So did Jesus live or what?

[kuroyume0161]

It is a historical fact that it was founded in 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard

Yes and he wrote the book. Jesus wasn't even near a paper mill when any of the texts were written. There is a difference. And yet would you conclude that anything in the LRH book is based on historical (let alone scientific) fact just because we know that it was written by a real person? Obviously, everything written is written by a real person. But that still doesn't make the figures written about factual.

Evidence?

Do you want me to waste my time providing voluminous sources or can you educate yourself? I have a shelf of books on the subject. I'm not going to spend my time rereading them to profer references (direct and indirect).

You mentioned the Q document, for instance. Although I agree that it probably never existed in solid form, the notion that much of what is stuffed into Jesus' mouth in the gospels comes directly from cynical doctrine is well supported.

Were any of these texts writen before the Gospel of Mark?

Honestly, I do not know. The reference suggest that, yes, they are at least as old as Mark or older.

Evidence?

I think that the diversity of beliefs within the general religion denoted Christianity, even as early as the mid-first century, points to the fact that it was not perceived in the form that it took by the mid-fourth century with the annealing of the canonical books and doctrine.

So that would put them several decades latter than Peter's group.

I don't know. You haven't provided any evidence yet that such a group really existed. I don't put much, er, 'faith' in anything Paul is attributed to have written. There are debates that some of the letters were not even Paul.

It is interesting to note that even Paul shows signs of Gnosticism. If attributions of his writings being 50-60 C.E. are correct, that means Gnostic influences were already prevalent before even that time. No references provide an earliest date for the Gnostic movement, but inferences suggest it went back to about this time or earlier.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Given all the evidence we do have, to say that "Jesus" existed is to break Occam<s Razor. It would demand the Christian to explain how "Jesus" could have such an influence and yet completely evade all historical records. It would demand the Christian to explain why none of the early Church fathers used historical facts about "Jesus"' life, even though doing so would have been advantageous. If the Gospels are used as part of the evidence, it would also demand the Christian to explain how the Gospels are dated so late, why they contradict each other, and why they look very, very much like they are all historical modifications of one source document.

To try to justify the "Jesus" belief would require so much explanation as to make it ridiculous.

 

[Ausmerican]

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.



Many things, but in terms of religion, I believe in God exactly as the Nicene Creed states.

The thread is about the evidence that Jesus existed, therefore the faith of the poster should not need to come into play.

 

[geni]

Yes and he wrote the book. Jesus wasn't even near a paper mill when any of the texts were written. There is a difference. And yet would you conclude that anything in the LRH book is based on historical (let alone scientific) fact just because we know that it was written by a real person? Obviously, everything written is written by a real person. But that still doesn't make the figures written about factual.

We know that the person who wrote the book was in no position to have the knowlage they claim to have.

Do you want me to waste my time providing voluminous sources or can you educate yourself? I have a shelf of books on the subject. I'm not going to spend my time rereading them to profer references (direct and indirect).

Does any of the authors go by the name Acharya S?

You mentioned the Q document, for instance. Although I agree that it probably never existed in solid form, the notion that much of what is stuffed into Jesus' mouth in the gospels comes directly from cynical doctrine is well supported.

You are makeing a claim back it up.

Honestly, I do not know. The reference suggest that, yes, they are at least as old as Mark or older.

Which reference? Mark is probably as far back as 70-80 VE

I think that the diversity of beliefs within the general religion denoted Christianity, even as early as the mid-first century, points to the fact that it was not perceived in the form that it took by the mid-fourth century with the annealing of the canonical books and doctrine.

The Bahá'í have had their splits. We have photos of Bahá'u'lláh

I don't know. You haven't provided any evidence yet that such a group really existed. I don't put much, er, 'faith' in anything Paul is attributed to have written. There are debates that some of the letters were not even Paul.

Some. Not all. Wether you like it or not Paul did know the Peter group.

It is interesting to note that even Paul shows signs of Gnosticism. If attributions of his writings being 50-60 C.E. are correct, that means Gnostic influences were already prevalent before even that time. No references provide an earliest date for the Gnostic movement, but inferences suggest it went back to about this time or earlier.

You can only really make than claim if you take a decidedly nonstandard view of to authorship of the Pauline epistles. Sooner or latter you run into the issue of James and Paul's general acceptance that the Peter group had some legitimacy.

 

[Peter S.]

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

 

[geni]

Given all the evidence we do have, to say that "Jesus" existed is to break Occam<s Razor. It would demand the Christian to explain how "Jesus" could have such an influence and yet completely evade all historical records.

His influence was pretty limited. Christianity didn't really get going untill after his death.

It would demand the Christian to explain why none of the early Church fathers used historical facts about "Jesus"' life, even though doing so would have been advantageous.

Peter used them as his claim to legitimacy.

If the Gospels are used as part of the evidence, it would also demand the Christian to explain how the Gospels are dated so late,

Mark is 40-50 years after the death of jesus. That fits with them figureing out the world was not going to end striaght away.

why they contradict each other, and why they look very, very much like they are all historical modifications of one source document.

