Maybe Jesus Did Exist... :/

[Jesususedpeyote]

Having an argument whether Atheist Historians believed Jesus actually existed. I say they don't, but perhaps I have been proven wrong? 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/24/richard-dawkins-jesus-would-have-been-an-atheist/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/jesus-existed_b_1652435.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

 

Maybe not, I don't know. I'm trying to consider the sources here. To my knowledge, the closest thing to there having been an actual jesus christ, was that jesus was a common name. I'm looking into the facts that the above articles have named to sort this out, but perhaps some of you with more experience can help clear this up.

[florduh]

Historians and scholars can't "clear this up" so I doubt we'll find the definitive answer here. Most seem to agree there probably was such a character, some think he's a composite character, and all but the religiously funded studies admit they must make an educated guess on this one. There is no definitive evidence, and the only reason people are even looking into this is the mention of such a person in the Bible, a notoriously unreliable document in its own right.

[♦ ficino ♦]

There's a huge amount of discussion of this issue over on the Freethought and Rationalism boards:

 

http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?s=2f24deac60bc16df323051392792d763&f=168

[mymistake]

"Christ didn't exist" is a relatively new movement and it's taking a while to catch on but I think eventually it will become the consensus.  Of course there were many First Century men named Jesus mentioned in history but none of them did the things attributed by the Bible to Jesus of Nazareth.  The closest you can find is Jesus Bar Sirach who was a Jewish rabbi who lived hundreds of years before Paul of Tarsus.

[themonkeyman]

Hey

 

I believe back then Jesus was a common name and still is.  Finding proof is alot harder.  Let's take the prophet Mohammad he existed but Christians don't believe in him nor do they believe in Joseph Smyth. What troubles me is the fact that Jesus is said to have ascended so its strangely convenient that we could not find physical biological evidence.  E.g take the garden of Eden a cherubim was stationed there.  No where do we hear what happened to this Cherubim so how can we say it existed.  Like I said Jesus is a common name so was Joseph.  If Jesus truely existed there would be more documentd evidence of those bodies ring out of the grave.  Where did they end up how come that subject is passed over quickly.  Besides any evidence of 'Jesus" needs roman. Documents to back it up and lets face it although they mention "A" Jesus the dates don't match with the bible so one has to go.

[LivingLife]

I am on the camp of Jesus never existed. The model I use is the 4 pillars of Christianity being;

1. Genesis (Adam and Eve)
2. The flood
3. Exodus and the laws
4. Jesus

The first, knowledge of modern genetics proves that a single pair of anything cannot propagate an entire species.

 

The second is huge amounts of geological data that refutes a global flood, again the genetics here holds true.

 

The third, simple math refutes that this event ever occurred, one needs 2l of water a day to survive in a temperate climate let alone a desert that is 12 million litres of water a day which weighs 12 million kilograms. In a modern context, if stored in an average size water truck of 20,000l, you would have a convoy of these trucks parked nose to tail ±8.5km long just for human consumption. ZERO archaeological evidence of this big trek have ever been found, no grave sites, no pots and pans, NADA!

 

The last is Jesus. His lineage (and teachings) is/are traced back through the first three. Seeing they are in all likelihood myths, it is no brainer to deduce he is a mere fabrication of Rome.

 

The four pillars are like a four legged barstool, cut one off and it falls over.

 

Theologians start off with a one legged barstool then try and make it stand up on its own merits adding links to earlier myths to try and give it legs. The only way a one legged barstool can stand is if it is like a thumb tack, "Spin" is introduced and it does "appear" to stand up for awhile, wobbling from side to side until it loses inertia. (sound familiar?)

 

Even the claim to fame of the modern Jew fails in mathematical proportions. You can do this calculation yourself.

 

After the war in 70CE and the "start of the diaspora", assume 2 surviving pairs of breeders, ignore genetic constraints, each pair have 5 kids that go on to also have 5 kids with 3 generations surviving at any one time, a generation being the biblical 40 years. You math fundies should be able to create a simple formula for this. I did it on a spreadsheet. By now there should have been in excess of 450M Jews but we only have 15M. That is a lot of genocides and black plagues over 2000 years. What Hitler did should not even have caused a huge dent.

 

If I look back at my parents siblings and family sizes with the benefit of the then modern medical science, one side there were 10 kids born and 8 survived to procreate and the other side 12 where 9 survived to procreate. That was a mere ±100 years back. For the exercise, one can assume 10 kids born and 50% mortality which should balance out wars and pestilence et al.

