There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Akheia]

The important thing is to be flexible so that if/when more data shows up, we're able to nimbly move to the new idea. Like let's say this thing about Jesus' wife turns out to be made at the time and by the people it says it was*. It's way too late to be an eyewitness thingie for Jesus, but it'd say some interesting stuff about the early Church, wouldn't it? That's something we'd want to incorporate into our understanding of that early Church. It's when we're so positive we know what the truth is that we do stupid shit like add verses to the Bible to "explain" and elaborate on what's already there, that we insist on the old ways and thoughts so much we miss out on understanding our own history. That's how revisionism happens.

 

That's why I'm not threatened to talk about Simon Magus and whoever else. I've got my own theories too. It's okay to have ideas and to look into them and test them. If one of the tests suddenly turns up a positive where we only had negatives before, that's the thrilling part of it.

 

* I mentioned elsewhere I run a tabletop RPG called Scion, right? I had a game set in classical-era Rome wherein a jackass PC deliberately fucked with early Christianity by deliberately releasing forged epistles and gospels. Man! There is nothing like an RPG set around gods/religions to make one think about established RL religions in a whole. new. way.

[mymistake]

* I mentioned elsewhere I run a tabletop RPG called Scion, right? I had a game set in classical-era Rome wherein a jackass PC deliberately fucked with early Christianity by deliberately releasing forged epistles and gospels. Man! There is nothing like an RPG set around gods/religions to make one think about established RL religions in a whole. new. way.

 

Luke the Physician was one of your players? Wait . . . what?

[mymistake]

Make a decision now and make another later if/when more data shows up.

 

Deciding that you have insuffcient data is a decision.

[mwc]

Deciding that you have insuffcient data is a decision.

Thus the "paralysis" in "paralysis of analysis." We have data now. We have to be content to work with it. Waiting as we heap on more and more won't necessarily make things better and better or more clear. It could lead to more "paralysis" as we wait for even more data to analyze in the hopes that will help clarify what to do. Sometimes you just have to start even if it means starting over especially if new data leads us to a contradictory conclusion.

 

 

 

(I used the picture sizing thing and made the image smaller but it's really big for some reason...)

 

mwc

[mymistake]

Fine, you lay out all of the religious sects and factions in first century Palestine and you identify all the leaders of each one.

[mwc]

Fine, you lay out all of the religious sects and factions in first century Palestine and you identify all the leaders of each one.

If that's the additional requirement then I don't envision ever starting. I don't see that information ever existing in any form we could ever just "dig up." How could we ever know we got it all? There could always be "the one" that is missing.

 

mwc

[mymistake]

I suspect ben Sirach but perhaps there are even older and better candidates that we just don't know about.

[qadeshet]

Make a decision now and make another later if/when more data shows up.

 

Deciding that you have insuffcient data is a decision.

 

If you think the evidence, pro and con, are both equal, then HJ agnosticism is a valid position. All we can do is evaluate the probabilities.

[Akheia]

The probabilities are not lookin' good for the historical side. At this point just finding evidence that there were Christians around 35-50AD would be nice. The whole damn movement seems to have sprung fully formed from Mark's pen. Has anybody ever heard of primary source documentation for Christians at all prior to Mark's gospel being written?

[mymistake]

I thought Paul predates Mark.

 

Edit:

And as I understand it Christians don't exist an their own entity until they were kicked out of Judaism in the mid 80's AD. Before that they are fringe groups of Judaism.

[Akheia]

That's why I asked But from what I've seen even Paul dates to like AD50ish (and why he oddly seems largely completely oblivious to the gospel folklore around Jesus). Part of me suspects that Paul's writings are a lot more accurate to whatever source Christianity really had regarding the spiritual view of Jesus and the difficulty of getting the ball rolling than the gospels are with their insistence on historicity and their proclamations of the religion's initial and universal popularity.

 

All that aside. That's dang near 20 years from Jesus' supposed death to Paul's first works. I've studied, but can find little about the religion in that stretch. Maybe it was just gathering steam. But why such a long wait between the founder's death and the first dribbles of documentation?

