There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Vigile]

What kind of proof would you need? Also, note that the new testament has several contributors. Idk, I think there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for Socrates.That would be some hoax, wouldn't it?

 

I've never studied the evidence for Socrates, but what I do know is the most liberal estimates put the contributors at least 30-40 years after the fact, and most much later than that. That would be like someone writing about JFK today without the benefit of any written documentation, no video footage, only word of mouth. Moreover, given the average lifespan back then, it is likely the writers wrote based on the word of mouth of a generation older than they and already dead. This is shitty evidence for a historic figure in general and ultimately even shittier based on the xian claims that he was someone who had such a historic impact.

 

Hell, when looking at figures like Alexander, you have coins with their image, you have actual documents that Alexander had written himself, you have thousands of contemporary documents written about him. With Jesus, you have none of this.

 

Not only did people get convinced that some guy was a god, but that guy didn't even exist in the first place! Idk, that seems a little incredible to me at first blush.

 

Those convinced appear to have all lived after him and had never even met him. How many Mormons today believe a set of golden plates existed, which hence disappeared? Why is this so incredible to you?

[Vigile]

What kind of proof would you need? Also, note that the new testament has several contributors. Idk, I think there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for Socrates.That would be some hoax, wouldn't it? Not only did people get convinced that some guy was a god, but that guy didn't even exist in the first place! Idk, that seems a little incredible to me at first blush.

My view is that each and every religion has a person who is the driving force behind it. Mohammed for Islam. Buddha for buddhism. And so on. And each and everyone of them points to themselves in some way or another as special (prophet, son of God, or whatever). I'm not sure of any religion that started as a collaboration of multiple people at different locations (except perhaps today on Internet). So, my thought is that some kind of "Jesus" did exist. Not like the stories, but a person being the first building block for the idea to grow on.

 

Given the number of messianic figures with similar stories that predated him, I'm not so sure there had to be an actual figure and if one did exist, that he in any way looked like the figure in the gospels. These types of stories were common place back then and even predated Jesus by 500 years or so in popular Greek theater. Oedipus Rex, for example, was a man born of a king, but raised by a commoner, only to be restored to his rightful place as prince and then sacrificed himself in order that the people in the kingdom might be saved from the wrath of the gods.

 

The gospel writers couldn't even get where he came from correct. Nazareth didn't even exist at the time that Jesus supposedly existed. This is a historical fact.

[Ouroboros]

So who was the historical Hercules?

 

Who was the historical Sampson?

 

Who was the historical King Author?

 

Who was the historical Paul Bunyan?

 

Who was the historical Zoro?

 

 

I think mythical figures can pop up out of almost nothing. Of course everything got it's inspiration from something else but the two can be very different; as different as old western movies and Star Trek.

Those are a little bit different though. They're not religious prophets put on a pedestal for worship and central to a a group of people to claim to have met them. You don't have some group who started praying to Zorro and tell people they've met Zorror and heard him speak about God.

 

Your comparison might be better with Zeus. Zeus and the pantheon probable never existed but they had a religious following and there were stories around their characters.

[Vigile]

He wasn't a world leader or anything, so you shouldn't expect that kind of record. He was the leader of a Jewish sect. We have a pretty good record left by people who followed him and their conflicts with the Roman Paul who made a global religion out of him. Of course many of the stories are myths, but that's the nature of religion. Would we have LDS without a Joseph Smith (and a Brigham Young)?

 

There are tons of contemporary documentation from sources outside the Mormon sect that attest to the existence of Joeseph Smith. There were tons of historians living during the time of Jesus, yet not a single one of them wrote anything about him or his sect. In this case, silence speaks volumes. What we do have is Josephus, a historian that lived a generation after the fact, who has one single passage, that is widely considered by historians to be fraudulantly entered many centuries after the fact. IOW, since there was no historic evidence, a group of monks got together and made it up.

[Ouroboros]

What kind of proof would you need? Also, note that the new testament has several contributors. Idk, I think there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for Socrates.That would be some hoax, wouldn't it? Not only did people get convinced that some guy was a god, but that guy didn't even exist in the first place! Idk, that seems a little incredible to me at first blush.