 

It is my opinion, that their origins are a lot younger than claimed and their origins are Turkey (IIRC) not Israel as it was back then. IOW most are descendants of later converts rather than the descendants of Israeli Jews.

 

Applying this logic to 3 breeders post fludd starting off the human race ±4000 years ago, to get to 7+Bn today, the level of breeding and low mortality is quite phenomenal.

 

All that theologians and so called bible scholars have is conjecture. Science and math refute all of their claims. 1+1 is always = to 2, no agenda.

[RenaissanceWoman]

...E.g take the garden of Eden a cherubim was stationed there.  No where do we hear what happened to this Cherubim so how can we say it existed...

 

I asked about this once in a Bible study group, and the answer was that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood, so of course it did not need to be guarded any more. Because, you know, Christians have a convenient answer for everything. (Eye roll.)

 

As for all the people who rose from the dead on that first Easter weekend... I asked about this too. Why don't we have hundreds of "Heaven is Real" books from these people? The answer I got is that they were not in heaven yet, because Jesus had not burst open the gates by his death and resurrection. Those people were merely asleep in their graves, waiting... they were not in heaven yet. Yeah... OK... but wouldn't some historian somewhere have noticed such an event? Wouldn't that news have spread like wildfire? There was enough trade, travel, and literacy in the region for someone -- even one person -- to have written it down. I just got more of the same nonsense answers. (Of course someone wrote it down -- the gospel writer! Duh!) Ummm... I was looking for corroborative non-Bible sources, just sayin'.

 

I'm done with circular arguments, using the Bible to prove itself.

 

You bring up good points, monkeyman. It's all bogus.

[Geezer]

I am in the Jesus was a myth camp for a number of reasons. Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty, but primarily Price, have presented, IMO, the strongest arguments for a mythical Jesus. And as another poster has already eluted to his name would have most certainly been Joshua not Jesus.

 

A messiah named Joshua would have been required to fulfill the Jewish belief that God was going to bring Joshua back to life to lead his people back to prominence and free them from their oppressors. When the entire story is placed in context, a mythical Jesus becomes the most reasonable and logical alternative, IMO. His name didn’t become Jesus until the oral stories were translated from Aramaic and written in Greek.

 

Finally, the commonly recognized fact that there is no historical Jesus is significant and, IMO, must be factored into the equation too. And has been mentioned numerous times, it doesn’t matter whether a man named Joshua or Jesus actually existed. It only matters whether he was actually god incarnate. If he wasn’t then he becomes a relatively insignificant figure in Jewish history, if he actually existed in the flesh.

[Geezer]

Duplicate Post Deleted.

[RipVanWinkle]

Sorry, but what does IMO mean?

[Geezer]

Sorry, but what does IMO mean?

 

In my opinion

 

Or as Joey Tribbiani might say, “The point is moo." In other words, it’s just a cows opinion and nobody cares what a cow thinks.”

[R. S. Martin]

In my sojourn through academia, I encountered at least three Christian profs who admitted in some form or another that there is no factual evidence for a historical Jesus. I take that as pretty strong evidence that he didn't exist.

 

I've seen enough evidence of the kind of religion that did exist at the time the Jesus myth evolved to explain where it could have come from. And I don't need Egyptian gods to make it make sense though I admit they help.

 

I've also seen Bart Ehrman's argument for why Jesus must have existed as a historical figure.

 

Like someone says here, in order to matter to us Jesus would have had to do more than exist as a historical figure. He would have had to be God incarnate. I think I have figured out that there is no such thing as the supernatural. If the supernatural does not exist, there can be no "God incarnate."

 

All that aside, Jesus supposedly said: I am the way, the truth, and the life.

 

So if we have found the truth about life and the universe, I guess we've found Jesus, huh? Whatever, the only way I can live is first of all knowing what is factually true about life and the universe. I can't live with delusion regarding that. I've got five senses with which to learn about the universe and a mind with which to analyze the data. It is a fact that God has not yet shown up in all my data analysis so that must be the truth. 

 

Because of the obvious confusion it would cause to say so, I don't normally say I found Jesus (as in Jesus=truth) but the scriptural basis exists to do so.