[mcdaddy]

That's why I asked But from what I've seen even Paul dates to like AD50ish (and why he oddly seems largely completely oblivious to the gospel folklore around Jesus). Part of me suspects that Paul's writings are a lot more accurate to whatever source Christianity really had regarding the spiritual view of Jesus and the difficulty of getting the ball rolling than the gospels are with their insistence on historicity and their proclamations of the religion's initial and universal popularity.

 

All that aside. That's dang near 20 years from Jesus' supposed death to Paul's first works. I've studied, but can find little about the religion in that stretch. Maybe it was just gathering steam. But why such a long wait between the founder's death and the first dribbles of documentation?

 

because he never actually died. or lived.

[Akheia]

That's definitely the most compelling explanation. It's neat, it's tidy, it can be supported by all the historical documentation we do have, and it makes spot-on predictions about what we do and don't find in the historical and archaeological record. But assuming that he did, why such a long silence? Seems to me that such a burgeoning religion would at least have been noticed by the Jewish folks living around Judea at the time for those decades. Even if they didn't know about Jesus (and by this name I mean "the specific founder of Christianity" since frankly his name could have been anything really), they at least should have noticed the cult growing up around his life and death. But as far as I've seen, there is not a word until the 50s.

[Ouroboros]

I have a question then, my understanding is that there was some cult that saved Philo's work (Philo from Alexandria), and that it's traditionally has been considered the early Christians, and that the early Christians cherished Philo's writings. If it wasn't the early Christians, who was it? Another Jewish cult?

[mymistake]

That's definitely the most compelling explanation. It's neat, it's tidy, it can be supported by all the historical documentation we do have, and it makes spot-on predictions about what we do and don't find in the historical and archaeological record. But assuming that he did, why such a long silence? Seems to me that such a burgeoning religion would at least have been noticed by the Jewish folks living around Judea at the time for those decades. Even if they didn't know about Jesus (and by this name I mean "the specific founder of Christianity" since frankly his name could have been anything really), they at least should have noticed the cult growing up around his life and death. But as far as I've seen, there is not a word until the 50s.

 

Well of course Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth are both mythical. They have imaginary powers and there was no town of Nazareth at the required time. I thought we were exploring the origins of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas might be a contemporary of Paul. But clearly the cannon Gospels could not have been written until after the Roman Jewish war. However Paul's letters themselves indicate that he was not the first person in the Jesus business. He complains about the competition. Perhaps when he writes "another gospel" he means an oral theology rather than a written one. These had to be other Judaism sects or charlatans trying to start other sects.

 

Do we agree that this type of religion is like a palm reading business? When you set up a palm reading business in one town and then another palm reading shop opens up a block down the street they are your competitors even if they offer a similar woo. The division between sects would be a matter of following the money. If Simon gets the profit from every Simon's Palm Shop in the region then they all work for him. If Simon gets the revenue from only one Simon's Palm Shop and the rest of them keep it themselves then they stole Simon's name and trademark. I suspect that was why Paul was complaining so much in his letters.

[Ouroboros]

Well of course Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth are both mythical. They have imaginary powers and there was no town of Nazareth at the required time. I thought we were exploring the origins of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas might be a contemporary of Paul. But clearly the cannon Gospels could not have been written until after the Roman Jewish war. However Paul's letters themselves indicate that he was not the first person in the Jesus business. He complains about the competition. Perhaps when he writes "another gospel" he means an oral theology rather than a written one. These had to be other Judaism sects or charlatans trying to start other sects.

Exactly.

 

Do we agree that this type of religion is like a palm reading business? When you set up a palm reading business in one town and then another palm reading shop opens up a block down the street they are your competitors even if they offer a similar woo. The division between sects would be a matter of following the money. If Simon gets the profit from every Simon's Palm Shop in the region then they all work for him. If Simon gets the revenue from only one Simon's Palm Shop and the rest of them keep it themselves then they stole Simon's name and trademark. I suspect that was why Paul was complaining so much in his letters.

That's a good point. He probably complained because he was losing business and control. We all know that many pastors have a need for control and power. He was losing the tithing and influence. Of course he was pissed. And if Paul was really Simon Magus, his magic tricks shop was losing revenue. Very good point.

