Did Jesus really exist?

"It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact."

Simon Greenleaf, Harvard Law School, "The Testimony of the Evangelists", p.28.
 
Last edited:
"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

F. F. Bruce, Manchester University
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by SVRP
Historians have found that there were a number of people proclaiming themselves as “messiahs” during the time of Jesus, inciting revolts or revolutions against the Roman authorities. And when these “messiahs” died, their followers dissolved into obscurity, only to follow another self-proclaimed “messiah”. (Acts 5:34- 39) This habit was evident of Jesus’s followers when the authorities came to arrest Jesus. His followers ran away and hid for their lives. With the death of Jesus, they should have dissolved and looked for another. But that didn’t happen. After some time they were out on the streets proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead and they were witnesses to that fact. (Acts 4:5- 14) They were bold enough to take to the world the message of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. If they had not seen it with their own eyes it would be doubtful they would have given their lives for something they weren’t sure of. Jesus gave the responsibility of proclaiming His resurrection and the “good news” to the Apostles. And with that responsibility they faced horrible executions, which is a strong indication that they actually saw the resurrected Christ and believed what they taught. The testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus was written with their blood. It is doubtful they would have been able to do this great work of spreading the gospel if they did not really believe that they had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes.

http://www.biblepath.com/apostles.html

No one saw Jesus crucified and no one saw a resurrected Jesus. This is a myth created by Paul. People in Jesus' time didn't follow Jesus, they didn't even want to be associated with him, not even his closest followers, the Apostles. Only Mary Magdalene wanted to be close to Jesus, and she was to the jealousy of the male apostles. But no one professed Xianity at, during or after the time of Jesus. This wasn't until much later after Paul had written all his allegories. It's a travesty that you have a wealth of information before you on the Internet and on forums such as this, but you still cannot see the truth. You're a robot for the Lord.
 