[R. S. Martin]

Historians and scholars can't "clear this up" so I doubt we'll find the definitive answer here. Most seem to agree there probably was such a character, some think he's a composite character, and all but the religiously funded studies admit they must make an educated guess on this one. There is no definitive evidence, and the only reason people are even looking into this is the mention of such a person in the Bible, a notoriously unreliable document in its own right.

 

Absolutely on all counts.

[ExCBooster]

... Suppose some archaeologist finds Jesus' body... *hilarity ensues*

[R. S. Martin]

... Suppose some archaeologist finds Jesus' body... *hilarity ensues*

 

The Christians could explain it, trust me.

 

The first idea that occurs to me is Paul's idea that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven but instead the mortal puts on immortality. The body is left behind and a heavenly one is assumed...That would call for a reinterpretation of the ascension story but Christians are good at reinterpreting the Bible to make it fit their view of reality. Witness those who think God directed evolution. Etc.

 

PS We might have to allow another five centuries for this kind of thing to happen but all I'm saying is the possibility exists, given what they're in the habit of doing to dogma.

[gall]

Historians and scholars can't "clear this up" so I doubt we'll find the definitive answer here. Most seem to agree there probably was such a character, some think he's a composite character, and all but the religiously funded studies admit they must make an educated guess on this one. There is no definitive evidence, and the only reason people are even looking into this is the mention of such a person in the Bible, a notoriously unreliable document in its own right.

 

I know one thing for certain if he did exist a man by this name in that era of history in that location he surely was not...

 

White, bearded guy with happy eyes. He looks like a nice guy and all but really he would have a much nicer tan than all those images. Probably a handle bar stash as well

[Sybaris]

I came across this today on Machines Like Us:

 

New book: Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All

 

Actually it's not new (2010) and you can find it on the interweb under Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus in PDF. It covers all the usual grounds.....eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, Jesus was famous, the gospels are consistent etc., etc..

 

I've read some good and bad reviews of the book.

 

Anyone read it?

[Geezer]

I came across this today on Machines Like Us:

 

New book: Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All

 

Actually it's not new (2010) and you can find it on the interweb under Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus in PDF. It covers all the usual grounds.....eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, Jesus was famous, the gospels are consistent etc., etc..

 

I've read some good and bad reviews of the book.

 

Anyone read it?

 

 

I read the online version today. Good read and it appears to confirm both Doherty and Price books on this subject. When the evidence for a mythical Jesus is investigated and analyzed I believe the Jesus story being a myth is the most logical and rational alternative. There really isn't any evidence that supports an earthly Jesus ever having existed. Support for a human Jesus seems to be based on tradition rather than reality.

[Kris]

I have a copy of Nailed, and actually had an email or two with the author.  I also have the new book by Price, Carrier, and and few others that is a counter-arguement to the Bart Ehrman Book-- Did Jesus Exist?  It is pretty interesting to see what they have to say.

[Geezer]

Ehrman is one of my favorite authors but I thought his book, presenting his reasons for favoring an earthly Jesus, was weak and generally not up to the standards of his other books.

[Kris]

I agree with that Geezer-- loved Forged, but didn't like this book at all

[Kris]

One more thought about this that has been niggling at me-- in the Original Post, there were a few links-- I clicked on all of them, but the second one provided had a statement or two that bothered me.  In the article, the author discussses Josephus and the Testimonium Flavium (TF), and the argumments about how much was written by Josephus and what might have been added in, etc. but seems to support that Josephus actually did mention Jesus.  He also states that there is another document that seems to be more in tune with what Josephus may have actually written.  When I did a little research on this, I was only able to find the greek manuscript information that seemed to be the current versions of what we have, with the oldest of these being from the 11th century. 

 

The only other manuscripts appear to be the Slavonic (in which appears to have been an interpolation of this text into the War of the Jews-- wrong book!) and the Arabic and Syrian versions that were discovered by Sholo Pines and have information about Jesus is the same basic area as the Greek TF's, but don't use all the same language and don't seem to indicate that Jesus was actually the messiah, but was percieved as the messiah by some-- anyway, is this the manuscript that this author of the article was talking about? 

[Geezer]

Kris try this link http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf     I saw you read Nailed, this is the online version. That link probably won't help you much since you've read the book. It's a short read so others might find it helpful.

 

I've never read a historian that believes Josephus references to Jesus were authentic. Those references do not appear in earlier copies of Josephus writings a clear indication they were added later. You obviously have information that I don't have.

