There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Ouroboros]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

[mymistake]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

Does he get to be historical? After all the culture of Western Civilization isn't founded on John the Baptizer as God. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then are not mundane claims reasonable with just mundane evidence? Hmmm . . . I think that would make a much better description than historical Jesus. Instead we should look for an ordinary Jesus.

[Vigile]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

If that's true, he also has not contemporary history.

[Ouroboros]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

Does he get to be historical? After all the culture of Western Civilization isn't founded on John the Baptizer as God. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then are not mundane claims reasonable with just mundane evidence? Hmmm . . . I think that would make a much better description than historical Jesus. Instead we should look for an ordinary Jesus.

Geezer said John was historical, but if there's less evidence he ca't be.

 

And through this discussion, I wanted to point to an ordinat Jesus.

[mwc]

Historical Jesus:

The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.^[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.^[2]

 

The historical Jesus is believed to be a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then part of Roman Judaea, during a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations in late Second Temple Judaism.^[3][4] He was apparently baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for between one to three years prior to his death. He took the role of an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher.^[5] He taught by using surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.^[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.^[7] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.^[3] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.^[3] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. After his death his followers believed that they were sent as apostles out to heal and to preach coming of the Kingdom of God.^[8] The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and other apostles, some of whom proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.^[9] After splitting with Rabbinic Judaism, it developed into Early Christianity.

 

The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus. The biblical description of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Christ of Faith in this context. The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life such as in fragments of early Gospels, and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus^[10] (see Josephus on Jesus and the Testimonium Flavianum) and various Roman documents, such as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by imperial biographer Suetonius, and the correspondence of Pliny to Emperor Trajan.^[11]

 

The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus.^[12][13] Use of the term the Historical Jesus implies that the figure thus reconstructed will differ from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ").^[14]

 

Mythical Jesus:

The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus mythicism, the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community.^[1][2][3][4] Proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity.^[5]

 

Both conservative Christian scholar Graham Stanton and agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman have asserted that virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence; however, scholars such as Paula Fredriksen, Robert Funk and E. P. Sanders hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value as it is driven by theological agendas.^[6][7] Critics skeptical of the existence of a historical Jesus believe that Christian influence and bias (conscious or unconscious) has extended far outside the walls of formal Christianity. For example, atheist activist and Bible scholar Hector Avalos speaks of an "ecclesiastical-academic complex" which he believes has widely contaminated scholarship even in non-Christian academic institutions which nonetheless have a culturally Christian background or roots in religious institutions.

 

The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer; William Benjamin Smith; John Mackinnon Robertson; Arthur Drews; Paul-Louis Couchoud in the 20th century.

 

The Christ-myth theory was refuted in the second edition of Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The first edition of this book was primarily devoted to establishing that Jesus had apocalyptic beliefs, anticipating an imminent cataclysmic end of the world. This understanding of Jesus was noted for being equally as embarrassing to liberal Christianity as to traditional Christianity. The second edition (not translated into English until 2001) included a strong rebuttal to the Jesus-myth theory.

 

The best-known recent proponents of mythicism are Bible scholar Robert Price, German historian George Wells (who slightly retracted his position late in life), mythicist-popularizer Earl Doherty, and historian Richard Carrier.

 

The idea has come to modern public attention through the work of many writers associated with skepticism and secularism although not all are overt proponents of the theory. Richard Dawkins states that the case for a purely mythical Christ should be aired more widely than it has, though he is not fully convinced of the theory. French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray argues for a wholly fictional Jesus in The Atheist Manifesto.^[8] On the other hand, Michael Shermer's Skeptic magazine has run a few articles by Tim Callahan arguing for the historicity of Jesus.

 

Arguments used to support the theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the 1st century. Special attention has been drawn to the absence of any mention of Jesus in Philo's historical writings about Israel.

 

Some proponents contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism and draws on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other gods, especially those figuring in myths about dying and rising deities. Attention to such parallels was heavily influenced by James Frazer's multi-volume work The Golden Bough; the parallels have even been acknowledged by Christian apologists such as C. S. Lewis. The strength of these parallels has been recently challenged by other religion scholars such as Jonathan Z. Smith, a scholar of comparative religion,^[9] and Dag Øistein Endsjø.

 

Since the publication of the 2nd edition of Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1926, virtually no major New Testament scholar had bothered with rebutting the Christ-myth hypothesis until the publication in 2012 of Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth which generated a flurry of online responses. Several of Ehrman's earlier books had been very popular in humanist and secularist circles, but as Ehrman predicted this book was criticized by both atheists and fundamentalist Christians, most notably by Richard Carrier on his blog.