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Saint Paul

d. A.D. 64? or 67?, the apostle to the Gentiles, b. Tarsus, Asia Minor. He was a Jew. His father was a Roman citizen, probably of some means, and Paul was a tentmaker by trade. His Jewish name was Saul. He was educated in Jerusalem, where he studied under Gamaliel and became a zealous nationalist; he was probably a Pharisee. The chronology of St. Paul’s life is difficult, but there is general agreement (within a few years) on almost all details. The hypothetical dates given here are according to one chronological system.
The sources for St. Paul’s life are the Acts of the Apostles, in which he is the dominant figure, and the Pauline Epistles. The value of the latter depends on the extent to which they are accepted as genuinely written by the apostle. Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon are undoubted; Ephesians and Second Thessalonians are rejected by most critics; First and Second Timothy and Titus are generally considered to be in their present form later and non-Pauline; finally, Hebrews was not written by St. Paul himself.
Paul’s first known contact with Christianity is his presence at the martyrdom of St. Stephen. Soon after this he got a commission from the chief priest to go to Damascus to help suppress Christianity there (A.D. 33). As he approached Damascus he suddenly saw a blinding light and heard Jesus ask, “Why persecutest thou me?” Paul was temporarily blinded and was led into Damascus, where he was found (on the Lord’s direction) by the disciple Ananias. On regaining his sight, Paul was baptized and immediately began preaching. (Acts 8.1–3; 9.1–30; 22.3–21; 26.9–23; Gal. 1.12–15.)
Paul spent the next 13 years learning the faith, part of the time living in seclusion in the Arabian desert. He visited Jerusalem probably twice (A.D. 37, 44) and dwelt at Tarsus and Antioch for some time. (Acts 11.) From Antioch, Paul set out on his first missionary journey (Acts 13–14.27; A.D. 47–49), on which he was accompanied by St. Barnabas and for a time by St. Mark. In general the method was to go from city to city preaching in synagogues and in marketplaces. Among the stops on this first mission were Cyprus, Antioch, and Derbe. Churches were set up, and as soon as the little Christian groups seemed strong enough the apostle and his companions would move on. Among their stops were Cyprus, Pamphylia, and Derbe. About A.D. 50 there was a council of the apostles at Jerusalem to discuss whether Gentile Christians should be circumcised, i.e., whether Christianity was to be a Jewish sect. St. Paul opposed the Judaistic group vigorously, and the council decided against them. (Acts 15; Gal. 2.)
On his second mission (Acts 15.36–18.22; A.D. 50–53) Paul, having quarreled with Barnabas, was accompanied by Silas. During visits to Philippi and Salonica they founded two churches that were to become great. They later sailed to Athens where Paul delivered his famous address on the “unknown god” in the market. (Acts 17.16–34.) From Athens, Paul went to Corinth. In the course of a long stay there he wrote First and Second Thessalonians (A.D. 52). Possibly about this time he also wrote his letter to the Galatians, although some scholars think this was the earliest of the epistles (written from Antioch), while others believe it was written later from Ephesus. At length Paul sailed to Caesarea in Palestine and visited Jerusalem again. He spent some time in Antioch.
The third missionary journey of St. Paul (Acts 18.23–21.26; A.D. 53–57) took him to Galatia, then Phrygia, and over to Ephesus. His two-and-a-half-year stay in Ephesus was one of the most fruitful periods of his life; in this time he wrote his two letters to the Corinthians (c.A.D. 56). He went to Corinth to help the Christians there, and he probably wrote the Epistle to the Romans there. Thence he returned to Ephesus and finally to Jerusalem. This was his last visit to the Holy City (A.D. 57–59), for soon after he arrived he was arrested for provoking a riot.
After being held prisoner for two years and after hearings before the council of priests, before the Roman procurator Felix and his successor Festus, before Herod Agrippa II, and again before Festus, he appealed to Rome on his citizen’s right. So he was sent to Rome under guard. (Acts 21.27–28.31.) On the way they were shipwrecked on Malta but finally landed at Puteoli (Puzzuoli). Paul was imprisoned (A.D. 60) in Rome but was allowed to conduct his ministry among the Roman Christians and Jews who visited him. Of his final fate tradition says that he was beheaded south of the city, near the Ostian Way, probably during the persecution of Nero. A lesser tradition claims that Paul was released after his first imprisonment and that he went East again, and perhaps also to Spain, before his martyrdom. Some scholars believe that Paul was executed after his initial imprisonment, probably A.D. 62. St. Paul’s tomb and shrine are at the Roman basilica of St. Paul’s Without the Walls.
St. Paul’s figure dominates the apostolic age, and his epistles have left a tremendous impress on Christianity. The first Christian theological writing is found in them, where it is characterized rather by spiritual fervor than by systematic analysis. St. Paul became a fountainhead of Christian doctrine, and countless interpretations have been given of his teachings. Thus, Roman Catholic theology leans upon him at all times, and Martin Luther derived from the Epistle to the Romans his principle of justification by faith alone. There can be no doubt that Paul’s interpretation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, his doctrine of the church as the mystical body of Christ, his teaching on law and grace, and his view of justification have been decisive in the formation of the Christian faith. The feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, June 29, is one of the principal days of the church calendar; the conversion of St. Paul is commemorated Jan. 25. 8
See D. R. McDonald, The Legend and the Apostle (1983); J. A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (1990); and E. P. Sanders, Paul (1991).

Thank you for your reply, M*W, but you cannot rewrite history to fit your anger. Please reconsider what you are professing.
 
Originally posted by SVRP
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Saint Paul

Thank you for your reply, M*W, but you cannot rewrite history to fit your anger. Please reconsider what you are professing.

I'm not trying to "rewrite history." I have plenty of references of my own regarding Paul. You people think that I am opposed to Xianity because I don't know anything about it. I was a devout Catholic convert in my younger days, but I found out the truth. The truth was that it was all based on lies. My anger stems from the lies I believed. Peaceful persuasion doesn't work on the brainwashed. I found that it is necessary to show my anger about the lies Xians continue to believe. As your fellow human being, I feel that I have an obligation to show you the fallacy of your beliefs.
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure if jesus really existed or not.
Ask the Xians, they'd know, they know all about this sort of thing.
I heard one of them can shoot lasers out of his eyes, Xians are cool.
 
