Did Jesus exist?

[dafydd]

I never take the NT and Apocrypha at face value like you do--they are not history.

You don't say!! Stop the presses!

 

[dejudge]

You don't say!! Stop the presses!

Who are actively arguing that Jesus was really from Nazareth, really had a brother called James, was actually baptized by John, caused a havoc in the Temple and crucified under Pilate in Jerusalem?

Not me!!

HJers and Christians take parts of the NT at face value.

I argue that the Gospels are forgeries or falsely attributed to fake 1st century authors, that they are not history but a compilation of Jewish, Greek and Roman myth fables

Who are actively arguing that Paul wrote letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians and Philippians since c 62 CE claiming that Jesus was crucifird since 37-41 CE or since the time of Aretas?

Not me!!

Christians and HJers take parts of the Pauline Corpus at face value.

I argue that the Pauline Corpus played no role in the early development of the Jesus cult and was fabricated to deceive no earlier than c 180 CE

In effect, early Paul was a fraud.

HJers and Christians must take parts of the NT at face value because the NT is their primary source for the historical biography of their Jesus.

 

[dafydd]

Who are actively arguing that Jesus was really from Nazareth, really had a brother called James, was actually baptized by John, caused a havoc in the Temple and crucified under Pilate in Jerusalem?

Who cares? You may as well get het up over the Lord Of The Rings.

 

[catsmate]

Of course Jesus existed.

Evidence?

One of the easier ways to determine this is the following:<snippage of much rambling gibberish>

So no evidence then. Quelle surprise.

But no one should really be surprised by this, as the majority of atheist are not busy looking for the truth/signs which would point them in the direction of God. Most enjoy operating in the realm of willful ignorance, this is despite the age we currently live in where so much information and knowledge can be found just a few clicks away.

Aww someone seems to have had a nerve poked.
In reality of course atheists tend to know more than those suffering from religion about those religions; in much the same way that someone suffereing from a different mental illness isn't a good person to try an analyse that illness.

 

[mikeb768]

Evidence?

So no evidence then. Quelle surprise.

Aww someone seems to have had a nerve poked.
In reality of course atheists tend to know more than those suffering from religion about those religions; in much the same way that someone suffereing from a different mental illness isn't a good person to try an analyse that illness.

So in your opinion did Herod the father of Herod Antipater exist?

 

[dejudge]

Who cares? You may as well get het up over the Lord Of The Rings.

You may be posting in the wrong thread. This thread was specifically started for those who care whether or not Jesus did Exist.

This is a Poll on the very question of the existence of Jesus entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"

Who cares if you don't care about the question?

 

[dogjones]

I went with option 1, although I don't know whether he was actually a Rabbi. Really, I think it's more plausible that the Xtian myth was built around an actual person than a nebulous collection of other myths.

I believe his real name was Karl Glogauer...

 

[tsig]

I went with option 1, although I don't know whether he was actually a Rabbi. Really, I think it's more plausible that the Xtian myth was built around an actual person than a nebulous collection of other myths.

I believe his real name was Karl Glogauer...

I imagine he was real popular at keggers during his college years.

 

[Big Al]

Jesus was the last vestige of my religious belief. By the end, I believed he was a deluded but real rabbi who was "bigged up" into something more than he was.

However, the more I have read on parallels between Jesus, Mithras, Horus and many other mythical saviours, the more I have moved towards, "There probably was no historical Jesus".

No mentions of Jesus by contemporary historians is another indicator for me.

 

[Tassman]

He does...

Uh, no. DID! (probably).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uh, no. DID! (probably).

Which Jesus?

 

[Tom Skylark]

The people who said Nero burned so many Christians have a good answer. Nero lit up Christians making human torches out of them.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2011/20111124.htm

 

[dejudge]

The people who said Nero burned so many Christians have a good answer. Nero lit up Christians making human torches out of them.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2011/20111124.htm

The very passage has been disputed. The word Chrestians appears to be the original word not Christians.

The earliest existing passage with Tacitus Annals 15.44 show conclusive evidence of manipulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians

The passage states:
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..."
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

 

[Craig B]

The people who said Nero burned so many Christians have a good answer. Nero lit up Christians making human torches out of them.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2011/20111124.htm

Regrettably, the people who say that lived some decades later, and most certainly got their information from the Christians of their own day. Contemporaries of Nero don't mention this incident. That is not to say Nero didn't oppress and kill people. He was a madman. But it is probable that he oppressed lots of people, Christians among them, if there were any in Rome then, following the fire.

