There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[stryper]

 

The Bible is a collection of Myths and Legends written by men, not the word of any god. A Myth is not a lie. The Bible may have some good teachings mixed in there, but it is not in any way trustworthy as "History".

 

after lightly following this thread. I would say all could agree with some of this.

 

I would add that some of what appears in the bible is the describing of events in the language of the day. Since they didn't have scientific understanding of disease and other events, they would be described as god doing it. And with the borrowing of stories and rewriting in ancient times, it is difficult to identify the originals.

[qadeshet]

There simply doesn't. I've looked. I think this as the final nail in my coffin of faith. Outside of the Bible, the existence of Jesus is very, very sketchy.

 

The subject of this thread:There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

 

After 19 pages of posts, no solid evidence has been presented for the existence of the Gospel Jesus. This is the only "Jesus" that millions of Christians are interested in. If one of the 1st Century Yeshuas could be proven to be the inspiration for Christianity, a Yeshua who may have had a few good teachings and few followers, and gotten himself killed, then Christianity would be in a great deal of difficulty. "Jesus" existed but is rotting in some tomb? I don't see how Christianity would survive that. I would love to see this happen. Yeshua, Jesus, and Joshua are all the same name. Early Christians may have simply appropreated the Miracle working Joshua and combined it with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and Daniel. The only thing I'm certain of is that the Gospel Jesus never existed.

 

To finish up on the Gospel dating issue I'll first quote Professor Bart Ehrman.

 

From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145

 

1. Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons . . . .

2. I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era . . . .

3.[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.

4.It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce . . . That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.

5. There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.

6. If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.

7. John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.

8. These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them.

 

Professor Ehrman never gives us the reasons "Most Scholars" give for the assigned dates. The argument goes something like this. Since Jesus existed, the Gospels must have written during the lifetimes of those who witnessed the events in question. And since the Disciple John wrote his Gospel aroud 100 AD on the Isle of Patmos, the other Gospels must have been written earlier. "Most Scholars" assume that Jesus existed and date the Gospels accordingly. Since the Gospel writers make no direct reference to events after the Jewish Revolt, should we then date the first Gospel to 70 AD? Should we date Gone With The Wind to 1865 because the author didn't mention automobiles?

 

I think the Gospels should be dated based on evidence separate for the Gospels themselves. The 1st epistle of Clement of Rome, around 95 AD, fails to mention the Gospels. The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, around 110 AD, mention no Gospels. Papias, around 130 AD, refers to a book by Matthew compiling the sayings of Jesus. He also mentions the memoirs of Peter as written down by Mark. However, the only source we have for this is from the Church forger Eusebius. None of the writings of Papias actually survive. The gnostis Basilides, around 135 AD, wrote the Exigetica in which he rerers to Gospel stories. Aristides of Athens, 140 AD, talks about "holy Gospel writing" but we don't know what texts he's refering to. Around 144 AD we have Marcion and his "Gospel of the Lord". Finally, around 150 AD, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, tells us of the Memoirs of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

Here's what Celsus had to say, aouund 178 AD.

 

Clearly the Christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth. ...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction. I have heard that some of your interpreters are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the original writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.

 

Professor Ehrman admitted that the dates assigned by Scholars are rough guesses, so there we have it. Either the Gospels were written in the 1st Century and considered by the Church Fathers unworthy of comment, or they are somewhat later than most Bible Scholars will admit. Whether we date Mark's Gospel to 70 AD or 100 AD makes no difference in determining an Historical Jesus.

[Adam5]

So ultimately I don't care if he existed, because even if he did the extraordinary claims about him cannot be verified.

 

This is where I am at the moment. I happen to think there could have been a Palestinian Rabbi of some description, which formed the basis of future stories and legends. But that whether this person existed or is pure myth is not th key question The key question is can the claims be verified? Is the evidence any good? And as we know the evidence is contradictory and full of holes.

[mcdaddy]

Great post, qade.

[LivingLife]

Bart Erman's wording remains as one would say open to new evidence. Because there exists no tangible proof, speculation is all that we have.