My view is that each and every religion has a person who is the driving force behind it. Mohammed for Islam. Buddha for buddhism. And so on. And each and everyone of them points to themselves in some way or another as special (prophet, son of God, or whatever). I'm not sure of any religion that started as a collaboration of multiple people at different locations (except perhaps today on Internet). So, my thought is that some kind of "Jesus" did exist. Not like the stories, but a person being the first building block for the idea to grow on.

 

Given the number of messianic figures with similar stories that predated him, I'm not so sure there had to be an actual figure and if one did exist, that he in any way looked like the figure in the gospels. These types of stories were common place back then and even predated Jesus by 500 years or so in popular Greek theater. Oedipus Rex, for example, was a man born of a king, but raised by a commoner, only to be restored to his rightful place as prince and then sacrificed himself in order that the people in the kingdom might be saved.

 

The gospel writers couldn't even get where he came from correct. Nazareth didn't even exist at the time that Jesus supposedly existed. This is a historical fact.

The problem though is that multiple people invented Jesus at the same time. We have 3 different anonymous Gospel writers, Paul, Peter, James, anonymouse of Hebrew, and so on. Was all this invented by Paulnand somehow he got James and Peter to start an church Jerusalem which he could argue with. Every stroy starts with either an inventor, or group of inventors, or an actual person other people are writing about. In other words, one author invented Jesus and got everyone else following it. Paul? How? Or a conspiracy? I have a hard time beliving that. A person whose story got embellished. Seems more likely considered the alternatives.

 

Of course there's another alternative, that similar beliefs suddenly appeared in a couple of different locations that "they" had seen this Jesus, and then later someone compiled the stories to one. All these people inventing different parts out of the blue. I think that's very unlikely though.

 

Another possibility is that there were several different freedom fighters in Jerusalem at the time, and because there were this ingrained idea that a Messiah would come and save the Jews, each one of them were considered a "Savior" (Joshua, Jesus), and those stories of those short-lived cult-leaders later were brought together, and if some of them had some mystical elements to them, the more certain that version must be the right one (since God must've done all those magic tricks). And then, from there, someone realized, hey, all these magical freedom fighters are all the same savior ("Jesus"), and then you have a platform to build something. But it means though that those "Jesus-es" were real people at some point and not just invented from thin are and old religious ideas.

 

There are some historians who think that king Arthur wasn't just a myth, but had some seeds of real story from where it grew. The original wasn't as great, amazing, magica, and such, but that the story came from some smaller event.

 

Same with the flood. There wasn't a global flood. But there are some solid arguments that there could have been a local flood where just a family survived with their animals on a raft.

 

And many of the other mythical characters in history can actually have had some seeds, a person that inspired the story to start, which later grew.

 

I think it's more likely, more probable, that the stores about Jesus grew from some real person events, than a group of people conspired to compile old religious beliefs into a new religion and then proclaim that they've met this "Jesus" that they just invented.

 

The only real alternative would be that Paul (or someone like Paul, before him) invented Jesus, and then had a cult group that followed him. And then Peter, James, Paul, and the rest were part of that cult and were indoctrinated to believe they had seen Jesus (mass hypnosis maybe?).

[Overcame Faith]

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman believes there was a historical Jesus, though he was not the character depicted in the NT.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347720431&sr=8-1&keywords=bart+ehrman+did+jesus+exist

 

 

[Vigile]

The problem though is that multiple people invented Jesus at the same time. We have 3 different anonymous Gospel writers, Paul, Peter, James,

 

Not at the same time as I understand it. I believe Mark was the earliest, with others up to 90-years after the fact. And Paul, though living only a generation after, never met him. I don't know that it had to be a conspiracy as such. I think we need to try and put ourselves in the shoes of those living during that era to better understand what could have happened. They lived during an era where most were illiterate, where stories of this sort were common, and where there was actually a legitimate political agenda that could be validly served by a messianic figure who preached a form of ecumenicism. That is, when a number of groups were all occupied by the Romans and while the Jewish religion didn't allow for the idea of joining forces with non Jews, it made perfect political sense to form a new religion that embraced Jews and non Jews alike. And given the vast supply of legends, Mythras not the least of them, it would be quite natural for a single story to emerge; especially when you have the sect, after the fact, pick and choose which documents were to survive and be included in the NT and those which would not.