I think, by the way, that the reference in the Annals is authentic, but the information sources underlying it are later, and not wholly reliable. It is most improbable that Tacitus obtained data independently of later Christian informants. Notably, he refers to Pilate as a "procurator", rather than a "prefect", the title given him in the only contemporary extant source, an inscription from a public building he dedicated in Judaea to his master, Tiberius.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think the question "Was there a Jesus" has to be worded very carefully and is actually several questions in one.

1. Did someone named "Jesus" (or a name that could later be translated into Jesus) exist during the time frame in question.
2. Did someone named "Jesus" (again same modifier) perform the miraculous acts described in New Testament.
3. To what level is the modern idea of Jesus based on a real person/persons.

The answer to number 1 is meaningless. Yeah probably, but that is a pointless statement.

The answer to number 2 is a solid no. Outside of the fantastical abilities prescribed to the character, none of the narratives of his existence are contemporary. The earliest reference to Jesus comes some time after his death.

Number 3 is the most complicated and whole books have been written on trying to make sense of that question.

The issue with Jesus Apologetic is that they shift back and forth between 1 and 2 depending on what they are arguing. Jesus was either the magical son of the giant invisible sky wizard that forever changed the course of history and made a lasting mark on everyone he met... or just some guy depending on what they need him to be at that point in the argument.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Better question is "Did a man who was the actual son of the only true God ever exist?" That would be a very short thread, however.

 

[dejudge]

What he said was That's different from merely not "writing history". Do you accept dejudge's view that the entirety of the NT was intentionally composed as deceitful fiction in the late second or early fourth century, is forged in its totality, and contains no notices of events in the first century? I agree that the gospels are not "writing history" but dejudge's view goes far beyond that.

Please, stop making continuous fallacious statements about my position or else I will report it.

Your fallacious statements are getting out of control.

Please retract your blatant erroneous statement immediately.

You do not agree that the gospels are not "writing history" because you use the very gospels for the history of your crucified Jesus.



I have stated many times that the NT contains 1st century BCE-1 st century CE characters like Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High Priest, John the Baptist, King Herod the Great, the Tetrarch of Herod, Bernice, Herodias who can be found in non-Aplogetic sources but I cannot find Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

I have also stated that Bart Ehrman has pointed out the Gospels are forgeries and not eyewitness accounts. Other Scholars have also argued that the Entire Pauline Corpus are 2nd century writings.


No NT manuscripts and Codices have ever been found and dated to the time of Jesus, the disciples and Paul and there are Apologetic and non-Apologetic writers who mentioned nothing of Paul, and the Pauline Corpus.

The author of Acts, even though he mentioned Paul over a hundred and thirty times, never once admitted that Paul wrote letters to Churches or Patorals.

The existing available evidence support the argument that the Jesus story and Pauline Corpus were unknown in the 1st century.

 

[IanS]

Better question is "Did a man who was the actual son of the only true God ever exist?" That would be a very short thread, however.

Another good question would be -

"is the biblical writing alone reliable enough evidence to show Jesus probably existed?"​

Point being - that biblical writing is actually the only known source of anyone ever mentioning a messiah named Jesus (but see footnote re. Moses 1000BC) . Outside of the bible, the only other writing that makes any mention of Jesus, comes only from later authors such as Tacitus and Josephus who could never themselves have known Jesus, and whose only known possible source was again that same biblical writing.

IOW - the bible is the only known source of it's own messiah stories. Though that tells only of beliefs in an earlier messiah (since died) who was the supernatural son of God in heaven, believed according to ancient religious prophecy in their Old Testament. Is that writing alone good enough as evidence that he probably existed?


Footnote - Though, as it happens - afaik, in one book of the ancient OT, the name of “Jesus” ("Yehoshua") was actually supposedly prophesised by none other than Moses himself as far back as about 1000BC! (albeit, afaik, many modern bible scholars now think Moses may have been only fictional anyway!).

 

[dafydd]

Which Jesus?

Yeshua ben Yosef.

 

[Big Al]

Yeshua ben Yosef.

Or Joshua Josephson... or, if you believe, Joshua Manson.