 

The concept that Paul's followers penned the gospels is far more likely from the idea he was Roman citizen. It really does not make any sense that a land occupied by Rome would give citizenship to the occupants of said land. It also flies in the face of how I understand the Jews felt about the occupation and the subsequent revolt and diaspora.

 

If Paul was A Roman first and then converted in the direction of Judaism, that may make more sense in the introduction of paganism. Does one assume the Jews had strayed so far from the Talmud teachings and had capitulated to be inclusive of their occupiers beliefs?

 

Perhaps Rome saw that there was a brilliant political system in the form of a religion that kept the folk in lock step and controlled by relatively few people. The steps that were taken to eradicate heresy by the various councils after the religion had been invented shows me that the origins of this belief are very fragmented. Also the account that Paul should have his audience with Caesar reeks of conspiracy as would a mere Jewish Pharisee really have been able to pull this off?

 

What I see here is the inverted logic of lets assume Jesus existed and try and prove it wrong and when they cannot "therefore he existed". Is that not how all apologetics work? When you depart from the conclusion and then try refute it with evidence is lacking you have just done a rain dance around the conclusion.

 

I am quite happy to accept Jesus never existed by applying the same logic as I did to the OT crap. There really is very little historicity in any of the bible. The clincher for me is Revelation and that book really does not seem like it belongs. Even reading the gospel of John, the epistles of John and Revelation, it does seem like these were penned by three different individuals. Are we not also departing from a doctrine that the author of Revelation is assumed to be the John the beloved?

 

In my final stages of deconversion, I read some scholar share that in Greek, the writing styles of the Johns were not even similar.

 

The other aspect of the gospels that are very suspicious show the Jews very much in bed with their Roman occupiers in dealing with Jesus at crucifiction time. If there was no war circa 70AD this may have gelled but the way I see it there was the real issues happening in the background and the gospels and NT appear like cover up story. Probably something like this

 

Bible Story--------------------------------------------------------------------

What really happened--------^---------^------^---------^-------

 

The "^" indicating the truths that found their way into the "official" record.

 

As they say the victors get to write history, not the vanquished.

[qadeshet]

Great post, qade.

 

Thanks mcdaddy, much appreciated.

[Adam5]

The clincher for me is Revelation and that book really does not seem like it belongs. Even reading the gospel of John, the epistles of John and Revelation, it does seem like these were penned by three different individuals.

 

I read somewhere that gospel of John, was John on weed, and Revelation, John on acid.

[stryper]

not to mention that john was either a time traveler or was VERY long lived.

[LivingLife]

The mere idea that he was 100ish as claimed when he wrote is is like not really par for the course with what we know about the average lifespan back then. Furthermore anyone that old would be susceptible to dementia. Probably the magic mushroom theory holds more credence or they have the toads you lick on Patmos too?

[mymistake]

The clincher for me is Revelation and that book really does not seem like it belongs. Even reading the gospel of John, the epistles of John and Revelation, it does seem like these were penned by three different individuals.

 

I read somewhere that gospel of John, was John on weed, and Revelation, John on acid.

 

Well I don't know about what chemicals they might have had. However the Revelation was written after the Roman-Jewish war. Manny horrible things happened during and after that war. The author of Revelation probably lost many loved ones and friends. The feeling of injustice might have been mind warping. I believe Revelation was written as a response to that war.

[Antlerman]

The writer of Revelation is not the same John of Gospel John. I just finished reading the latest book by Elaine Pagels, Revelations http://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/0670023345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349372455&sr=1-1&keywords=elaine+pagels

 

According to how she, and others understand it in light of modern scholarship is that John of Patmos was a thoroughly Jewish Christian, one that condemned others for calling themselves Jews but are not, but are of the house of Satan, meaning those Christians who did not follow the law. It goes through the history of Revelation in Christian church, and how many did not want it in the Canon of scripture. But it served a political purpose, lending itself to being applied to suit the agenda of the changing time periods. Originally it was an attack on Rome, but later read as an attack on heresy.