[Ouroboros]

The problem though is that multiple people invented Jesus at the same time. We have 3 different anonymous Gospel writers, Paul, Peter, James,

 

Not at the same time as I understand it. I believe Mark was the earliest, with others up to 90-years after the fact. And Paul, though living only a generation after, never met him. I don't know that it had to be a conspiracy as such. I think we need to try and put ourselves in the shoes of those living during that era to better understand what could have happened. They lived during an era where most were illiterate, where stories of this sort were common, and where there was actually a legitimate political agenda that could be validly served by a messianic figure who preached a form of ecumenicism. That is, when a number of groups were all occupied by the Romans and while the Jewish religion didn't allow for the idea of joining forces with non Jews, it made perfect political sense to form a new religion that embraced Jews and non Jews alike. And given the vast supply of legends, Mythras not the least of them, it would be quite natural for a single story to emerge; especially when you have the sect, after the fact, pick and choose which documents were to survive and be included in the NT and those which would not.

Yeah. But I find it a little hard to think that all these sects would come up with the idea that they had seen Jesus.

 

Think about it. Even if Paul didn't see Jesus, he claimed that he had met people who had. I think James and Peter (not the Gospels, but the letters) claim similar things (IIRC). It kind of points to that they met some guy (or multiple different guys) who they considered to be the jesus (savior) of the Jews. Why would a church in Jerusalem, before Paul, think they had met a prophet from God, unless they had some kind of experience of meeting a person who claimed to have been the prophet. The stories were embellished, of course, and this (or multiple characters) were glorified beyond what really happened (because of all the old religious ideas that were infused to it), but there were still some guy (or guys) that unintentionally kicked of the story.

 

It is slightly more probable that some person were in focus of attention and the story grew, than some cult creating the idea that they had seen a prophet in spirit but never in the flesh. I think at least, because most (maybe not all), but most religions start that way. What I'm saying is, sure, it can be that Jesus is completely and utterly invented and nothing else, but statistically, more religions have been started by some guy being the center of attention and then the whole thing grew and became something else.

[Ouroboros]

Interestingly, Bart Ehrman believes there was a historical Jesus, though he was not the character depicted in the NT.

 

http://www.amazon.co...did jesus exist

Exactly.

 

And I think his view is that it's just slightly more probable (statistically) that the religion grew out of some central figure of attention (or perhaps a couple of different ones with similar motif or intentions), than being completely invented and created by a person(s) and then trying to convince other people.

 

Put it this way, each cult starts with a cult leader who tends to have people look at leader as the prophet or spokesperson for the religion. Paul was like that. He put himself in the center. But he considered himself to be the spokesperson for another person though, and that other people believed in that person before he did. So he can't have invented it. The origin must have come earlier.

[Vigile]

Yeah. But I find it a little hard to think that all these sects would come up with the idea that they had seen Jesus.

 

I don't think we can prove a negative here and I'm not sure either way whether he existed or not, but I do find the evidence for his existence to be utterly lacking.

 

We don't have a single document that is contemporary of his existence. Not a single thing written by someone who had actually even met the guy except for the Gospel of Mark IIRC, and it was written roughly 40 years after the fact.

 

he claimed that he had met people who had.

 

I just don't find this compelling.

 

I think in addition to the fact that messianic stories were common place during that era, the one that really gets me is the fact that they said he came from Nazareth, which was not even established until around 40 years after he was already dead. These kind of anachronisms point toward the idea that his stories were made up; at least to me.

[Vigile]

Why is it such a leap to assume the early xian sect were not just like today's 9/11 Truthers? We can easily see how they create tons of documentation quickly, and how they sell themselves on an idea to the point where they can't be reasoned with. Yet none of it is based on anything other than conjecture and speculation. Remember, during that era, everyone was looking for a Messiah to rescue them from the Roman occupation.