 

Article:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/

 

 

Ehrman, author of “Did Jesus Exist?” scoffed at the notion that the ancient world was full of pagan stories about dying deities that rose again. Where’s the proof? he asks.

Ehrman devoted an entire section of his book to critiquing Freke, the mythicist and author of “The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?” who says there was an ancient Osiris-Dionysus figure who shares uncanny parallels to Jesus.

He says Freke can’t offer any proof that an ancient Osiris figure was born on December 25, was crucified and rose again. He says Freke is citing 20th- and 19th-century writers who tossed out the same theories.

Ehrman says that when you read ancient stories about mythological figures like Hercules and Osiris, “there’s nothing about them dying and rising again.”

“He doesn’t know much about ancient history,” Ehrman says of Freke. “He’s not a scholar. All he knows is what he’s read in other conspiracy books.”

So who's right? What is the evidence for the dying and rising gods? Is the evidence that pagan beliefs had all the components of Christianity in them before trustworthy? I think this would be an interesting thread/topic to open just to gather evidence for this POV.

[Adam5]

All that aside. That's dang near 20 years from Jesus' supposed death to Paul's first works. I've studied, but can find little about the religion in that stretch. Maybe it was just gathering steam. But why such a long wait between the founder's death and the first dribbles of documentation?

 

It could be that Paul made it all up Paul the myth-maker, or maybe it was by word of mouth. I tend to think it was a lot of stories circulating different Christian groups, and these legends mixed with plagerism from the old testament were pulled together to form the first gospels. This is just my point of view, 2000 years of research and speculation we are all none the wiser . What we can say with certainty is that they are highly contradictory and full of errors, so are not from any God, and there is a complete lack any evidence.

[LivingLife]

I have a question then, my understanding is that there was some cult that saved Philo's work (Philo from Alexandria), and that it's traditionally has been considered the early Christians, and that the early Christians cherished Philo's writings. If it wasn't the early Christians, who was it? Another Jewish cult?

I'll take a stab at this.

 

From what we read in the gospels and other non canon accounts, it does seem the whole Moses shit with Temple1.0 and Temple2.0 had been relegated to doves. There does not seem to be any indication there were still BBQ fests as described in the OT (that's assuming they happened in the first place). The picture I get is that the religion of the Jews of the day was pious and not for the average man in the street. You also have to throw into the mix that the populace were not all Jews as the bible would have us believe.

 

Based on their Tanuch traditions, this was supposed to be a conquering race that came to the promised land and screwed over the then inhabitants. Now at the period, we have Romans and Greeks running the show so they probably were pissed and looking for any messiah to deliver them from this "oppression"

 

I think we can agree that their was no yahweh and jack shit was promised to them and probably what happened they merely arrived and assimilated or that religion also evolved from other tall stories for a particular tribe who IMO were seeking validation within the adopted country. The tale of Masada really shows that these Jews were not the warriors they made themselves out to be ending in an alleged mass suicide.

 

The John the baptist ministry tends to fly in the face of traditional Judaism and suggests to me that they were pretty rudderless in those days as far as religion goes.

 

Then we have to ask, are the Jews of today really descendants of the folk in Israel circa 00? Again, there seem to be many conflicting accounts. How many survived the war if we are to believe the Romans killed them indiscriminately? Obviously there were survivors that fled.

 

This of course brings us full circle to the question which is the elephant in the room. Why the hell would a conquering nation suddenly adopt the religion (or parts thereof) of a nation they had just vanquished?

 

This now leaves us with the conundrum of the gentiles. Who were they? Arabs? Greeks? Romans? It is with the gentiles that this religion seemed to get legs and not with the Jewish converts.

 

Think in a modern context where the Buddhist statues were destroyed in Afghanistan. A parallel is the destruction of the Jewish temple. Perhaps there is a modicum of truth as far as the Jews being good record keepers; they had essentially already encapsulated all other myths in their religion and probably did have a strict form of governance based on it that may have impressed their occupiers. Adding the Greek and Roman pantheon of myths into the mix plus a dash of Egyptian myths, IMO is what we have in Christianity today.

