Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[bikerdruid]

I have argued for some time that it's trivial to assert that there was a historical Jesus. Nobody special, just some guy who moved from cosmopolitan Galilee to uber-Jewish Judea and found that nothing there really jibed with what he'd been brought up with (don't forget, they raised pigs in Galilee -- that'd probably be unheard of in Judea). He found a girlfriend named Maryam and a bunch of friends who agreed with his message of "lighten up and treat each other with respect even if you hate them". Those friends, including his brother (and probably Maryam), were the core of the early Christian church until Paul came along. Said historical Jesus wound up crucified for inciting a riot on the Temple Mount. All of this comes under "sure, why not, Paul probably didn't pull the whole thing out of thin air". There are glimpses of this historical Jesus buried in the Gospels, though since this Jesus was of no particular importance in his life, it's still a "sure why not". I'd guess Paul's church or a Gnostic group was the one that wound up attaching all the Messianic imagery to him.

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed. It's a fool's errand because the existence of a historical personage behind the stories doesn't really make any difference as to whether the doctrine is true or not. Paul Bunyan may have actually existed, may have been a really tall lumberjack, and might have owned an oddly colored pet bull; he almost certainly wouldn't have been an actual giant, and he obviously didn't carve the Grand Canyon. (Please note that I actually don't know anything about the Paul Bunyan backstory; it's just a hypothetical.) It is... fascinating... how people go to such lengths to deny the existence of Jesus when it doesn't even make any sense to consider the question absent actual evidence of fabrication.

I'm an atheist. I believe Jesus existed. I don't think he was God, and I'd imagine the closest thing he ever might have done to a miracle was knowing where the rocks were. He clearly had a few mental issues, which rules out being some avatar of perfection, but a fundamental message of tolerance and social justice made up for that. It's hard to say much more than that, especially since the gospels aren't exactly consistent about the whole story. Proof? No such animal.

cool. i think that seems pretty reasonable.
i'm not a christian, but i like jesus. i've always figured that he probably lived.
paul certainly ********** the whole thing up.

 

[RandFan]

Comedian Dana Carvey (sp?) had a funny bit about what it would have taken for OJ Simpson to be innocent. He went through imitating all the persons who had to be in on the conspiracy to plant evidence and what it would take to pull it off. Dana said "frame OJ? But I like OJ? But, the conspiracy is too good to pass up. Count me in!

I have it taped. I love it.

It seems unlikely that a a movement as big as Christianity to have been started without some living person at the heart of it.

Straw man. No one is claiming that there is no person at the heart.

So many people would of had to had said "sacrifice my life starting a fake religion? But I like my life! But you are right, the conspiracy is too exciting to pass up. Count me in !!".

Nope, again, straw man. BTW: Mormonism grew faster than Christianity did in the first 200 years. Christianity almost died out. You are ignoring a lot of facts that we do know. Like it was a small cult that grew slowly.

Another analogy is the moon landing hoax conspiracy. If the moon landings never happened, the Russians would have known about it. Likewise, if Jesus was just made up, the Jews would have blew the whistle on the scam.

Nope. That's invented in your head. Like Mormonism, Scientology, Seventh Day Adventist it started small and grew. No big deal. No one claims any conspiracy. That's just you grasping at straws.

Instead Jesus is mentioned in Jewish text (albeit not very favorably). I think if the very existance of the man was a scam, the Jews had the means to have figured that out and they would have made an issue of it.

People attacked the Mormon Church at the beginning. They exposed Joseph Smith but it didn't stop the Church from being one of the fastest growing Churches in history without killing people if they didn't join (Christianity).

If mainstream historians rally around the idea that the man was entirely a lie, I will like to hear that. For now it seems like an idea on the lunatic fringe.

Another straw man. Mainstream historians believe Christianity was one of many messianic cults that actually survived and grew. It got lucky. BTW, did you know that Christ wasn't the only messiah?

And RandiFan seems to have a special interest in convincing himself and others. If I had been a Mormon, I might feel the same way.