 

mwc

[mcdaddy]

From Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities"-

 

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[52]

[Geezer]

John the Baptist made it into history...

I'm curious. What is the evidence for John the Baptist as a historical person?

 

Well, you got me when it comes to giving you a reference. I’ve read so many historians in the last few years I not sure exactly where I read it now. It seems Josephus is the only source for JTB and I may have read about John in Josephus writings, but think it’s more likely I was reading another author who was referencing Josephus. What can I say, I’m old and my mind wonders.I remember lots of stuff my wife says never happened, but I think she’s getting senile.

 

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, mentions John - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

 

2. (116) Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; (117) for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. (118) Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. (119) Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s

[mymistake]

Thank you MWC. I'm not sure that there are any legitimate primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth. For me those two descriptions clear up where I stand. I clearly fall into the myth camp.

[Geezer]

[quote

Historical Jesus:

 

The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.^[

 

Mythical Jesus:

]

The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus mythicism, the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis)

 

mwc

 

 

Thanks for the references mwc. I’ve looked into both the historical and mystical theories. The similarities between the Jesus story and the many other Pagan dying/rising deity stories encouraged me to favor a mystical Jesus. Earl Doherty & Robert Price books favored a mythical Jesus and their scholarship had a significant influence on my thinking.

 

I acknowledge there may have been a human being that influenced the Jesus story, but if such a person existed it isn’t likely he was anything like the Jesus found in the gospels.

[qadeshet]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

If that's true, he also has not contemporary history.

 

The referrence to John the Baptist in Josephus , like the Testamonium Flavianum, is also a suspected forgery. That being said, the cult of John the Baptist was a serious threat to Christianity, even in the 2nd Century. There are no contemporary referrences to the Baptist.

[mcdaddy]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

[Antlerman]

The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

Is it? What about it being partially authentic? Isn't it possible to argue that it was 'dressed up' by later Christians? You do realize that it is hardly dismissed entirely as a fraud by scholars who also do not accept the parts extolling Jesus as the Christ? Josephus obviously would never declare him the Christ, but he did use language that a later Christian would not - indicating both his and someone else's words in the passage. And if so, if you trimmed out the obvious later Christian additions, and it was just Josephus' words than wouldn't this stand as evidence of an historical Jesus? If we accept his words about J the B, then wouldn't it carry the same weight with Jesus?

[stryper]

 

Does he get to be historical? After all the culture of Western Civilization isn't founded on John the Baptizer as God. ...............

 

unless you're in The South.

[Antlerman]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

Does he get to be historical? After all the culture of Western Civilization isn't founded on John the Baptizer as God. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then are not mundane claims reasonable with just mundane evidence? Hmmm . . . I think that would make a much better description than historical Jesus. Instead we should look for an ordinary Jesus.

This misses the point of course that no one here who believes there was an historical Jesus accepts the extraordinary claims. So then, will mundane evidence work? Such as the possibility that Josephus' passage about Jesus may be partially authentic?

[mcdaddy]

The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

Is it? What about it being partially authentic? Isn't it possible to argue that it was 'dressed up' by later Christians? You do realize that it is hardly dismissed entirely as a fraud by scholars who also do not accept the parts extolling Jesus as the Christ? Josephus obviously would never declare him the Christ, but he did use language that a later Christian would not - indicating both his and someone else's words in the passage. And if so, if you trimmed out the obvious later Christian additions, and it was just Josephus' words than wouldn't this stand as evidence of an historical Jesus? If we accept his words about J the B, then wouldn't it carry the same weight with Jesus?

 

Ok, yeah you're right I did butcher that. My point I meant to make was that the idea behind it was a fabrication, not that the entire passage itself was 100% fraudulent. The idea that Josephus would just outright say things like "He was the Christ" is ridiculous. Thanks fort the correction.

[qadeshet]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

[Antlerman]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

Really? At what point in history did these followers of the Baptist have access to the texts to insert this? What is your source material for this claim?

[qadeshet]

The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

Is it? What about it being partially authentic? Isn't it possible to argue that it was 'dressed up' by later Christians? You do realize that it is hardly dismissed entirely as a fraud by scholars who also do not accept the parts extolling Jesus as the Christ? Josephus obviously would never declare him the Christ, but he did use language that a later Christian would not - indicating both his and someone else's words in the passage. And if so, if you trimmed out the obvious later Christian additions, and it was just Josephus' words than wouldn't this stand as evidence of an historical Jesus? If we accept his words about J the B, then wouldn't it carry the same weight with Jesus?

