Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Greediguts]

I'm sorry, I just can't get past that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing. I would never follow a faith with bloodstained hands.

So what Christian faith are you left with then??

 

[The Norseman]

Again, maybe poke around the AJ blog some more. The author seems to support that conclusion and points out flaws on both sides.



Well, I agree that the concept of the Christ of the gospels was cobbled together. I agree that the comparisions to creationism are cheap, not a great fit, and a hinderance to rational, calm discourse. I try to stay away from extreme language. I feel there is an amount of exasperation among scholars in the field and that might be where some of it comes from.

Did you read the comments over peer review and mythicists? Any thoughts?

I haven't read it yet, but I will and post in this thread.

 

[RandFan]

The funny thing is what became orthodoxy and what became heretical grew up together, borrowing from each. You can't really divide the two. For someone to say the church "lost the light of Christ" you would have to prove, before the Catholic church was formed, what flavor of Christianity was the correct one based upon the copies (of the copies, etc.) of the texts, the writings of the early church fathers, and what we know of ancient history to support that idea of a church.

You will get no argument from me. I've since found that the narative woven by the LDS church is so cherry picked and so much info is glossed over if not downright ignored that there is simply no basis to support the idea. It looks great on paper... their paper written by their appologists.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, I just can't get past that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing. I would never follow a faith with bloodstained hands.

That warms my heart.

Deuteronomy 20:17
Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Judges 21:11
This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Oops...

 

[gph]

As a life long atheist I've had a casual interest in theology just to try and understand how otherwise rational people could buy these daft stories hook, line and sinker. I assumed Jesus was real based on some of the typical cult leader type sayings attributed to him. Statements like take no thought for tomorrow, no one gets to the father but through me and the disown your family verses struck me as just like the personality of any Jim Jones or David Koresh like figure. Jesus came off as a typical self aggrandizing cult leader with a revisionary supernatural pedestal rammed up his cold dead arse. He seemed to possess a personality that is, sadly, all too typical and therefore he was probably real.

That was before I read the relevant threads on this forum. If the evidence presented in these threads for a HJ is all there is the only sane position is "who knows". When I combine the unyielding resolve and flippant dismissals from the historical camp with the seemingly scant evidence for a HJ, what am I left to conclude?

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, I just can't get past that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing. I would never follow a faith with bloodstained hands.

Christianity, inquisitions, crusades, hundreds of years of holy war, plundering, pillaging, raping, the killing of apostates, etc., etc.. Glad you are so discriminating.

 

[Buckyball]

I already said it can't be done.
I was telling what could be done.

I can't be done? Why not? I can easily offer evidence that even the most menial of thieves existed during Jesus's lifetime, due to Roman records.

If it "can't be done", then it would be wise for me not to believe Jesus ever even existed.

 

[Buckyball]

"There are a quite few indication that Jesus might have existed as a human "

"I would not expect anything solid for a no-name guy of that epoch"

Funny, I can find records of "no-name" guys who were executed at the same general time. I can find records of Pontius Pilate (just another roman official among many), yet no records of this "no-name" guy who apparently started the world's second-largest religion and was considered such a danger to the Roman Empire that he was executed... whose followers were blamed for burning Rome... who was apparently visited by Kings just after being born...

Hmm, something's not adding up here.

 

[Buckyball]

"You have these 12 guys who branch out in different directions telling the same story about their dead leader at great costs and risk to their own life? And it is all made up?"

Yep, that seems to be the case. Did they believe their own stories? probably...

These people also claimed miracles and other nonsense... were those not "made up"? Of course they were.

 

[Buckyball]

"The Resurrection, upon which there is very much historical evidence for its occurrence."


maybe you forgot to read the thread title... I'm not asking people to chime in to make any old claim they please, then run off.

i'
m asking for evidence.

Since you are so well-convinced and well-versed in this topic, surely your failure to provide any of this "abundant evidence" was a mere oversight and such evidence is forthcoming.

