provide evidence either for or against the historical existence of Jesus. And hopefully they can provide their reason for believing as they do.

 

Just a note to mark the fact that of the 22 pages of threads in this GTI strand (660 threads in all!), RubySera's "Did Jesus Exist?" is now second to "Phrases that Breed Ex-Christians" for views and posts!

 

I guess there are a lot of phrases that breed ex-Christians, and there are many answers to the "did Jesus exist" question.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

I always read the warning from Jesus that "many would come in my name saying that I am the Christ and will deceive many" not to mean that there would be false Christs (Messiahs), although there were pretenders to the throne, but that many would come in the name of Jesus, saying that Jesus was the Christ, but they would someone deceive many into a false idea about him or what he was about or what he willed. Kindda like what the RCC did for about 1500 years or many beat-you-over-the-head-with-the-Bible Christians do today??

So what you're saying is you see what you've been told to see. I've no problem with that.

 

Because your dear leader does, in fact, clarify himself in Matthew (later in that passage):

23 Then if any man says to you, See, here is the Christ, or, Here; do not put faith in him;

24 For there will come up false Christs, and false prophets, who will do great signs and wonders; so that if possible even the saints might be tricked.

It's all about his supposed return and all that wonderful stuff. He actually goes on and on about it. Fake "christ" this and fake "christ" that.

 

So tell me how we can see the above two verses (or any of the stuff in Matthew 24) as the RCC or fundiegelicals? The RCC, maybe (big IF on the signs and wonders), but not anything more. Besides, they are the root of all modern xianity. As I pointed out YOUR creeds come from THEM. So if they DECEIVED then YOU have been deceived TOO. So concede that or rethink your position on this.

 

Nonetheless, your leader also addresses your specific accusation:

Luke 9:49 And John, answering, said, Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us.

50 But Jesus said to him, Let him do it, for he who is not against you is for you.

Can you do things in the name of jesus and be against him? That's a "NO" according to jesus himself. If you do things in his name then you are for him. Just like when jesus casts out demons and he says that demons can't cast out demons (of course I can't see why they can't but he says that's the case). So the RCC and fundiegelicals claim to be on jesus' side. They claim to have miracles, in the name of jesus, backing them and according to jesus this is proof positive that they are on the same team. Now, of course, we can head on over to the whole "Lord Lord" passage where these guys get tossed out away and jesus denies knowing them but that just pretty much proves jesus is a user more than anything once we combine it with passages like this ("Hey, thanks for helping me out, but I knew you were a fake all along. Well, see ya!"). Yeah, doesn't make him look so good really.

 

mwc

[Mr. XC]

I do not think that this line from the Testimonium Flavianum matters, as it is likely that the entire passage about Jesus was inserted at a much later date. You may already have been aware of this, but here are a couple of references I found on the subject:

Thanks for the info but you assumed correctly when you said I probably already knew the beliefs about the Testimonium Flavianum. Normally, I would agree with you outright (I do believe that text is, from what we know, more than likely a xian interpolation), but I was making a slightly different point where if a concession is made that Josephus was speaking of xians, without dispute, then depending on how that one line is read we still can't know if he is speaking of the xians that wrote the texts we have gathered in the bible today.

The concession that Josephus mentions xians in the late 1st century is a minor one.

I have a bad habit of sometimes leaving out part of my point in my reply. In my previous post, I failed to mention why I selected the second quote concerning the age of the copies that we have. Since the oldest one is the 9th century (year 801-900) and we know that at the very least that it was edited, it is possible that the edit could have been made to refer to things that did not yet exist, so using it to prove the existence of something is only useful for intellectual exercise. I do not dispute the usefulness of the intellectual exercise. But yes, I would not be surprised if Josephus mentioned Christianity. For all we know, he could have said some very negative things about Christianity and that got taken out by the apologist editor.

 

I would say that there are better sources out there to prove that Christians existed. My understanding of Christianity in the early days is that it was so diverse, that very few would be considered Christians by today's understanding of Christianity. Now that is messed up.

 

It is interesting that Occam's Razor was brought up. That reminds me. Earl Doherty has an explication of Jesus that explains the formation of Christianity with no historical Jesus and even clearly explains some of the evidence that the Christians have difficulty explaining. Considering that Earl Doherty has a theory that requires fewer assumptions to be made given the historical evidence, then Occam's Razor can be used to increase the probability that Jesus did not exist as an actual person.

[mwc]

What are the "problems" Acts has bridging "The Way" and Paul's Christianity?

 

For Paul, just about anyone not teaching/preaching precisely as he was, was under a cloud of suspicion. Remember those days when many on this forum thought their little Christian group was the most correct? Same for Paul.

 

In terms of all the speculation, I must come down with the Lex Parsimoniae (Law of Succinctness), Occam's Razor:

 

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem , that is to say, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

 

Yes, I had to look that up, but I feel really smart having done so!!

This isn't something I really wanted to get into. I was just reading through Acts recently and then I wanted to timeline a few things for myself and it didn't come together. So then I ended up having to go to Paul's epistles (which I hate reading) and things didn't come together. Acts and Paul place Paul in two different places at the same time for example. I realize this isn't theological as I noted but it's the one off the top of my head (as I said I was timelining and not looking for theological issues). I'll recant the statement (until a later time when I'm better prepared to discuss it) if it gets me out of this.