[Ouroboros]

I think in addition to the fact that messianic stories were common place during that era, the one that really gets me is the fact that they said he came from Nazareth, which was not even established until around 40 years after he was already dead. These kind of anachronisms point toward the idea that his stories were made up; at least to me.

Yes. Most of the stories were made up. But it's very unusual that people start to point their belief to another person they claim to be real. Just starting to believe out of the blue, and all of them giving him the same name.

[Vigile]

I think in addition to the fact that messianic stories were common place during that era, the one that really gets me is the fact that they said he came from Nazareth, which was not even established until around 40 years after he was already dead. These kind of anachronisms point toward the idea that his stories were made up; at least to me.

Yes. Most of the stories were made up. But it's very unusual that people start to point their belief to another person they claim to be real. Just starting to believe out of the blue, and all of them giving him the same name.

 

I don't know if it's unusual or not. Perhaps. But we've seen sects today form based on the words of leaders like Jim Jones. Why couldn't Paul have just been the key that kicked it all off drawing from a conglomeration of widely told myths of the time? There is evidence that Paul had followers. There is no evidence that Jesus had followers. At least not directly.

[Ouroboros]

Why is it such a leap to assume the early xian sect were not just like today's 9/11 Truthers?

It's not the same thing since 9/11 actually did happen.

 

What we're discussing here is more akin to that 9/11 did NOT happen and was completely invented by a group of independent people on different locations.

 

We can easily see how they create tons of documentation quickly, and how they sell themselves on an idea to the point where they can't be reasoned with.

The thing is, they have a story to build from. There is a seed, the actual 9/11 event, that they can build from. They didn't start making up these documents before 9/11 and create a 9/11 that was just bogus and fake. Why is it so hard to believe that the first Christians had a leader they called "the savior" and all the following stories were then embellished? Well, that's what the truthers do. They build on a story, a kernel of history that everyone can see. The way false stories goes on wildfire is because there are built upon something that actually did happen, some core of truth, and then the falsehood is build on it.

 

Yet none of it is based on anything other than conjecture and speculation.

DId they invent all this by themselves and independent from each other without 9/11 happening? Something kicked off the whole chain of reaction. Cause and effect. 9/11 happened. Some things were not up to par with the stories we heard. Some people take that as a signal to invent stuff. But it started at a point where something actually did happen.

 

What you're suggesting is that suddenly, different churches in the Roman empire grew up, where every member started to believe that someone else had seen and met a person called Jesus. They had different stories, but they all suddenly thought they knew people who knew Jesus. That's very odd behavior. And very implausible. Who spread the first gospels around Rome? Where did they come from? Who were they talking about? Why did they spread these early stories? Just out of the blue?

 

Remember, during that era, everyone was looking for a Messiah to rescue them from the Roman occupation.

The Jews had been looking for a Messiah for some hundred years prior. They didn't just invent a person who represented that Messiah out of the blue and started churches all over Rome. Something must have kicked it off. Someone must have started the first piece of the story. That's how stories are started. Stories don't come into existence by pure chance and someone thinks they heard it from someone else. I don't wake up one morning and believe that I heard a story from a guy about a guy and then I'm compelled to tell everyone about that story, and some other 10 or 100 people around US are doing the same thing, and similar stories, with main character with the same name.

 

It's like how they find patient zero in a pandemic. They circle in on the spread. And hopefully find where it started, with a person, one single person usually. Each mutation is different. So if you find the same strain spread around, it came from one point, one specific mutation. Multiple mutations that resulted in the exact change, is highly improbable.

[Ouroboros]

I think in addition to the fact that messianic stories were common place during that era, the one that really gets me is the fact that they said he came from Nazareth, which was not even established until around 40 years after he was already dead. These kind of anachronisms point toward the idea that his stories were made up; at least to me.

Yes. Most of the stories were made up. But it's very unusual that people start to point their belief to another person they claim to be real. Just starting to believe out of the blue, and all of them giving him the same name.

 

I don't know if it's unusual or not. Perhaps. But we've seen sects today form based on the words of leaders like Jim Jones.

Yes, but Jim Jones did exist.