I won't hold my breath

 

[PGH]

All I know is if it's this hard to prove if he even existed I'm certainly not going to trust much else that is claimed to be "known" about the man.

 

[Bill Thompson]

How about this. Why? Why convince you Jesus existed? What benefit is there to be gained either way?

 

[Greediguts]

In previous threads I've wondered what meaning this question has, and I haven't gotten a satisfying answer yet.

From the account of the biblical character Jesus, we know that most of the defining characteristics and events were simply untrue.
-No one was born to a virgin.
-No one healed lepers or cripples with the power of touch or brought the dead back to life.
-No one walked on water or turned it into wine, or magically multiplied bread and fish
-No one stormed the moneychangers in the temple (That would have made the history books)
-No one was ressurected after tee days of death.

We know these things because we are intelligent people.

So what's left? A preacher named Joshua gave some sermons that contained ideas already in circulation at the time and was executed by the Romans? There were tons of preachers, many of whom said the same things and more than a few were executed. What historical difference does it make whether the writings of the gospels, created decades later were about a particular one of these people or some amalgmation of the type?

I'll try to do my best to answer this (and gph I guess I direct this response to you as well).

(Minor nitpick - I would disagree that Jesus overturning tables in the Temple courtyard would have made the history books but ...meh.)

I was a mythicist. When I first started lurking here I made no distinction between a historical Jesus and a mythic Christ. I felt the distinction was unimportant really and did not bother to read any of the historical theories regarding Jesus. In discussions online with (fundamentalist) Christians, I would just quote/link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, point and laugh at their silliness.

It was Radrook (remember him?) who got me thinking what do I really know about the bible, its history, compilation, meanings, versions, etc. that started me on this path. He challenged me by stating I knew nothing of the bible. Instead of pulling out the usual arguments (a brain-dead dog with three legs can see it's all a load of poop) I decided to see if there were books that painted a different picture.

Now my study resulted in the opposite of what Radrook wanted (my atheism was strengthened not weakened) but opened up a much larger world to examine. Bart Ehrman and Randel Helms were my first authors that I read and I couldn't get enough.

I spent about two years just reading various scholars and finally decided this past year to re-enter college after a couple decade sabbatical and have started taking classes to further my knowledge. So far I've gotten to study New Testament scholarship, Judaism (which was eye-opening. I never realized how much my understanding of Judaism was perceived through a Christian lens), Roman history, and a class I recently finished was on the Historical Method: Theory and Approach (how one "does" history). I start learning classical Greek and Hebrew this fall (I was attempting to learn Hebrew through some intermittent e-mail correspondence with a rabbi and a couple of books - attending a class will be much easier!) and will continue to expand my historical horizons (more Roman history, Islam, Ancient Greece, etc.).

Why? What does it matter? Well, that one little question "Was there a historical Jesus" has opened up many new avenues of learning for me. I'm not under the impression that I will ever get a 100% satisfactory answer to it, but I do feel I will better understand the historical context of the time and place when these events and people (or completely 100% fabricated fan-fics based on a 100% completely mythical Christ) happened and how it shaped the world then and continues to shape the world now. "The devil is in the details" for me.

Maybe the scholars are biased and wrong. Maybe not. I still look forward to being able to read ancient manuscripts written in Greek or Hebrew, whether religious or not, just for my own benefit. A chance to feel a connection to a lost time and place; to see how much we have changed and how much we have stayed the same...why does anyone study history? (Seriously, I wouldn't mind hearing people's thoughts on that topic.)

Sorry for going off on a personal tangent, but all I can say is... I enjoy the process.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The conjecture that Jesus did not exist was popular for about 25-50 years at the end of the last century. Since that time, even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person. There is no current credible scholar who makes your claim.

The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the first century is overwhelming. Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians. In fact, there are many well-known non-Christian historians who mention Jesus:

• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.) mentions that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate and gives detailed descriptions of Nero’s persecutions — which are also alluded to in several places in the New Testament.

• The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) corroborates the New Testament history including the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Nero.

• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, makes mention of Jesus, John the Baptist and the James, the brother of Jesus. Recent scholarship has indicated that at least most if not all of Josephus' mention of Jesus authentic. Other references to New Testament figures corrroborate the Christian Gospel writers.

On The Travel Channel, they mention that John the Baptist's grave was later dug up and the bones were decorated and passed from one leader to the next and are now in a Turkish Museum. So there is physical evidence of John the Baptist, but you say his first cousin, Jesus is a myth? That is a conspiracy theory. That goes against Occom's Razor.

Edited. Cut out the name calling, please. Also, if you copy and paste text from elsewhere, Rule 4 requires that (a) you quote only a short passage; (b) you cite it so that it's clear that you are copying it from elsewhere, and post a link to the source.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Greediguts]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

Uncalled-for Bill. This does nothing to promote civil discourse.

Not to mention the Travel Channel is a poor source for scholarship...

 

[RandFan]

The conjecture that Jesus did not exist was popular for about 25-50 years at the end of the last century. Since that time, even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person. There is no current credible scholar who makes your claim.

Nonsense but who gives a damn. No historian claimed people rose from the dead and walked aroud Jeuselum or that there was a crucifiction that resulted in a resurection. Whatever contemporary historians did or did not believe they certainly didn't care much since scant little is in the record.

• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.) mentions that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate and gives detailed descriptions of Nero’s persecutions — which are also alluded to in several places in the New Testament.

• The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) corroborates the New Testament history including the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Nero.

• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, makes mention of Jesus, John the Baptist and the James, the brother of Jesus. Recent scholarship has indicated that at least most if not all of Josephus' mention of Jesus authentic. Other references to New Testament figures corrroborate the Christian Gospel writers.

These have been debunked before but we can do it again. Sources please?

On The Travel Channel, they mention that John the Baptist's grave was later dug up and the bones were decorated and passed from one leader to the next and are now in a Turkish Museum. So there is physical evidence of John the Baptist, but you say his first cousin, Jesus is a myth? That is a conspiracy theory. That goes against Occom's Razor.

Because eveything on TV is confirmed by independant parties, The Travel Channel goes further and requires confirmation by a panel of experts including skeptics.

Really Bill? Seriously? Are you looking to invest in realestate?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

Oh, WE are the retards because we don't swallow everything on TV?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you think it strange that every one of the many passages about Jesus' existence is questioned by the skeptics? An objective investigator would conclude that if there were so many testimonies that corroborated each other in minute detail then the testimony must be accurate to a greatt degree.

If we compare Jesus to the fifth or sixth century legend of King Arthur, we find in Arthur a king who probably did exist. But there are so many variants in the legend it is impossible to pinpoint when and where the legend ends and the historical facts begin. There are no written accounts of Arthur within several centuries of his existence, yet many historians believe there was Briton war lord named Arthur son of Uther Pendragon who lived in the early sixth century.

The story of Jesus is completely different in that we have thousands of accounts giving exact details of His life within 30 years of His crucifixion. In the next 100 years after His death, there are thousands of references to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.

Other first and second century writers who wrote about Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation, are:

• Clement (A.D. c. 30-100) the Bishop of Rome

• The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. c. 70-130)

• Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) the Bishop of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John

• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110) the Bishop of Antioch

• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200) the second century Bishop of Lyons

• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) the second century apologist

• Clement (A.D. 150 -215) the second century Bishop of Alexandria

 

[Greediguts]

Bill if you are going to copy and paste from other websites, maybe, at least, acknowledge that fact.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Really Bill? Seriously? Are you looking to invest in realestate?

Yeah, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel have been known to be untrue.

But I have seen at least two stories on The Discovery Channel that insist that Jesus existed based on first hand historic accounts.

Without studying the issue, and it is not a high priority for me anyway, and given the opportuity to choose between The Discovery Channel and passionate atheists on an internet forum, which do YOU think I would side with since I regard atheism as just another faith complete with its single-minded preachers?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill if you are going to copy and paste from other websites, maybe, at least, acknowledge that fact.

OK. Sorry.