 

Ok, yeah you're right I did butcher that. My point I meant to make was that the idea behind it was a fabrication, not that the entire passage itself was 100% fraudulent. The idea that Josephus would just outright say things like "He was the Christ" is ridiculous. Thanks fort the correction.

 

The real problem with the Testamonium is the fact that no Church Father mentioned it until Eusabius in the 4th Century. Origen spent a third of his life debating the Philosopher Celsus(Contra Celsum). Origen quoted extensively from Josephus, including the chapter in question, and never noticed it? The belief of some scholars that it only a partial forgery was based on the Syriac copy from the 11th Century. However, it has now been shown that the Syriac copy can also be traced to Eusabius.

[Ouroboros]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

[Ouroboros]

Thanks mwc.

 

My thoughts about the historical Jesus is a little bit different than what you defined there. But, to ease your mind, I'm not arguing a mythical Jesus. It's a historical Jesus, but a slightly different twist to it. But those are just my own thoughts and suspicions, so I'm leaving them out in this discussion. Maybe one day, I'll be able to explain the idea I have, and perhaps discuss it.

[mymistake]

I think Josephus, right?

That's it? Nothing else? I made a quick search and couldn't find anything else.

 

Does he get to be historical? After all the culture of Western Civilization isn't founded on John the Baptizer as God. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then are not mundane claims reasonable with just mundane evidence? Hmmm . . . I think that would make a much better description than historical Jesus. Instead we should look for an ordinary Jesus.

This misses the point of course that no one here who believes there was an historical Jesus accepts the extraordinary claims.

 

Actually if you go back a few pages you will see I stated exactly that a few days ago. I most certainly do not miss that point.

 

So then, will mundane evidence work? Such as the possibility that Josephus' passage about Jesus may be partially authentic?

 

In establishing a Jesus of Nazereth who died aprox 30 AD? If that is what you are asking than I would say no.

In establishing that a sect existed that called one of their leaders "Jesus"? Then sure.

 

Personally I think the Jesus myth was influenced by men who lived long before Saul of Tarsus. Jesus ben Sirach was a rabbi who had spent some time in Egypt. I suppose the author of that book could have lied about his name but I don't see why. IIRC Jesus ben Pandria was crucified but at an earlier time. The region was prone to cult leaders doing the David Koresh thing and Jesus/Yeshua was a very popular name at the time so I'm sure there were plenty of them who didn't make it into the history chronicles. The author of Luke claimed that he had done some research so he might have included some anecdotes in his material.

[Antlerman]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

Most excellent observation. I missed that one! They made him up too?

[qadeshet]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

Really? At what point in history did these followers of the Baptist have access to the texts to insert this? What is your source material for this claim?

 

Drews or Robertson, I don't remember which. It was just a suggestion that I didn't take too seriously. Just an interresting thought. However, followers of the Baptist had the same opportunities to interpolate as Christians. Mid 2nd Century Church Fathers mentioned that the Baptist Cult still existed. From whom did Origen obtain his copy of Josephus? We have a difficult time with the provinence of early Christian documents.

[qadeshet]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

 

If Jesus didn't exist, how did he have followers to forge the Testimonium? I guess that proves Jesus existed. And if Christians said that Jesus was born of a Virgin, walked on water, and ascended to Heaven, it must be true. So I guess we're all Christians again?

[Antlerman]

The JTB passage seems less "fleshed out" and more likely to be real IMHO. The TF- complete fucking fabrication.

 

Is is suspected the the John the Baptist reference was actually inserted by followers of the Baptist, not a Christian forgery. It may have begun as a marginal notation.

"It is suspected"? Why is it suspected? If John didn't exist, how did he have followers who wrote it in?

 

If Jesus didn't exist, how did he have followers to forge the Testimonium? I guess that proves Jesus existed. And if Christians said that Jesus was born of a Virgin, walked on water, and ascended to Heaven, it must be true. So I guess we're all Christians again?

Underscoring my point again I've been making all along. You believe if any of it's true, it's ALL true, and therefore threatens you to become a Christian again. What is the big deal with accepting there was an historical Jesus? I do, and you don't see me believing frogs fell from the sky, the Jews walked through the middle of an active sea on its sea bottom, or that Jesus walked over the surface of the water. I'm not threatened by this.

 

This is all circular reasoning.