 

And watch out for that razor...it cuts the supernatural pretty sharply.

 

mwc

[mwc]

All that you write may be true. But that's a lot of presuppositions and would take a heap of coincidences, coordination, and happy happenstances to have come to be as you say.

 

My historical sense on the matter is that there was a flesh and blood Yeshua of Nazareth who was an extraordinary teacher, preacher, and wonder worker. He caused a stir, angered those in religious and political authority, and was executed. His followers claimed he returned from the dead, and Paul claimed he appeared to him in a vision and was the apex of the revelation of All/Source/Origin/God. History cannot verify these latter events, but history can verify that this resurrection and redemption were believed to be true by billions. I believe it today.

Alright, lets hear it. You've shown that you can post evidence of xians (which were never in dispute since they obviously exist) but from what I can see here what you are telling me is that you believe the anonymous gospel accounts and Paul's letters. Combined with the fact that someone believed all this before you did makes it true to you.

 

So, if you will indulge me, what makes the anonymous author of Matthew trustworthy? Likewise the anonymous authors of Mark, Luke and John?

 

What other works of theirs have shown themselves to be reputable or what testimony do we have of the authors that would place them in such a position?

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

I always read the warning from Jesus that "many would come in my name saying that I am the Christ and will deceive many" not to mean that there would be false Christs (Messiahs), although there were pretenders to the throne, but that many would come in the name of Jesus, saying that Jesus was the Christ, but they would someone deceive many into a false idea about him or what he was about or what he willed. Kindda like what the RCC did for about 1500 years or many beat-you-over-the-head-with-the-Bible Christians do today??

So what you're saying is you see what you've been told to see. I've no problem with that.

 

Because your dear leader does, in fact, clarify himself in Matthew (later in that passage):

23 Then if any man says to you, See, here is the Christ, or, Here; do not put faith in him;

24 For there will come up false Christs, and false prophets, who will do great signs and wonders; so that if possible even the saints might be tricked.

It's all about his supposed return and all that wonderful stuff. He actually goes on and on about it. Fake "christ" this and fake "christ" that.

 

So tell me how we can see the above two verses (or any of the stuff in Matthew 24) as the RCC or fundiegelicals? The RCC, maybe (big IF on the signs and wonders), but not anything more. Besides, they are the root of all modern xianity. As I pointed out YOUR creeds come from THEM. So if they DECEIVED then YOU have been deceived TOO. So concede that or rethink your position on this.

 

Nonetheless, your leader also addresses your specific accusation:

Luke 9:49 And John, answering, said, Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us.

50 But Jesus said to him, Let him do it, for he who is not against you is for you.

Can you do things in the name of jesus and be against him? That's a "NO" according to jesus himself. If you do things in his name then you are for him. Just like when jesus casts out demons and he says that demons can't cast out demons (of course I can't see why they can't but he says that's the case). So the RCC and fundiegelicals claim to be on jesus' side. They claim to have miracles, in the name of jesus, backing them and according to jesus this is proof positive that they are on the same team. Now, of course, we can head on over to the whole "Lord Lord" passage where these guys get tossed out away and jesus denies knowing them but that just pretty much proves jesus is a user more than anything once we combine it with passages like this ("Hey, thanks for helping me out, but I knew you were a fake all along. Well, see ya!"). Yeah, doesn't make him look so good really.

 

mwc

 

Thank you for the clarification from Matthew's account of the conversation. While it still seems that Jesus is referring to those who would come proclaiming that he was the Christ, it is clear, too, that he also is referring to false Christs. You are absolutely correct.

 

Not everything done "in the name of Jesus" is appoved by Jesus. This particular passage is one case, but I don't know that it can be extrapolated to include everyone doing anything "in the name of Jesus." Probably that name has been more abused than any other.

 

It's best not to be very black and white on too many issues, seems to me. There's so much gray. That's a reason creeds rub me a little the wrong way. Once you quantify/clarify one is confined by those words. Is there then room for growth?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

What are the "problems" Acts has bridging "The Way" and Paul's Christianity?

 

For Paul, just about anyone not teaching/preaching precisely as he was, was under a cloud of suspicion. Remember those days when many on this forum thought their little Christian group was the most correct? Same for Paul.

 

In terms of all the speculation, I must come down with the Lex Parsimoniae (Law of Succinctness), Occam's Razor:

 

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem , that is to say, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

 

Yes, I had to look that up, but I feel really smart having done so!!

This isn't something I really wanted to get into. I was just reading through Acts recently and then I wanted to timeline a few things for myself and it didn't come together. So then I ended up having to go to Paul's epistles (which I hate reading) and things didn't come together. Acts and Paul place Paul in two different places at the same time for example. I realize this isn't theological as I noted but it's the one off the top of my head (as I said I was timelining and not looking for theological issues). I'll recant the statement (until a later time when I'm better prepared to discuss it) if it gets me out of this.

 

And watch out for that razor...it cuts the supernatural pretty sharply.

 

mwc

 

No need to recant, mwc.

 

I would not be surprised if there are inconsistencies in timelines between Acts and the Pauline epistles. Too bad each epistle wasn't dated by some external marker that we could look up with certainty.

 

-CC in MA