That can be explained by the Mark\Q source hypothosis (john is tricky since it may have been writen in sections).

To try to justify the "Jesus" belief would require so much explanation as to make it ridiculous.

Not really.

 

[jjramsey]

Cornelius Tacitus is almost certainly a forgery or interpolation.

It is almost certainly not. Christians are described as being criminals deserving of extreme punishment, and their beliefs described as superstition. Even in translation, it oozes with contempt. IIRC, it is also in typical Tacitian Latin.

Flavius Josephus also reeks of later interpolation.

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

Tacitus never mentions a 'Jesus Christus', just plain ole' Christus. 'Christus' (latin) is from 'Christos' (greek) which is the interpretation of 'Messiah' (hebrew) for 'annointed one'. It is not a name, it is a title.

And how many would-be messiahs had followers who proclaimed him as savior after his death, let alone communicated that message to the outside world? That narrows the number of possible Christs under consideration to, oh, one.

So, what are we left with for evidence? The NT and a few possible extrabiblical references. That's not much to go by.

For establishing the mere existence of Jesus, that's enough.

The mythicist position does a terrible job of explaning the mundane and embarrassing bits of the New Testament. If one is going to make up a savior, why have him be a Galilean Jew from a no-account town who died in an embarrassing way that led many to mock the religion that proclaimed him? I've often seen it claimed that the story of Jesus was fashioned in the motif of a dying-rising god, but the evidence that there really was such a motif is pretty slim. As far as I've seen, Aliyan Baal is about it. The rest is reading Christian motifs into pagan myth.

 

[davefoc]

There are too many variables.

Did a god-man named Jesus the Christ live exactly as it is written in the NT? - Almost certainly not.

Did a god-man ever exist? - Almost certainly not.

Did a man named Jesus exist? - Well, of course. Lots of men named Jesus lived during this time and in this region. Well, they weren't named 'Jesus', but the original Jewish of 'Yeshua'. We'll accept that for later references to 'Jesus', okay?

Did a man named Jesus exist who was the inspiration for the religion? - Maybe.

Did any man exist who was the inspiration for the religion? Very possibly. There is a lot of controversy about attributions, inconsistencies, evidence, and so forth.

The problem is that not even the so-called authors of the NT gospels are considered to be who they say they are. And the timing of the writings is far after the supposed death of this supposed Jesus. Add to that the interpolations of miraculous events, mixing of mythologies, and even the possible copy errors and various forms in which the original documents may have taken. Without any highly credible extra-biblical references (there are some somewhat credible references, but they are spurious at best), how can we know?

We might as well debate over whether or not MacBeth was a historical figure!

Accept for his last sentence, I think kuroyume0161 has summarized the situation very nicely. Personally, I find the question of how the Christian Church got going as a very interesting one and, of course, the historicity of Jesus is a major element of the answer to that question.

I have a few observations as a person that has read quite a bit about the issue of whether Jesus in some form was a real person.

1. Per force, a casual investigator into this question is forced to rely on the judgments of experts. When we do that it becomes necessary to pick experts based on our estimates of the degree that biases have clouded their views. And sorting through those biases requires a deep knowledge of the subject and if we had that we wouldn't need to rely on our ability to sort through the biases of the experts. So casual investigators are pretty much left with making guesses about the subject.

2. The information that would have answered questions about the early Christian Church and the historicity of Jesus appears to have been lost forever. Most of the guesses about the life of Jesus rely on some guesses about what in the New Testament is useful for that purpose. There is almost no extrabiblical evidence.

3. Even if a historical Jesus existed, almost certainly the biblical Jesus stories include elements from the lives of old testament characters and if the writers were willing to do that kind of thing it is also reasonable to guess that the NT writers were willing to bring elements from the lives of other real people into the Jesus stories. This kind of conflation of the lives of other characters with the life of a supposed Jesus will forever make the issue of a historical Jesus a fuzzy question open to endless theorizing about the various possibilities.

I personally believe that a Jesus character existed. There is the Occam's razor argument for this, however this is at best a weak argument as other possibilities aren't all that unlikely either. There is also the letters of Paul, some of which most experts seem to believe have been written by a real historical character and there is the Josephus writings on Jesus.

If at least some of the Josephus Jesus references are correct at least a minimalist historical Jesus existed. There seems to be a complete consensus amongst experts that some of the Josephus references to Jesus are fakes. There also seems to be a majoirty consensus that some of the Josephus Jesus references are real.

Just one of many internet discusions about the Josephus Jesus references:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Note that it is very easy to find sites which argue that all the Josephus Jesus references were later interpolations. So if you are a casual investigator on this subject you can pick your view and find the expert that supports it or you can pick your expert and take his view. Either way, don't expect to know the answer to this question with much detail or certainty.

 

[kuroyume0161]

It is almost certainly not. Christians are described as being criminals deserving of extreme punishment, and their beliefs described as superstition. Even in translation, it oozes with contempt. IIRC, it is also in typical Tacitian Latin.