 

Why couldn't Paul have just been the key that kicked it all off drawing from a conglomeration of widely told myths of the time?

Because there are things pointing to that there were believers before him, unless he's completely lying about his history, life, and everything. According to him, he was persecuting believers, and then he was converted to it. So someone else began the story, and it was already fairly big in Palestine at the time he converted.

 

There is evidence that Paul had followers. There is no evidence that Jesus had followers. At least not directly.

Except that Paul claims that he talked to some of the direct followers of Jesus. He bragged about it, if I remember right. But then he bragged that Jesus came in dreams and such, so he was (of course) so much better than Peter and James.

 

So unless Paul is completely lying about meeting Peter and James, we should assume Peter and James were earlier followers of this belief.

 

The reason why I don't think Paul was lying about his meeting with Peter, is because he would have had to have done it to people who could easily check his story. Peter was presumable alive at the time Paul wrote his letters to the churches to convince them that Paul was the better guy than Peter. Some churches couldn't decide who to follow. Paul or Peter... Well, if Peter was also invented by Paul. Then Paul was really screwing himself by inventing churches and bunches of people who were in conflict with his own teachings. Maybe he was Tyler Durden? Like a fight club scenario here. One guy is all guys. Going around and changing personality. Sure. Maybe we should go with that.

[Vigile]

It's not the same thing since 9/11 actually did happen.

 

What we're discussing here is more akin to that 9/11 did NOT happen and was completely invented by a group of independent people on different locations.

 

I don't know what did or didn't happen. But I think it is the same thing in concept. The point is, most of what the truthers think happened didn't happen, yet they are totally sold on the idea that things went down a certain way. IOW, people tend to dig their heels into ideas and those ideas grow as the sect creates a feedback loop within itself.

 

I don't see why this couldn't have all started with a simple story of someone who may or may not have existed and then built into what we have today via a similar feedback loop.

 

The thing is, they have a story to build from. There is a seed,

 

The Mormon religion started not from an event, but from the claims of a single person. There doesn't have to be a seed that stretches beyond a wild claim, does there? Why?

 

Why is it so hard to believe that the first Christians had a leader they called "the savior" and all the following stories were then embellished?

 

For me this is hard to believe simply based on the sheer lack of evidence during his life. That speaks volumes to me. If there was a historical figure, wouldn't there be at least one single document written about him while he was alive? Yet there is nothing. This doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it sure leaves a boatload of room that he possibly didn't. \

 

They didn't just invent a person who represented that Messiah out of the blue and started churches all over Rome

 

As I understand it, it was a very small sect, which grew only as a political force against the Romans and didn't really emerge as anything special until Constantine adopted it as a way to unify the Roman empire. Loads of these types of sects exist even today and yet they are all just evolved out of older traditions, myths and charismatic leaders just like I'm suggesting that xianity may have.

 

Again Hans, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong here. I'm simply saying that it could have happened without a historical figure and that given the sheer lack of evidence for this figure, it is just as reasonable to doubt his existence as much as it might be reasonable to not.

[mymistake]

Those are a little bit different though. They're not religious prophets put on a pedestal for worship and central to a a group of people to claim to have met them. You don't have some group who started praying to Zorro and tell people they've met Zorror and heard him speak about God.

 

Your comparison might be better with Zeus. Zeus and the pantheon probable never existed but they had a religious following and there were stories around their characters.

 

I was not trying to get an exact match. I was trying to illustrate human creativity. We love characters. We love to make them and we love to believe in them. I guess I should have used comic book super heros. There are plenty of kids who believe those are real. Santa Clause is like that too. And all these characters grow over time as new stories are added.

 

There was a Jesus the Rabbi who lived a couple of centuries before Paul. Jesus (Yeshua/Josua) was a very popular name so there were many living people who were out there. Then over the centuries hundreds of scriptures were written. This Jesus guy becomes a retelling of other culture's myths. It grew and grew just like the King Aurthor legend.

 

Then one day Rome decides that they alone have the right belief about what really happened so they exterminate anybody who doesn't agree with their version of events.

[Vigile]

Yes, but Jim Jones did exist.

 

So did Paul. I think somehow we are talking about two different things here.