 

I think when the entire preponderance of evidence is examined it’s difficult to believe a human Jesus existed, but that's just me. Unless this earthly Jesus, if such a person existed, was God incarnate it wouldn't seem to matter whether he was a man or a myth.

[Guest]

I am on the camp of Jesus never existed. The model I use is the 4 pillars of Christianity being;

1. Genesis (Adam and Eve)
2. The flood
3. Exodus and the laws
4. Jesus

The first, knowledge of modern genetics proves that a single pair of anything cannot propagate an entire species.

 

The second is huge amounts of geological data that refutes a global flood, again the genetics here holds true.

 

The third, simple math refutes that this event ever occurred, one needs 2l of water a day to survive in a temperate climate let alone a desert that is 12 million litres of water a day which weighs 12 million kilograms. In a modern context, if stored in an average size water truck of 20,000l, you would have a convoy of these trucks parked nose to tail ±8.5km long just for human consumption. ZERO archaeological evidence of this big trek have ever been found, no grave sites, no pots and pans, NADA!

 

The last is Jesus. His lineage (and teachings) is/are traced back through the first three. Seeing they are in all likelihood myths, it is no brainer to deduce he is a mere fabrication of Rome.

 

The four pillars are like a four legged barstool, cut one off and it falls over.

 

Theologians start off with a one legged barstool then try and make it stand up on its own merits adding links to earlier myths to try and give it legs. The only way a one legged barstool can stand is if it is like a thumb tack, "Spin" is introduced and it does "appear" to stand up for awhile, wobbling from side to side until it loses inertia. (sound familiar?)

 

Even the claim to fame of the modern Jew fails in mathematical proportions. You can do this calculation yourself.

 

After the war in 70CE and the "start of the diaspora", assume 2 surviving pairs of breeders, ignore genetic constraints, each pair have 5 kids that go on to also have 5 kids with 3 generations surviving at any one time, a generation being the biblical 40 years. You math fundies should be able to create a simple formula for this. I did it on a spreadsheet. By now there should have been in excess of 450M Jews but we only have 15M. That is a lot of genocides and black plagues over 2000 years. What Hitler did should not even have caused a huge dent.

 

If I look back at my parents siblings and family sizes with the benefit of the then modern medical science, one side there were 10 kids born and 8 survived to procreate and the other side 12 where 9 survived to procreate. That was a mere ±100 years back. For the exercise, one can assume 10 kids born and 50% mortality which should balance out wars and pestilence et al.

 

It is my opinion, that their origins are a lot younger than claimed and their origins are Turkey (IIRC) not Israel as it was back then. IOW most are descendants of later converts rather than the descendants of Israeli Jews.

 

Applying this logic to 3 breeders post fludd starting off the human race ±4000 years ago, to get to 7+Bn today, the level of breeding and low mortality is quite phenomenal.

 

All that theologians and so called bible scholars have is conjecture. Science and math refute all of their claims. 1+1 is always = to 2, no agenda.

 

I, too, am in the "jesus never existed" myth for all the reasons you listed, plus a few more:

 

We know the earliest christian writings started to appear around the time of the destruction of the second temple in 70CE.  iirc, some things may have been written earlier, but it was a tense time, and I doubt the Romans just got up one day and decided to raze the temple; there was a lead up to the revolt.  Besides the dating of the earliest manuscripts, there is also christian doctrine to consider.

 

Without a central temple, Judaism could no longer sacrifice animals for forgiveness of their sins.  Therefore, there must be some way to get around this, and the (old pagan) idea of a god-man dying for sins was grafted onto a sect of judaism in an attempt to continue on.  "The temple is gone!  How can we sacrifice our animals?"  "Don't worry, we don't need to.  God sent us his son to die for our sins..."  We also know that the earliest christians were considered a sect of judaism, and it was not until Paul lifted all the Jewish restrictions (dietary, circumcision, etc) that they were able to attract any real numbers of people.  I feel it may have been started as a way to continue Judaism, but it morphed into it's own cult and then state powered religion in its effort to survive.

 

So when you consider that evolution shows there was no Adam & Eve, so no original sin and thus no need for salvation, then no mention of the son of god outside of obvious religious documents, and that those said documents have very real and convincing political reasons for being composed and promoted, there is really no other conclusion, for me, that jesus was anything other than a myth.  It may have been a composite from the many, many jesus-like characters floating around back then, but the jesus as we have come to know him, is 100% myth.

[Guest]

Sorry, I tried to edit my above post and I dont know what happened.  I must have double clicked something...