Aren't YOU trying to convince yourself and others? I'm a skeptic. This is a skeptics forum. We are interested in truth and evidence.

Do you have evidence? I didn't think so.

 

[RandFan]

Uh huh. You know you are giving me flash-backs back when I was living with a Mormon family and they told me all that they believe. For me to accept Mormonism, a lof of things I had learned over my life from credible sources would have to be a lie such as History, Biology, Genetics, Human Origins... Likewise, for me to buy all the suprising things I have only heard from you, I would have to dismiss a lot of things I have learned. It is another huge pill to swallow. There is no such thing at the Q gospel? Is this what you are saying? The word-for-word exact quotes from Christ that are in all four traditional gospels are just coincidence and Bible scholars all think this way. Wow, dude, that is news to me.

To believe in Christianity you would have to believe in talking snakes, witches, talking donkeys, wizardry, magic, walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrection, a guy living in a fish, yada yada yada.

That's a pretty damn large pill. But you don't care about that, do you? It's what you like so who cares if the Bible violates biology, genetics, human origins, history, physics, etc.

Oops... damn near forgot the granddaddy of them all. Virgin Birth.

Is that a small pill Bill?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have argued for some time that it's trivial to assert that there was a historical Jesus. Nobody special, just some guy who moved from cosmopolitan Galilee to uber-Jewish Judea and found that nothing there really jibed with what he'd been brought up with (don't forget, they raised pigs in Galilee -- that'd probably be unheard of in Judea). He found a girlfriend named Maryam and a bunch of friends who agreed with his message of "lighten up and treat each other with respect even if you hate them". Those friends, including his brother (and probably Maryam), were the core of the early Christian church until Paul came along. Said historical Jesus wound up crucified for inciting a riot on the Temple Mount. All of this comes under "sure, why not, Paul probably didn't pull the whole thing out of thin air". There are glimpses of this historical Jesus buried in the Gospels, though since this Jesus was of no particular importance in his life, it's still a "sure why not". I'd guess Paul's church or a Gnostic group was the one that wound up attaching all the Messianic imagery to him.

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed. It's a fool's errand because the existence of a historical personage behind the stories doesn't really make any difference as to whether the doctrine is true or not. Paul Bunyan may have actually existed, may have been a really tall lumberjack, and might have owned an oddly colored pet bull; he almost certainly wouldn't have been an actual giant, and he obviously didn't carve the Grand Canyon. (Please note that I actually don't know anything about the Paul Bunyan backstory; it's just a hypothetical.) It is... fascinating... how people go to such lengths to deny the existence of Jesus when it doesn't even make any sense to consider the question absent actual evidence of fabrication.

I'm an atheist. I believe Jesus existed. I don't think he was God, and I'd imagine the closest thing he ever might have done to a miracle was knowing where the rocks were. He clearly had a few mental issues, which rules out being some avatar of perfection, but a fundamental message of tolerance and social justice made up for that. It's hard to say much more than that, especially since the gospels aren't exactly consistent about the whole story. Proof? No such animal.

The bible, in and of itself, disproves much of itself. It's good like that. What I think you're missing is that this isn't about atheists getting a feather in their cap that Jesus never even existed. What it is about, at least for me, is the search for the truth. The cutting through the assertions and ******** and finding out whether he did, or did not, exist.

Let's face it, the Jesus that is purported to exist has such little relevance to the Jesus of the scriptures that he may as well have not existed for all that his actual existence matters to the validity of the scriptures. What does matter, IMO, is whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he did, or did not, indeed exist.

This, I think, is an important position to understand. The discussion of a HJ or JM is not always about "winning" a battle with Christians - for many, it's about discussing skeptically what evidence exists and how the conclusions that he did, or did not, exist were reached.

As with so many things, YMMV.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Each disciple claimed to have known and spoke with Christ personally

No they didn't.
Bill - have you ever READ the New Testament?
It appears not, when you make comments like that.