 

Because there are things pointing to that there were believers before him, unless he's completely lying about his history, life, and everything.

 

Jim Jones based his ideas on the bible, as did Joseph Smith. Is it not possible that early believers based their traditions loosely based on myths of the day as well? Isn't it even reasonable that they might considering the sheer parallels that exist between the christ story and so many other myths of that era?

 

Except that Paul claims that he talked to some of the direct followers of Jesus. He bragged about it, if I remember right. But then he bragged that Jesus came in dreams and such, so he was (of course) so much better than Peter and James.

 

Again, I just don't find this compelling. Today, it would be considered hearsay in court and wouldn't be admissible as evidence.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what did or didn't happen. But I think it is the same thing in concept. The point is, most of what the truthers think happened didn't happen, yet they are totally sold on the idea that things went down a certain way. IOW, people tend to dig their heels into ideas and those ideas grow as the sect creates a feedback loop within itself.

 

I don't see why this couldn't have all started with a simple story of someone who may or may not have existed and then built into what we have today via a similar feedback loop.

But then again, an event of some form kicked it off. They didn't start talking about a "9/11 conspiracy" without a real "9/11" event to begin with.

 

I actually see the "Jesus as complete myth" conspiracy to be more like the "9/11 was planned by the government" conspiracy. Something happened. A religion began from some cult with a religious leader (who might have been called their "savior'). And now, we're trying to create a conspiracy theory of how it didn't happen, without any evidence for why it didn't.

 

The Mormon religion started not from an event, but from the claims of a single person. There doesn't have to be a seed that stretches beyond a wild claim, does there? Why?

A "single person". Did he exist? Did he take the glory for being the central figure?

 

For me this is hard to believe simply based on the sheer lack of evidence during his life. That speaks volumes to me. If there was a historical figure, wouldn't there be at least one single document written about him while he was alive? Yet there is nothing. This doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it sure leaves a boatload of room that he possibly didn't. \

Actually, there are some evidence (if I recall correctly) for a sect during that time who used water baptism and abstinence from meat. John the baptist was probably a follower of this cult. It is very possible that the whole thing grew from that cult. And who knows, maybe they called their leader "kaiser" or "master" or "savior".

 

As I understand it, it was a very small sect, which grew only as a political force against the Romans and didn't really emerge as anything special until Constantine adopted it as a way to unify the Roman empire. Loads of these types of sects exist even today and yet they are all just evolved out of older traditions, myths and charismatic leaders just like I'm suggesting that xianity may have.

So that small sect started with someone or a group of people, or are we arguing that they didn't exist either?

 

Again Hans, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong here. I'm simply saying that it could have happened without a historical figure and that given the sheer lack of evidence for this figure, it is just as reasonable to doubt his existence as much as it might be reasonable to not.

I know it could have happened without a historical figure.

 

Can you understand why I'm saying that I think it's more % chance to a central figure than not? Based on history, most sects and religions do have a central figure who did exist, rather than completely made up. It's the "charismatic leader" syndrome. A psychopath in the center who wants all attention. Jesus fits the description of a sociopathic leader for a new cult. Paul fits more the car salesman who wants to make a big splash in the kingdom by being the big guy on the block.

[Vigile]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

[Ouroboros]

I was not trying to get an exact match. I was trying to illustrate human creativity. We love characters. We love to make them and we love to believe in them. I guess I should have used comic book super heros. There are plenty of kids who believe those are real. Santa Clause is like that too. And all these characters grow over time as new stories are added.

Absolutely. I don't disagree with that.

 

But you do know that Santa Claus has a kernel of truth to it? There are historically some ties to a guy who actually did do good act and hand out gifts, and later someone picked up on the story and over time it grew. But it wasn't out of the blue. Someone did something. Someone took the idea and ran with it. Someone(s) else build more upon it.

 

There was a Jesus the Rabbi who lived a couple of centuries before Paul. Jesus (Yeshua/Josua) was a very popular name so there were many living people who were out there. Then over the centuries hundreds of scriptures were written. This Jesus guy becomes a retelling of other culture's myths. It grew and grew just like the King Aurthor legend.

