I’m not sure if this topic has been mentioned before, but I’ll go ahead and make it anyway.
Did Jesus really exist? To answer this question, one must look at the evidence, but what evidence is there? Well, there is the bible. The Old Testaments prophecies can be thrown out, all that one needs to do is look them up to realize just how irrelevant they are. The New Testament on the other hand, isn’t as irrelevant. The only writings that could really be considered relevant to this question are the writings of the Gospels, the writings of Paul actually say he never seen Jesus “in the flesh”, only in a vision. So on to the Gospels. Luke admits in the first chapter that he is just retelling a story he heard, it reads as follows:
RSV Luke 1:1-4 - 1: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
This entire Gospel can be thrown out as hearsay. The rest aren’t even worth going into detail over. Take for example the story the accounts of Easter. I challenge anyone, to write a chronological narrative of, or find one, of the events surrounding Easter, without omitting one single detail from any of the four accounts of it. Trust me, I’ve tried, it can’t be done. Now in a courtroom, when a witness contradicts another, or himself, it may be inferred he is less than truthful, and all of the testimony of that witness may be rejected. This doesn’t mean all the Gospels were lying, only two of them (since Luke admitted to not being an eyewitness, therefor putting him by default out of the race). Now we have only one Gospel left, whichever one that maybe, which doesn’t matter anyway. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus are said to have come from him when he is allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.
Now that the bible is thrown out as evidence for Jesus because of it is obviously hearsay, clearly contradicts the other accounts, or is just made up, we can go on to the other evidence. The most commonly cited evidence for Jesus outside of the bible are Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus’s Annals. I haven’t looked at Tacitus’s Annals but I have read some of Josephu’s writings, and it clearly is a forgery. The small passage about Jesus interrupts the narrative, and he even calls him the Christ. Can you imagine, a pious Jew calling Jesus the Christ? It’s an obvious interpolation. Read it yourself here, chapter 3 passage 3. The beginning of the following paragraph make it that much more obvious. Besides, none of this matters, because Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died anyway, which makes it hearsay, just like Tacitus.
So, there is no reliable evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed, but an argument from silence is weak. So what I do use to prove Jesus was a myth? Circumstantial evidence. The Jesus story parallels with so many other earlier myths it isn’t funny, but I’ll only mention Krshna here.
Krshna, according to the Bhagavad Gita, a more ancient book than the New Testament, was born miraculously by a virgin, his birth attended by shepherds and angels. Krshna survived an edict by the tyrant Cansa, who ordered all the first born children to be put to death. Krsna escaped from being slain by being smuggled across a river. Krshna's baptism, or ablution, in the river Ganges, corresponds to Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. As a child, Krshna was known for miracles, and for having slain demons. Krshna had a favorite disciple, Arjoon. He was anointed with oil by women, and enabled his disciples to net large amounts of fish with little effort. Krshna was "transfigured" at a place called Madura. Interestingly, in the Gospel of the Infancy, a writing once regarded by the church as authentic, Jesus and his parents once lived in a place called Materea. Krshna spoke in parables when he taught. Krshna taught that you should love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, avoid unchaste thoughts, and condemn worldly wealth.
As it can be clearly seen, without even going into much detail on my part, Jesus most likely was just a plagiarized myth from another religion(s).
[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 07, 2000).]
Did Jesus really exist? To answer this question, one must look at the evidence, but what evidence is there? Well, there is the bible. The Old Testaments prophecies can be thrown out, all that one needs to do is look them up to realize just how irrelevant they are. The New Testament on the other hand, isn’t as irrelevant. The only writings that could really be considered relevant to this question are the writings of the Gospels, the writings of Paul actually say he never seen Jesus “in the flesh”, only in a vision. So on to the Gospels. Luke admits in the first chapter that he is just retelling a story he heard, it reads as follows:
RSV Luke 1:1-4 - 1: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
This entire Gospel can be thrown out as hearsay. The rest aren’t even worth going into detail over. Take for example the story the accounts of Easter. I challenge anyone, to write a chronological narrative of, or find one, of the events surrounding Easter, without omitting one single detail from any of the four accounts of it. Trust me, I’ve tried, it can’t be done. Now in a courtroom, when a witness contradicts another, or himself, it may be inferred he is less than truthful, and all of the testimony of that witness may be rejected. This doesn’t mean all the Gospels were lying, only two of them (since Luke admitted to not being an eyewitness, therefor putting him by default out of the race). Now we have only one Gospel left, whichever one that maybe, which doesn’t matter anyway. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus are said to have come from him when he is allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.
Now that the bible is thrown out as evidence for Jesus because of it is obviously hearsay, clearly contradicts the other accounts, or is just made up, we can go on to the other evidence. The most commonly cited evidence for Jesus outside of the bible are Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus’s Annals. I haven’t looked at Tacitus’s Annals but I have read some of Josephu’s writings, and it clearly is a forgery. The small passage about Jesus interrupts the narrative, and he even calls him the Christ. Can you imagine, a pious Jew calling Jesus the Christ? It’s an obvious interpolation. Read it yourself here, chapter 3 passage 3. The beginning of the following paragraph make it that much more obvious. Besides, none of this matters, because Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died anyway, which makes it hearsay, just like Tacitus.
So, there is no reliable evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed, but an argument from silence is weak. So what I do use to prove Jesus was a myth? Circumstantial evidence. The Jesus story parallels with so many other earlier myths it isn’t funny, but I’ll only mention Krshna here.
Krshna, according to the Bhagavad Gita, a more ancient book than the New Testament, was born miraculously by a virgin, his birth attended by shepherds and angels. Krshna survived an edict by the tyrant Cansa, who ordered all the first born children to be put to death. Krsna escaped from being slain by being smuggled across a river. Krshna's baptism, or ablution, in the river Ganges, corresponds to Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. As a child, Krshna was known for miracles, and for having slain demons. Krshna had a favorite disciple, Arjoon. He was anointed with oil by women, and enabled his disciples to net large amounts of fish with little effort. Krshna was "transfigured" at a place called Madura. Interestingly, in the Gospel of the Infancy, a writing once regarded by the church as authentic, Jesus and his parents once lived in a place called Materea. Krshna spoke in parables when he taught. Krshna taught that you should love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, avoid unchaste thoughts, and condemn worldly wealth.
As it can be clearly seen, without even going into much detail on my part, Jesus most likely was just a plagiarized myth from another religion(s).
[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 07, 2000).]