In fact - there are NO claims to have known Jesus.
Please stop falsely claiming that there are such claims.
(Apart from the SINGLE example of the forged 2 Peter.)


K.

 

[Leumas]

Peter is burried under the vatican. I guess he could have lied and made up his imagionary friend, Jesus, whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

Do you know that there are enough shards of the cross of Jesus around the catholic churches to make 10 crosses?

As far as Peter being burried in the vatican ....hear it from the mouths of the people concerned.

 

[RandFan]

Do you know that there are enough shards of the cross of Jesus around the catholic churches to make 10 crosses?

As far as Peter being burried in the vatican ....hear it from the mouths of the people concerned.

Thanks.

 

[Mudcat]

No one is burried under the vatican?

There was (what do you think catacombs are?), just that Saint whatsit isn't one of them. This might surprise you but the land that the Vatican was situated on belonged to Constantine. He had motivation to claim Peter was buried there and yet he didn't.

Hummm.... the conspiracy widens! That sounds all too familiar. That sounds like just about every other conspiracy.

There was a conspiracy alright, from the Christians who wanted to grab power and control for themselves.

 

[Akhenaten]

The word-for-word exact quotes from Christ that are in all four traditional gospels are just coincidence and Bible scholars all think this way.

Like the four word-for-word exact quotes of Jesus' last words for instance?

Wow, dude, that is news to me.

That's increasingly looking like a rather large category.

 

[Leumas]

How did Christianity get kicked off at such far flung regions of the planet if people did not go out there.

No one is burried under the vatican? Hummm.... the conspiracy widens! That sounds all too familiar. That sounds like just about every other conspiracy.

You need to read the story about the two little girls who bamboozled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and most of England for years....and still are. It is mentioned in the book Flim Flam which you need to read by the way....it will do you good. Also read Paranormality: Why We See What Isn't There

How about the little girls who started a religion called Spiritulaism and despite the girls admitting the chicanery, the adherents are still faithful believers.

Hucksters, scammers and downright liars have started religions throughout history…. You would be the first to gladly admit that.

Why is it that you cannot see that YOUR religion belongs to the same list of myths.

Do you believe that Athena existed because the Acropolis is a real building and it was her temple? Do you believe that Hercules existed because Gibraltar is a real rock and it was his pillars?

Millions of people for thousands of years believed in Zeus/Jupitor.... does that mean he was real.... Homer wrote all about Achilles does that mean he was real?

You have no difficulty what so ever to deny the reality of the above myths and to easily dismiss as credulous dupes the millions of people over hundreds of generations who believed in them as unequivocal reality.

Why can't you see that you are just as much of a credulous dupe as them.... in fact even more so....since you now have all the benefits of science and yet you elect to disregard all that knowledge and believe in a myth created by credulous dupes 3000 years ago.

 

[Leumas]

Thanks.

You are more than welcome...... did you notice the assertions starting at minute 8:35 where the guy states that "it does not matter that the tomb does not have Peter's bones....so long as the people believe it does...then it does"..... to hell with reality!

 

[Mudcat]

You need to read the story about the two little girls who bamboozled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and most of England for years....and still are.

I was already familiar with that. I found it ludicrous that people fell for such obvious fakes. Still, you'd think humanity would have learned by now. Apparently not because there are people who are followers of Cthulu and the FSM, this despite neither entity was claimed to be real by their creators.

And the Grecian and Latin gods/goddess? There are still followers of them.

 

[Bill Thompson]

It is a fun and entertaining theory. But it is half-baked. It is not good enough to say "Jesus never existed". You have to account for all the things that happened after he died and examine how likely it is that some comittee or some huge widely-accepted myth taken from thin air could have such an impact. When you are dealing with someone whose friends hung around, did stuff, and had an impact, you have to know where to draw the line between what is a myth and what is real.

For example, you say Paul never exited. Paul was the first bishop of Rome (this is before the spilt from the Greeks and the invention of the "Pope"). well, if Paul never existed and no one is burried under the vatican, was the second Bishop of Rome also a myth? He knew Paul. What about the other people who knew Paul, are they too myths. A tangible Bishop had to have come from some where. Which one was the real one.