I'm not trying to "rewrite history." I have plenty of references of my own regarding Paul. You people think that I am opposed to Xianity because I don't know anything about it. I was a devout Catholic convert in my younger days, but I found out the truth. The truth was that it was all based on lies. My anger stems from the lies I believed. Peaceful persuasion doesn't work on the brainwashed. I found that it is necessary to show my anger about the lies Xians continue to believe. As your fellow human being, I feel that I have an obligation to show you the fallacy of your beliefs.
M*W I'm not sure what your problem is with Paul. For God's sake what has a 2000 year old dead saint done to you? At the really least produce one primary source that supports your theory. Whether Christianity is wrong is not an issue but you've clearly been lied to by modern pop books. I know this seems unconcievable and impossible to happen to you but why don't you spend sometime actually substantiating what you've read? Perhaps your find more evidence to support yourself. But as far as I'm concerned, Paul has an excelent reputation. Peter and Ignatius say good things about Paul. In fact, if you actually read what Paul wrote he seems to be a very honest man with his own short-comings and strengths. When I match up his extraordinary conversion, which would appear to him as without reason, with his theology in Romans, I find it even more plausible that these events really did happen.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
M*W I'm not sure what your problem is with Paul. For God's sake what has a 2000 year old dead saint done to you? At the really least produce one primary source that supports your theory. Whether Christianity is wrong is not an issue but you've clearly been lied to by modern pop books. I know this seems unconcievable and impossible to happen to you but why don't you spend sometime actually substantiating what you've read? Perhaps your find more evidence to support yourself. But as far as I'm concerned, Paul has an excelent reputation. Peter and Ignatius say good things about Paul. In fact, if you actually read what Paul wrote he seems to be a very honest man with his own short-comings and strengths. When I match up his extraordinary conversion, which would appear to him as without reason, with his theology in Romans, I find it even more plausible that these events really did happen.

okinrus, read my recent posts, and you'll see what my problem is with Paul. But first, thank you for referring to it as my "problem" and not that I "hate" Paul. Don't be ridiculous and ask what a 2000 year old dead saint has done to me! Absolutely nothing except lied, not only to me, but to all of Xianity (which he was incremental in creating).

As far as substantiating what I've read, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Regarding the discussion about Paul, I have researched it. That's probably why my posts about him seem so negative, because I didn't like what I read.

How do you know that Paul had an extraordinary conversion outside what HE wrote in the Bible? There's no way to prove it, so I could ask you the same thing, why don't you spend some time substantiating what you've read?

okinrus, you know my stance on Xianity. It did not come blindly. I was in your shoes for a long, long time. I used to believe in Paul's conversion, but now I know it was just a contrived story by a prolific writer.
 
Absolutely nothing except lied, not only to me, but to all of Xianity (which he was incremental in creating).
I can derive most of christiantiy from the old testament. Much of what Paul says is backed up with quotes from the old testament. Also I'm not sure what you consider to be lies. Is it true that you have never had a supernatural revelation but you've seen a dead person? So what exactly did Paul say that would make him a lier? Even if Jesus was not God, Paul does not say that Jesus is God.

As far as substantiating what I've read, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Regarding the discussion about Paul, I have researched it. That's probably why my posts about him seem so negative, because I didn't like what I read.
M*W just present us the primary sources(preferably online texts if you can find them).

How do you know that Paul had an extraordinary conversion outside what HE wrote in the Bible? There's no way to prove it, so I could ask you the same thing, why don't you spend some time substantiating what you've read?
Well the bible is the source and it was written along time ago... All I'm asking is for one primary source that supports what you say. Paul was a pharisee and he mentions his teacher and he quotes from some secular works which shows that he was a fairly learned man. If he did not persecute christians his letters would not have been believed by anyone. So what you have is dramatic change of beliefs without any reason.
 
Originally posted by SVRP
"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

F. F. Bruce, Manchester University
Who is F. F. Bruce and why should his/her assertion be given any particular weight?
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
People in Jesus' time didn't follow Jesus, they didn't even want to be associated with him, not even his closest followers, the Apostles. Only Mary Magdalene wanted to be close to Jesus, and she was to the jealousy of the male apostles.

Why would they be jealous of MM and her being close to Jesus if they didn't want to be associated with him in the first place?


It's a travesty that you have a wealth of information before you on the Internet and on forums such as this, but you still cannot see the truth.

The truth can be found on the internet? - I've heard this many times; all those addicted to their computers say so ;)
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
No one saw Jesus crucified and no one saw a resurrected Jesus. This is a myth created by Paul. ... It's a travesty that you have a wealth of information before you on the Internet and on forums such as this, but you still cannot see the truth. You're a robot for the Lord.
Excellent. Then why not simply supply the probative evidence inditing Paul and we can put the whole thing to rest.
 