Exactly. But it "was a Jesus the Rabbi".

 

I'm talking about the kernel of a person existed from which the story grew, not the stories that grew or if the stories are true, only about that there was one (or couple) of original characters that inspired other people to start the chain of storytelling.

 

If you don't have a person that gave the inspiration to the story, then it must be an author who wrote a fiction. That's the alternative. Someone wrote a story about an invented Jesus, and that fiction story then took its own life and grew. Then we lost the first book. I can see that as a viable alternative and could explain a mythic Jesus. However, I think it's more rare for something like that to happen. It's more common to build upon a real person, then embellish with more.

 

Then one day Rome decides that they alone have the right belief about what really happened so they exterminate anybody who doesn't agree with their version of events.

Still, you said, "There was a Jesus the Rabbi." And that's what the discussion was about for me. Not the made up stories that came after.

[Vigile]

But then again, an event of some form kicked it off. They didn't start talking about a "9/11 conspiracy" without a real "9/11" event to begin with.

 

You're stuck on this one. It's probably my fault for using 911 as an example. The event didn't need to happen in order for a feedback loop to form between true believers. It's the feedback loop that creates all of the myths that I'm focusing on here, not the event itself.

 

A "single person". Did he exist? Did he take the glory for being the central figure?

 

Yes, Joesph Smith. He made the whole thing up and started an entire religion, which has roughly 8M members just 150 odd years after his death.

 

Actually, there are some evidence (if I recall correctly) for a sect during that time who used water baptism and abstinence from meat. John the baptist was probably a follower of this cult. It is very possible that the whole thing grew from that cult. And who knows, maybe they called their leader "kaiser" or "master" or "savior".

 

Yeah, maybe. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about that I think we are getting our wires crossed over. I think it's entirely possible that a sect existed that kicked of the religion. That sect may have even had a charismatic figure. I think where I differ here is with the idea that that charismatic figure was used as a model for the gospels. The reason I doubt this is that almost everything in the gospels can be found in either the Greek Tragedies, in the Mythras myths, etc...

 

We just don't have a clear picture of what the original sect looked like or believed because the only documents we have have been hand selected by members of the sect itself.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, but Jim Jones did exist.

 

So did Paul. I think somehow we are talking about two different things here.

Yes we are.

 

Jim Jones didn't preach "look at this other guy who is in heaven. He was a real guy and I met some people who met him. Pray to him and listen to him, not to me, because I'm just a servant."

 

No, Jim Jones said, "I'm the guy. I'm the prophet. Listen to me and not to anyone else, because I'm the greatest gift to earth. I'm the son of God, not Paul, Peter, or Jesus, but me, me, me!"

 

Paul pointed to Jesus as a person to believe in. Why would he invent a person to believe in, instead of taking on the role as Jesus himself (which is the behavior of charismatic cult leaders)?

 

Jim Jones based his ideas on the bible, as did Joseph Smith. Is it not possible that early believers based their traditions loosely based on myths of the day as well? Isn't it even reasonable that they might considering the sheer parallels that exist between the christ story and so many other myths of that era?

What christ story? It didn't exist to being with. Someone must've at least started a "christ story" for the story to being growing. When did they (the mysterious "they") decide this compiled set of stories should be attributed to a guy name "Jesus" and "Christ"? Who made that decision?

 

If Jesus is completely non-historical, I can only see the option that someone (a person) authored a first story, and then somehow people got hold of that story and believed it to be a true story. Then it grew from there. It's possible, but I just think it's more plausible that there was a preacher or freedom fighter, and someone wrote about that guy, and it took of from there. There's no evidence for either or of these scenarios. We don't have the original fiction story. So we can't know if that's the more plausible alternative. It's more uncommon for it to happen, so I think the first alternative is more plausible.

 

Again, I just don't find this compelling. Today, it would be considered hearsay in court and wouldn't be admissible as evidence.