That is possible, but one does note that this is during the reign of Nero, circa 60 C.E. How is that more evidential than the gospels written about the same time? This isn't about 'Did Christians exist?' This is about, did 'Jesus' exist? Christus offers no name, just a title. And the title could be interpreted as a person or something else completely (especially by the Gnostics).

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

And we're down to one...

And how many would-be messiahs had followers who proclaimed him as savior after his death, let alone communicated that message to the outside world? That narrows the number of possible Christs under consideration to, oh, one.

There were plenty of 'Christs' and Messiahs running around. Christus says nothing more than 'an annointed one'. You really think that Jesus Christ was a unique conception of the time?

For establishing the mere existence of Jesus, that's enough.

No, it isn't. Remove the biblical references (since they are completely and utterly suspect), and you have maybe two or three possible references, at best. Christus is not a reference worth noting for the existence of a person, especially one named Jesus who tromped around Palestine! Christus only confirms that Christians existed!!!

ETA: Look, again, I'm not saying that no historical person could have been the inspiration for Jesus (and I did state this - thank you, davefoc). I'm saying that to say that there is sufficient evidence that there was a historical person is boulderdash. There is not enough either way. Even if there is an Occam's Razor case here, you're talking about shaving fuzz off a peach. It is very complex and the data set is sparse (to be nice about it). If you say, "Maybe, but we can't know.", I will agree. If you say, "How can you not see that there must have been a real person there?", then you need to study up more on myths and legends.

 

[geni]

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Ok starts out with the compareing the evidence of existance to one of the most famious individuals in history argument wich I have aready delt with. It then moves onto mark which it tries to take potshots as. The problem is that it doesn't really make a dent in the gospels core claim. It throws up a claim that luke and mathew of up to 90% plagiarized from mark. I can't see any way of getting to that figure without usieng some king of Q/Mark compersite.

Ok moveing onto the Pauline stuff. It claims that compuete experts have shown that only four letters arre genuine. It then references a source dateing back to 1929. Now I'm not an expert but I seem to recall that number of computers in 1929 was somewhat limted. however this doesn't matter since the real source goes back far further 1840 and Ferdinand Christian Baur. His successor refiened his techniques and came up with 7:

* Romans
* First Corinthians
* Second Corinthians
* Galatians
* Philippians
* First Thessalonians
* Philemon

Remeber the early church leaders had no problem with declairing some of "Pauls letters" to be fake. The letter to the Hebrews for example. They did not question any of the above. Neither do most modern scolers.

Moveing onto Josephus Bk. 20, Ch. 9, §1

The authors say it could have been added. So what? There is no evidence it was and it certianly fits the flow of the text.

 

[Belz...]

At least some aspects of the legend of Jesus are borrowed part and parcel from other religions, especially the birth story. It is quite likely that he is an amalgamation of several (or many) notable people of the day, borrowing the best parts from each.

Same with the OT and the flood.

 

[Belz...]

My opinion is that it is a very small maybe for the 'founder' to have been actually named 'Yeshua' and have any resemblance to even the more historically accurate events attributed therein.

I don't remember exactly where I read this, but there's also an earlier "messiah" from the first century BCE who could have been the foundation for the Jesus myth, assuming there was no "jesus" to speak of.

 

[Belz...]

Why should there be?

Well, Josephus pretty much describe any and all figures that had just about any form of influence in Judea at that time. Aside from the Eusebius interpolation, he doesn't even mention Jesus. And even if that's NOT an interpolation, it's a ver yshort passage, considering the usual Josephus stuff.

 

[Belz...]

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

Just a note. The letters are dated PRIOR to the gospels.

 

[Belz...]

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

The fact of the matter is that Pilate is mentionned by roman records. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation of the existence of Pilate. There is no such thing for Jesus.

In fact, even the Gospels disagree as to the date of Jesus' birth. Luke and Matthew are hopelessly discordant about it.

How about 20% of today's human population, nearly 2,000 years later, as "disciples" of that "back-water hick"?

How many disciples follow you?

Again an appeal to popularity. 1.3 billion muslims can't be wrong, can they ?

 

[Belz...]

Lets see what would have been writen. The gospels claim one significant contact with the authorities. That would have resulted in a record in some archive or other but over the fall of the roman empire and the like people had better things to do than copy archives. Letters? Do you have the letters your grandparents wrote?

No, but I can prove they existed.

 

[Belz...]

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

Occam's razor only says that if the fact that a real Jesus existed explains the evidence better than the opposite. This seems far from clear.

 

[Belz...]

The Testimonium Flavianum does, certainly, but there is another reference where Josephus briefly mentions James as the brother of Jesus called Christ, and this reference is generally regarded as authentic because it is neutral and closely tied to its context.

And that seems like the only probable confirmation of the Gospel stories.

See a few of the links here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html

 

[geni]

No, but I can prove they existed.

The letters or the people?

 

[geni]

Occam's razor only says that if the fact that a real Jesus existed explains the evidence better than the opposite. This seems far from clear.

It is far less complex to bolt myths onto a person that existed (that happens all the time) that make someone up (I can't think of any modern relgion that did that without establishing a lead prothet as it were).