It reminds me too much of people who say the moon landings were fake. Which Apollow missions were real and wihich ones were fake. Were Apollow 1-10 fake? What about 12 and so on?

But there is lots more. Greek history has accounts of Peter and Paul traveling around Greece. Are you saying all that was made up? Paul never met Jesus when he was alive. So is Paul real or a myth? Is Paul real and had an imaginary friend named Peter?

As you get a wider and wider historic account that impacts other history it gets difficult to draw a line between fact and myth and it is too difficult to accept that Jesus was made up. Who decided to make him up?

There is more. I remember hearing on the Podcast of The Infidel Guy that they even admitted there were a number of candidates of rabbis that Piolot crucified that could have been the basis of Jesus Christ. So there you go. Here is a real guy. But you are saying that the Christians did not even bother to pick one of them and make him a symbolic matyr of their movement?

Did Buddah exist? You might say "sure but he did not walk on water". But, in fact, years after he was gone, sure enough, there developed myths that he did, in fact, walk on water.

So I think it is not fair to say just because there are legends surrounding a religious figure, he automatically never existed.

 

[Mudcat]

So I think it is not fair to say just because there are legends surrounding a religious figure, he automatically never existed.

Actually I can and I have and I will. All you have so far is blind assertion and hearsay evidence. And have you been ignoring the post about the faeries? They never existed, they frauds admitted to be frauds by one (or both) of the girls who began the frauds. The legend still persists. By your reasoning than those faeries, that we know to be frauds, are in fact real.

Am I understanding you right?

 

[Akhenaten]

It is a fun and entertaining theory. But it is half-baked. It is not good enough to say "Jesus never existed".

Actually, yes it is. The burden of evidence is really on those who claim that he did.

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of Odin?

For example, you say Paul never exited. Paul was the first bishop of Rome (this is before the spilt from the Greeks and the invention of the "Pope"). well, if Paul never existed and no one is burried under the vatican, was the second Bishop of Rome also a myth? He knew Paul. What about the other people who knew Paul, are they too myths. A tangible Bishop had to have come from some where. Which one was the real one.

I'm pretty sure that Paul exited. He'd be getting pretty long in the tooth by now if he hadn't.

It reminds me too much of people who say the moon landings were fake. Which Apollow missions were real and wihich ones were fake. Were Apollow 1-10 fake? What about 12 and so on?

???

But there is lots more. Greek history has accounts of Peter and Paul traveling around Greece. Are you saying all that was made up? Paul never met Jesus when he was alive. So is Paul real or a myth? Is Paul real and had an imaginary friend named Peter?

I'm looking forward to reading all about this. When will you be posting the references?

As you get a wider and wider historic account that impacts other history it gets difficult to draw a line between fact and myth and it is too difficult to accept that Jesus was made up. Who decided to make him up?

A first century version of L Ron Hubbard.

There is more. I remember hearing on the Podcast of The Infidel Guy that they even admitted there were a number of candidates of rabbis that Piolot crucified that could have been the basis of Jesus Christ. So there you go. Here is a real guy. But you are saying that the Christians did not even bother to pick one of them and make him a symbolic matyr of their movement?

The Romans crucified some rabbis therefore Jesus was real?

Who could deny such flawless logic?

Did Buddah exist? You might say "sure but he did not walk on water". But, in fact, years after he was gone, sure enough, there developed myths that he did, in fact, walk on water.

You'll be posting some citations for this soon, will you?

So I think it is not fair to say just because there are legends surrounding a religious figure, he automatically never existed.

Not just because, no, but that's a long way from being the whole story.

 

[Brainache]

It is a fun and entertaining theory. But it is half-baked. It is not good enough to say "Jesus never existed". You have to account for all the things that happened after he died and examine how likely it is that some comittee or some huge widely-accepted myth taken from thin air could have such an impact. When you are dealing with someone whose friends hung around, did stuff, and had an impact, you have to know where to draw the line between what is a myth and what is real.