 

Jerusalem probably was a commerce hub back in the day but history tends to show us they were not the cultural hub on the then known world.

 

Then came the crusades....

 

Sorry for rambling.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks LivingLife for the answer... but I'm not sure it did answer the question.

 

Philo's work is from pre-70 AD. Someone saved it. Tradition says it was the early Christian-Jews. If it wasn't, then it was some other group/cult, a group/cult that we don't have records of.

[LivingLife]

I think the picture I was trying to paint in that ramble was that IMO there must have been many cults. I do not believe that there was this unified Jewish religion at that time.

[mcdaddy]

ANCIENT ALIENS KEPT PHILOS WORK

[mcdaddy]

I think the picture I was trying to paint in that ramble was that IMO there must have been many cults. I do not believe that there was this unified Jewish religion at that time.

 

thats been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, far as i know.

[mwc]

I have a question then, my understanding is that there was some cult that saved Philo's work (Philo from Alexandria), and that it's traditionally has been considered the early Christians, and that the early Christians cherished Philo's writings. If it wasn't the early Christians, who was it? Another Jewish cult?

From a quick search it looks like Clement of Alexandria references him first (within the church) by name as "Philo the Pythagorean" (from "Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo "The Pythagorean"? by David T. Runia). Other xians (re: Eusebius) reference him as "Philo Christianus" and even have him being baptized by apostle John (with a whole story going with it).

 

As for Jewish "cults" they tended to reject his work after the temple fell. Prior to the fall of the temple Hellenized Judaism, such a Philo's, had a place in Jewish society and was making in-roads. After the temple fell it was rapidly replaced by Rabbinic Judaism and rejected.

 

Who specifically preserved his writings during this time is unknown. And not all of them survived. Maybe 3/4's.

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

The probabilities are not lookin' good for the historical side. At this point just finding evidence that there were Christians around 35-50AD would be nice. The whole damn movement seems to have sprung fully formed from Mark's pen. Has anybody ever heard of primary source documentation for Christians at all prior to Mark's gospel being written?

 

No one can date the Epistles and Gospels with any certainty. Bible Scholars assign the dates 70 AD to 80 AD, usually using Source Criticism, as the most probable range of dates for Mark's Gospel. If they are correct, then there are no examples of Primary Evidence that early. If we put Mark's Gospel around 100 AD we might have Josephus, unless the Testimonium is completely forged. Around 110 AD to 115 AD we have Pliny and Tacitus. There is no clear mention of Mark's Gospel until Justin Martyr. It is possible that Paul is the true impetus for Christianity.

[Akheia]

Well now that'd be pretty damned cool, wouldn't it? When I was a fundie I had this weird feeling like Paul had completely warped Christianity, but maybe I had it totally backwards and it was the gospel writers who were adapting Paul's ideas for a more Jewish audience. It's interesting about this idea of a Hellenized Judaism that was competing for followers with a more fundamentalist Jewish outlook. I can definitely see that. Hellenism seems to me like the cultural equivalent of English--it could absorb and assimilate just about anything. As to Philo, this is really interesting as well--the idea that Philo's works were the inspiration for much of the NT's ideas about God shows up over at the venerated site JesusNeverExisted.com and the argument they're making over there is pretty compelling. I'm drawn more to this idea than to anything else I've heard so far. If Philo was an inspiration, that'd make a lot of sense; what I've seen of his writing sounds very similar and he was in the right place at the right time. Was Philo trying to start a cult?

 

That page I linked to a moment ago also contains some more arguments against a historical Jesus, namely that he weirdly doesn't mention much about stuff going on in his day, but I think those arguments are more valid for the idea of the gospels not talking about a historical Jesus than for there not having been one at all. The gospel writers don't have Jesus talking about the issues of his day because they were simply writing too far from the events themselves; the few times they mention a historical event, they are usually either getting it wrong or flat-out making it up. I don't view the gospels' lack of Jesus talking about contemporary events as support or refutation either way. Hell, my little sister doesn't even remember stuff that happened to us back in high school--gospel writers working 50+ years after the fact aren't going to know much about the politics and cultural happenings from then. Does that make sense or am I barking up the wrong tree?