 

Very interesting book, and I'd recommend it to those interested in a modern scholars take on it drawing off what has been discovered over the last hundred years - no, she's not a self-proclaimed Internet scholar, she actually holds a seat a Harvard, but what does she know.

[LivingLife]

Somedays I wish I had written down all my research and not just relied on bookmarks. Seldom see books on evolution here in SA as the topic is a moot discussion point in schools as that is pretty much what has been taught for many years even when the religious were in charge of government. There is only a very small fringe group trying to sneak in the "alternate view" of creationism and this was talked about on radio about two years ago. Almost every caller was opposed to it. Bear in mind religions is not taught but as recent as two years ago, they still had religious assemblies in my daughter's HS but really obligato than some batshit crazy fundi invoking teh holy spook et al.

 

Back on topic

 

As far as these types of books and getting to the crux of textual criticism, very few folk are into that as a result we have to order from you guys or we are stuck with the internet. Even our fundies are mild by comparison, and we do not have folk publicly making fools of themselves (except the annual gay pride parade ) I have witnessed a rapid decline in chistianity and the only ones uber dedicated are those aligned with batshit loons from your side of the pond.

 

The amount of internet research I did was very extensive and much of what I share is what I remember.

 

As for the Johns, applying the sciences of linguists and handwriting specialists, all three were found to be different styles not only at the handwriting level but also at the theological level. A cursory reading of them in plain English shows this to be so. Most folk suggest Revelation predated the gospel of John and I forget the dating of the epistles of john but that one was tinkered with as they added/developed the trinity doctrine. Not even Paul's writings hint at it and if you squint, the best you get is a binity and that with a real fuzzy head. The salutations and greetings of Paul's letters tend to indicate that they were two entities almost as if once Jesus was invented, he became a +1 in heaven.

 

This may lend credence to Paul being of Jewish origins but I still cannot see how and occupier grants citizenship unless there is a defection or the alternative that Paul was a plant. Paul's religion offers and easy form of belief in that laws no longer need to be followed. Probably the only good thing was the rejection of circumcision but with the rest of his shit, he is all over the place and does set the trend of pretty much what we see today, making shit up as you go along.

 

In a nutshell, Paul takes you subtly back to the OT religion just with your dick intact.

 

Because so much of christianity is centred around Paul's stuff, most evangelicals quickly lose focus on the Jesus fella. Other than the misinterpreted references to hell in the grosspills, there is not much a fella like Haggee can work up a sweat over when he does his stand up routine.

 

There were a lot of tweaks and fiddle that took place as the new religion took shape and Jesus becomes pretty irrelevant rather quickly, he is only used as bait and not much else. I hardly think, based on the gospels, that the alleged Jesus fella had any intention of starting a new religion. Even in my early woo days I saw him as antithetical to organised religion.

[Ouroboros]

 

This may lend credence to Paul being of Jewish origins but I still cannot see how and occupier grants citizenship unless there is a defection or the alternative that Paul was a plant.

Josephus was a Jew and given citizenship, I think. And there were many different levels of citizenship in the Roman empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

[Akheia]

Ouro, I'm going to let the derail just glide past, if that's okay. It's not getting you closer to presenting evidence for your unsupported hypothesis that there was a "real" Jew (of whatever name) who specifically started the Christian religion. I do think however that you should really put some thought into just how history "decides" that this or that historical personage existed. I think it'd be really eye-opening for you.

 

Between all the arguments from ignorance ("I can't personally imagine how a religion could start without a kernel of truth, so therefore there had to be a Jesus"), all the special pleading ("well THIS one time we have to take it on faith that this person existed without any primary document sources whatsoever and plenty of contradictions/forgeries in the way-later agenda-riddled writings we do have"), false analogies ("I had an 8th grandmother so therefore Jesus must have existed"), and incorrect understandings of history ("oh, we just take history's word that every historical figure ever mentioned must have existed; we don't need proof"), demonization of evidence (this bizarre insistence that "nobody *really* decides things on evidence"--um, yes, we all do), and belittling of those who actually do like having evidence of facts before accepting those facts are real (the constant insinuations that those who refuse to accept Jesus' "existence" on faith are un-evolved), not to mention a childishly simplistic attempt to shift burden of proof (newsflash: those who put forth the positive assertion that Jesus existed are the ones who must prove their statements, not those who rightly stand their ground and say that this Emperor has no clothes whatsoever), nobody's yet actually presented any evidence of this Jesus cat. It's impossible for me to avoid thinking that the very good and simple reason for this is that there simply isn't any. As others have said, the non-mythicists are starting with the premise and then going through increasingly weird contortions in order to argue themselves into a Jesus prove it.