For example, you say Paul never exited. Paul was the first bishop of Rome (this is before the spilt from the Greeks and the invention of the "Pope"). well, if Paul never existed and no one is burried under the vatican, was the second Bishop of Rome also a myth? He knew Paul. What about the other people who knew Paul, are they too myths. A tangible Bishop had to have come from some where. Which one was the real one.

It reminds me too much of people who say the moon landings were fake. Which Apollow missions were real and wihich ones were fake. Were Apollow 1-10 fake? What about 12 and so on?

But there is lots more. Greek history has accounts of Peter and Paul traveling around Greece. Are you saying all that was made up? Paul never met Jesus when he was alive. So is Paul real or a myth? Is Paul real and had an imaginary friend named Peter?

As you get a wider and wider historic account that impacts other history it gets difficult to draw a line between fact and myth and it is too difficult to accept that Jesus was made up. Who decided to make him up?

There is more. I remember hearing on the Podcast of The Infidel Guy that they even admitted there were a number of candidates of rabbis that Piolot crucified that could have been the basis of Jesus Christ. So there you go. Here is a real guy. But you are saying that the Christians did not even bother to pick one of them and make him a symbolic matyr of their movement?

Did Buddah exist? You might say "sure but he did not walk on water". But, in fact, years after he was gone, sure enough, there developed myths that he did, in fact, walk on water.

So I think it is not fair to say just because there are legends surrounding a religious figure, he automatically never existed.

You do know that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus, don't you?

Paul specifically states that he got his good news "From no man" and he didn't mean a Hobbit or a Blonde Girl; he meant he got it in a vision, or what people these days call a hallucination. Perception in the absence of a stimulus, in its broadest sense, sometimes the result of some sort of schizophrenia, epilepsy, psychosis or somethingNot an actual medical opinion. Results may vary..

Even if Paul had heard stories about a real bloke called Jesus who walked around teaching, healing and doing magic tricks, all the resurrection, died for our sins stuff came from Paul's "vision on the road to Damascus" as he calls it, or "Psychotic Episode" as modern medicine might describe it.

 

[Ethnikos]

A first century version of L Ron Hubbard.

What if Paul was a Jew living in the diaspora and got mixed up with the Greeks and ended up being an initiate into a particular lodge of the Greek mystery religions? He got so happy that he wanted to spread this new-found (for him) religion but seeing it was a secret religion only for initiates, he would be retaliated against for revealing its secrets. Again, being a Jew, He has all this inside knowledge of things like Messiahs so he figures out that if he could convince everyone that he was preaching a Jewish sect, he could get away with it and if questioned, he could just say, "What? No I'm a Jew and Know nothing of any mystery religions".
If the Jews wondered where he got all his ideas from, he would say, "Oh no, they don't allow Jews in their club."

 

[Greediguts]

I'm not new to any of that. However, my understanding is that the trend among scholars is in the direction that Jesus did not live. For a long time Scholars accepted that Christ said and did the things attributed to him. The trend started to grow against it now the consensus is that little attributed to Christ is true. It takes time for scholars to let go of conventional wisdom. Confirmation bias is a bitch.

Hey, I honestly don't know but if I had to place a bet today it would be that in the not too distant future the idea of a historical Jesus will be as valid as a historical King Arthur.

Actually RandFan, the majority of scholars support a historical Jesus (again not a mythic Christ). The scholarship devoted to this quest has been going on for over a century. There have been a few scholars who have presented various "myth" theories over the years but these never hold up well under peer review and gather no serious support.

 

[Akhenaten]

What if Paul was a Jew living in the diaspora and got mixed up with the Greeks and ended up being an initiate into a particular lodge of the Greek mystery religions? He got so happy that he wanted to spread this new-found (for him) religion but seeing it was a secret religion only for initiates, he would be retaliated against for revealing its secrets. Again, being a Jew, He has all this inside knowledge of things like Messiahs so he figures out that if he could convince everyone that he was preaching a Jewish sect, he could get away with it and if questioned, he could just say, "What? No I'm a Jew and Know nothing of any mystery religions".
If the Jews wondered where he got all his ideas from, he would say, "Oh no, they don't allow Jews in their club."