Eh. I'm not sure how that argument fits in here. So basically, you're saying that it's more likely that he was lying about meeting Peter and that he was traveling around the Roman empire, trying to convince people about his religion, and he knew he was lying all the time? Sure. It's a possibility. I think his actions point to a conviction though. I think he believed what he believed and not that he believed he was lying. I'm looking at the people presented and trying to assess their intentionality. Not trying this in court. I'm not trying to establish "guilty - not guilty" verdict. I'm trying to look at the more plausible scenario without having to establish a final truth.

 

So I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't know you were expecting me to prove this beyond a shadow of doubt, support with artifact, details, witnesses, and evidence that would convince you to a fact of the matter. I was just talking about what I thought was more probable.

 

Well... so be it. I'm out.

[Ouroboros]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

There are people who have suggested that Paul was an invention too. Invented by the Roman government as a tool to create a religion that would ruin the Jewish resistance. But failed... or did it succeed? Hard to tell. Somehow, someone gained from it, so they must've planned it.

[Ouroboros]

You're stuck on this one. It's probably my fault for using 911 as an example. The event didn't need to happen in order for a feedback loop to form between true believers. It's the feedback loop that creates all of the myths that I'm focusing on here, not the event itself.

So a feedback loop can begin without a beginning? It just starts and no one knows where it came from? But somehow everyone believes in it too? Doesn't all urban legends have some kind of author or twisted story at the root of it? Or do emails with urban legends just come into existence by themselves? Are you suggesting that effects just come into existence without any causes?

 

Yes, Joesph Smith. He made the whole thing up and started an entire religion, which has roughly 8M members just 150 odd years after his death.

So if someone now claims that Josephs Smith didn't exist but was just a figment of their imagination and that a group of people conspired to create this fictional character called Joseph Smith, would you think those conspiracy theories are mistaken?

 

What you're presenting above is exactly what I'm talking about. A real person, charismatic leader, is the root of the religion. Paul wasn't it because there are things suggesting that he wasn't the first one, but got his religion from a cult in Palestine. So if we assume that cult did exist in Palestine before Paul took it to the Roman empire, then we have a cult started by someone else, not Paul. Who was it? Bob Christ? Well, that means a person did exist there... Not that his name necessarily was Jesus (which means "savior"), but perhaps Robert Rabbi, and nicknamed "Joe Jesus."

 

Yeah, maybe. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about that I think we are getting our wires crossed over. I think it's entirely possible that a sect existed that kicked of the religion. That sect may have even had a charismatic figure. I think where I differ here is with the idea that that charismatic figure was used as a model for the gospels. The reason I doubt this is that almost everything in the gospels can be found in either the Greek Tragedies, in the Mythras myths, etc...

Well, this is where we're talking two different things.

 

I'm not talking about the stories that were added to this character. They're 99.9% fake.

 

I'm talking about a first person to the stories that they could build from. It is very possible that there was a teacher/preacher/cult leader, historically, that all this began from. The stories were embellished, like I said before. But perhaps, just one or two quotes in the Gospel stories actually came from this cult leader, and all the rest was added on later.

 

The discussion was about "Jesus existence". And most of the time, people get stuck with the "Jesus according to the Gospels", which isn't the same question. Buddha most likely existed (or some derivation thereof), but did he do miracles? Could he levitate? There's a difference between "some guy did exist" and "that guy did all these things."

 

We just don't have a clear picture of what the original sect looked like or believed because the only documents we have have been hand selected by members of the sect itself.

So do you agree that the original sect could have had a leader? A template from where the "Jesus" stories could have later been added? Or do you still think this is impossible?

 

Think about it, and I'm leaving this thread for now. Maybe I'll join it again later. But do remember, I'm not trying to convince you for what the "Absolute and Real Truth of the Matter Is", but I'm just saying that I believe it's more likely a charismatic cult leader did exist, regardless of how crazy the stories about him came to be. If you maintain that it's impossible, then I have nothing more to say.

 

Put it this way (I'm trying to give my last word on this... but you know me... always talking a lot), I see this like I see the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Did the Roman empire conspire to create Christianity on purpose? Or did it come about in a similar fashion like other religions? Which one is more likely? Big work conspiracy with multitudes involved and big risks or more likely, and normal, process, like "charismatic leader for a cult" then it gets out of hand?