M*W wrote
I'm not trying to "rewrite history." I have plenty of references of my own regarding Paul. You people think that I am opposed to Xianity because I don't know anything about it. I was a devout Catholic convert in my younger days, but I found out the truth. The truth was that it was all based on lies. My anger stems from the lies I believed. Peaceful persuasion doesn't work on the brainwashed. I found that it is necessary to show my anger about the lies Xians continue to believe. As your fellow human being, I feel that I have an obligation to show you the fallacy of your beliefs.
I agree with okinrus. Show us the references on why you believe Christianity was all based on lies and Paul was the source of these lies. It would provide better powers of persuasion to your point of view for us fellow human beings. An online reference will do.

CA wrote
Who is F. F. Bruce and why should his/her assertion be given any particular weight?
Didn’t know you were interested, ConsequentAtheist, in a Christian scholar. If you want to buy one of his books go to this website.

http://osdn.pricegrabber.com/search_bkcontrib.php/bkcontrib_id=2063916/ut=98a3fd0384f85e4d

Or if you want to read something online, this website may help.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

But shame on you if the search engine you use can’t find F. F. Bruce.
:)
 
Originally posted by SVRP
... if you want to read something online, this website may help.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

But shame on you if the search engine you use can’t find F. F. Bruce.
Thanks. I particularly found this piece interesting. But the problem remains: In what manner does a multiplicity of 2nd century variants serve as evidence for anything other than the existiance of an early Christian cult? What does it say as to accuracy?

For example, the good Doctor Bruce writes: "There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum."

So, do we accept these as "accurate" and, if so, what does this say about the accuracy of the Marcan Appedix which is found in neither of these codices? Which variant of the "Prodigal Son" should be deemed accurate, the one found in Sinaiticus or the one found in most Bibles today?

To use another example, Doctor Bruve somehow views 2nd century Gnostic writings as probative, but what does this mean? What does it mean, for example, that Matthew's Virgin Birth narrative (gMat 1:18) finds one of it's earliest attestation in the Gospel of Mary? Should we also accept the remainder of this text as "accurate".

Unless I'm missing something, multiple attestations, including multiple variants, proves only that the evolution and differentiation of Christology was an ante-Nicene process, and that this process included a good deal of plagiarism and harmonization.
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
If Jesus existed...

What do you mean by "if Jesus existed...." Do you want to say he was a ficticious personality? Somebody invented Him? Are you saying that The New Testament is just imaginary description of a Man who did not exist?
Are you telling us that all these churches, all the belivers, all things that have been done in His name are the result of imaginations, unreality?
Have you ever read the New Testament with belief? Do you think people will believe those scholars who have nothing but shed doubtso on facts which are as hard as these letters I am typing?
Do you really think Mathew, Luke, John and Mark _God bless them all - were people who might write about a Man who did not come to this world to give hope to billions of people?
I tell you 100% sure that he did exist. Read the New Testament carefully and with a heart filled with belief. Ask that Overwhelming Force which is encircling us to help you to understand Him.
Then you will see, not only did he exist but he did many things unbelievable. That the likes of you and I are not able to understand Him and His teachings ever. In His Holy Name, God Bless and Cheers
 
Re: Re: Did Jesus really exist?

Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
What do you mean by "if Jesus existed...." Do you want to say he was a ficticious personality? Somebody invented Him? Are you saying that The New Testament is just imaginary description of a Man who did not exist?
Are you telling us that all these churches, all the belivers, all things that have been done in His name are the result of imaginations, unreality?
Yes.

Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
Have you ever read the New Testament with belief?
Of course not.
I think it is awfully ridiculous and self-limiting to start reading ANYTHING believing it blindly even before you read it.
I HAVE read it with an open mind, however, along with many other beliefs.

Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
Do you think people will believe those scholars who have nothing but shed doubtso on facts which are as hard as these letters I am typing?
Of course.
It has nothing to do with belief.
It is a fact that Millions of people DO believe them.
Or at the very least listen to them with an open mind and search for theor own conclusions. Can you say the same?

Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
Do you really think Mathew, Luke, John and Mark _God bless them all - were people who might write about a Man who did not come to this world to give hope to billions of people?
Sure, why not?
Why is that so impossible to consider?


Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
I tell you 100% sure that he did exist. Read the New Testament carefully and with a heart filled with belief. Ask that Overwhelming Force which is encircling us to help you to understand Him.
Oh!!!
So you are 100% sure?
Well then, I am convinced, disregard everything I just said.
Thank you for my enlightenment. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
Then you will see, not only did he exist but he did many things unbelievable.
Exactly.
UNBELIEVABLE


Originally posted by MISSunderstanding@
That the likes of you and I are not able to understand Him and His teachings ever.
If we are not able to understand him and his teachings ever, how could you possibly follow him?
You don't even know what he was saying.
 
MISSunderstanding,

Welcome to sciforums.

What do you mean by "if Jesus existed...."
There is no reliable information to prove that he did exist hence his historicity must be in doubt.

Do you want to say he was a ficticious personality? Somebody invented Him? Are you saying that The New Testament is just imaginary description of a Man who did not exist?
Yes very much so.

Are you telling us that all these churches, all the belivers, all things that have been done in His name are the result of imaginations, unreality?
Yes. Just like billions of people for thousands of years believed the world was flat. The fact that a large number of people believe something has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Truth is not determined by a popular majority vote, in fact such a vote tends to be about what people want to be true rather than what is real or right.

Have you ever read the New Testament with belief?
I have many times during bible studies when I was a Christian some 30 years ago. But belief here means to view something with a subjective, emotional and distorted view. I read now with objective skepticism since I am in interested in truth and not brainwashing.

Do you think people will believe those scholars who have nothing but shed doubts on facts which are as hard as these letters I am typing?
Well yes, especially since they can show justification for their analysis whereas you only offer baseless assertions.

Do you really think Mathew, Luke, John and Mark _God bless them all - were people who might write about a Man who did not come to this world to give hope to billions of people?
It has been shown very clearly that the authors of the gospels who have those names were written by countless unknowns. So your question is somewhat mute. However, that these writings did occur is more to do with the subjective storytelling and mythmaking that was the general rule and primary entertainment of those years. Whether there is any truth in the stories cannot be verified and is in serious doubt.

I tell you 100% sure that he did exist.
That’s fine if you are either a god, have proven powers that can see the past, or have some irrefutable evidence that has so far not been revealed to the world, otherwise all you have is a baseless worthless assertion.

Read the New Testament carefully and with a heart filled with belief.
Why? If we are interested in truth then we need to be skeptical and objective. Seeking truth which we already believe is both idiotic and a waste of time.

Ask that Overwhelming Force which is encircling us to help you to understand Him.
I tried it. What I found as I looked deeper was ancient fiction.

Then you will see, not only did he exist but he did many things unbelievable.
It is because such things are unbelievable that some form of verification must be found before any sane person would believe such stories. Such evidence does not appear to exist. All you have is a man-god/with-miraculous-power concept which appears as futile and impotent as the Greek and Roman gods that predated it.

That the likes of you and I are not able to understand Him and His teachings ever.
OK, but then why should we ask for understanding, as you just suggested if we can never understand?
 
CA wrote
Unless I'm missing something, multiple attestations, including multiple variants, proves only that the evolution and differentiation of Christology was an ante-Nicene process, and that this process included a good deal of plagiarism and harmonization.
Could you expound on that thought a little more in layman’s terms?

Cris wrote
It has been shown very clearly that the authors of the gospels who have those names were written by countless unknowns. So your question is somewhat mute. However, that these writings did occur is more to do with the subjective storytelling and mythmaking that was the general rule and primary entertainment of those years. Whether there is any truth in the stories cannot be verified and is in serious doubt.
It seems like the basic question is who wrote the NT and is it reliable. Well, I found a site that gave an answer. For example on the question, “Who wrote the Gospel of John?”
The Gospel of John differs markedly from the other three books both in tone and in some historical details. John does not follow the timeline in the other three and adds quite a few stories and details not found in them. For this reason, it's thought that John's gospel was not a child of Q, but a completely original work either by someone who knew Jesus directly or by one of his associates. The three letters of John found near the end of the New Testament are generally assumed to have been written by this same individual.
The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.
William Barclay (The Gospel of John, by William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1975) gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John's fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved..
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

Or you may be interested in founding the answer from an online course on the NT with Professor Barry Smith who concludes,
“The author of the Gospel of John was John the son of Zebedee, the apostle. There are no grounds for doubting this.” Professor Barry D. Smith, Atlantic Baptist University http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/John.htm
 
Back
Top