 

It's really hard to imagine that the early Jewish and Christian writers, at the very very least, wouldn't have mentioned him a lot more often if he'd really existed and started a cult of any importance whatsoever. But as that video series McDaddy discovered/linked pointed out, there isn't even really any evidence that Christianity itself existed before Mark's gospel got penned. I'm growing closer and closer to just thinking that based on what evidence we do have, it's entirely possible that Jesus himself was never meant by his creators to have been a reflection of any historical person--that he was always meant to be ethereal, real to his believers but not of flesh and blood--a person who'd existed forever and ever in the spiritual world, who died in the spirit and gave his followers life--in the spirit. Too much of his life looks lifted straight from the OT and contemporary pagan tales of wonder and mystery. Occam's Razor holds here very nicely; it's a lot easier and makes way fewer outlandish assumptions to go to the dark side of mythicism. But myths aren't always bad and being mythical doesn't make something intrinsically false or true. It just means that it didn't happen in meatspace.

[mwc]

Someone's finally getting the general idea.

 

mwc

[bdp]

I enjoy how you state it "I would like to date Mark's Gospel", as though you are qualified to make this assertion yourself.

 

Why isn't he? Why aren't I, or anyone else?

[bdp]

she actually holds a seat a Harvard

 

So what.

[Ouroboros]

Ouro, I'm going to let the derail just glide past, if that's okay.

Sure.

 

What you're talking about isn't exactly what I was trying to get to though. Sorry. Missing my point. I could give you a couple of ideas where I was going with this, but I'm not going to derail this thread any further.

[Ouroboros]

Nice derail attempt!

You too.

[Antlerman]

I enjoy how you state it "I would like to date Mark's Gospel", as though you are qualified to make this assertion yourself.

 

Why isn't he? Why aren't I, or anyone else?

good lord....

 

It's called getting a formal education. There's a reason for it. You believe everyone's opinion is equal? Then why do you doubt these folks here? Link Why aren't they just as qualified as this man? Link Why is he more qualified? I think it has something to do with education....

 

Wow, you are really serious, aren't you?

[Antlerman]

she actually holds a seat a Harvard

 

So what.

Harvard versus This. Which do you think has higher standards of education? Who do you think turns out better qualified graduates? Qualifications, they really matter, believe it or not.

[Antlerman]

Oops I made a mistake. She isn't at Harvard. She's at Princeton. She is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. You know, one of the 8 ivy league colleges? You know, that little school that turned out "35 Nobel Laureates, 17 National Medal of Science winners, and three National Humanities Medal winners"?

 

Why does it matter, you ask.

[LivingLife]

argumentum ad verecundiam

[Antlerman]

argumentum ad verecundiam

Not at all. I am not saying she is "right". I am saying she is qualified, over some Internet "scholar". That's a fact. There are other qualified scholars who hold different opinions. That's how we uncover new truths, through multiple perspectives. Qualified perspectives are of more value than arm-chair Internet so-called scholars.

 

Your point misses that point. I'm sure there's a fallacy I could find to point that out, but I'm lazy tonight.

[Antlerman]

A further point to add to that mistake you made, is that for someone like her, within her field of expertise, she can in fact be cited as a primary source. That does not mean she's "right". It means she has the chops to make a qualified opinion. This comes back squarely on what I said before that Habermas spoke to about the ills of the Internet on the role of intellectuals in our society. Everyone who has access to Wiki thinks they really understand things like a teenage who thinks they know everything. There is nothing that replaces an actual education.

 

Is anti-intellectualism a carry-over from fundamentalist Christianity?? That's a thought.