Email William of Ockham with your theory and let us know what he says.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

It is a fun and entertaining theory. But it is half-baked. It is not good enough to say "Jesus never existed".

No it isn't - but that's not what happened at all.

I, and others here, have cited evidence and facts which argue against Jesus' existence. Earl Doherty, e.g., has a detailed argument based on evidence and facts. But you won't even look at it.

Now you just ignore everything I say - seems like you realise I have demolished your claims, even if you can't admit it.

You have to account for all the things that happened after he died and examine how likely it is that some comittee

There was NO "comittee".
If only you READ what people posted!
Instead of repeating these silly strawmen.

or some huge widely-accepted myth taken from thin air could have such an impact.

How could Scientology have such an impact unless Xenu was real?
How could Hinduism have such an impact unless Krishna etc. were real?

The problem is that Jesus HIMSELF had NO impact at all on ANYONE!
NOT ONE person claims to have met Jesus.
Not one.
But BELIEF about Jesus had a huge impact - so what?

When you are dealing with someone whose friends hung around, did stuff, and had an impact, you have to know where to draw the line between what is a myth and what is real.

NOT ONE person claims to have been friends of Jesus.
NOT ONE person claims to have met Jesus.
(Not counting the forged 2 Peter.)

You keep repeating this false claim, and ignoring the evidence that it is false. No-one here believes your preaching, Bill.

For example, you say Paul never exited.

Rubbish.
No-one here claimed Paul didn't exist.
Why do you keep making up such silly claims, Bill ?

Paul was the first bishop of Rome (this is before the spilt from the Greeks and the invention of the "Pope"). well, if Paul never existed and no one is burried under the vatican, was the second Bishop of Rome also a myth?

Hahaha....
A pile of rubbish with chicken bones and pig bones !
Wake up, Bill !

What about the other people who knew Paul, are they too myths.

Wrong again.
No-one ever claimed to have met Paul.
I think you just make up any old claim as you go along.

It reminds me too much of people who say the moon landings were fake. Which Apollow missions were real and wihich ones were fake. Were Apollow 1-10 fake? What about 12 and so on?

This is the silly argument of the month - compare the JM theory with Moon landing denial. Anything to avoid discussing the facts.

But there is lots more. Greek history has accounts of Peter and Paul traveling around Greece.

Rubbish.
Another nonsense claim that you probably just MADE UP.
But you'll never give any evidence of course.

As you get a wider and wider historic account that impacts other history it gets difficult to draw a line between fact and myth and it is too difficult to accept that Jesus was made up. Who decided to make him up?

There are NO historic accounts.
But yes, it is too difficult for you to accept.
So you just ignore the evidence and preach false claims.

There is more. I remember hearing on the Podcast of The Infidel Guy that they even admitted there were a number of candidates of rabbis that Piolot crucified that could have been the basis of Jesus Christ.

Oh, so now there are MULTIPLE "real Jesuses" !
As if having MORE THAN one Jesus makes him more real ?
What a laugh.

So there you go. Here is a real guy.

What?
You now claim MULTIPLE alleged Jesuses - and you think that makes him real?
Why?

But you are saying that the Christians did not even bother to pick one of them and make him a symbolic matyr of their movement?

Um - what?
What is your point?
Do YOU even know anymore?

Did Buddah exist? You might say "sure but he did not walk on water". But, in fact, years after he was gone, sure enough, there developed myths that he did, in fact, walk on water.

No.
Buddha is a myth too.

So I think it is not fair to say just because there are legends surrounding a religious figure, he automatically never existed.

No-one said that.
But sadly, you don't seem to READ posts here at all.
You just keep preaching false claims.
Why bother?


K.