Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Woody,
Yet despite your lengthy copy and paste, there remains no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Every reference you quote is hearsay, and most reference the cascaded opinions of others. Even the so-called scholars only offer opinion, and all based on mythmaker texts. The only possible eye-witness was Josephus and his vague reference to Jesus is a known forgery.
Acharya S and Earl Doherty explain in detall in their boks why all your references have zero value.
In the end we are left with nothing that indicates Jesus was a real person and every reason to believe his alleged life was a fantasy construct based on numerous earlier myths.
Yet despite your lengthy copy and paste, there remains no evidence that Jesus actually lived. Every reference you quote is hearsay, and most reference the cascaded opinions of others. Even the so-called scholars only offer opinion, and all based on mythmaker texts. The only possible eye-witness was Josephus and his vague reference to Jesus is a known forgery.
Acharya S and Earl Doherty explain in detall in their boks why all your references have zero value.
In the end we are left with nothing that indicates Jesus was a real person and every reason to believe his alleged life was a fantasy construct based on numerous earlier myths.
This has always been my principal argument.
Not particularly. First of all, as SnakeLord has pointed out, there were quite a few rabble-rousing preachers, and as I have said, many of them may have been able to "heal" the sick. I myself think that the feeding of the multitudes is to do with Jesus, the Motivational Speaker. "Take that crumb of bread or flake of fish. Eat it. Can't you feel it filling you up inside, like a great big steak?"stretched said:
The story even in the Gospels is not depicted as having had repurcussions that extended as far as Rome, and Roman historians did not really show a lot of interest in the East of the Empire in the 1st Century. It only looks important because of the importance Christianity has achieved since then, and because of the level of detail we know about it through the Gospel tales, but really, how much of a splash would it make? Most of the activities were amongst the rural poor. Historians didn't care about such stuff, unless it threatened Rome, which Christianity didn't do until later on.
Quite a lot of things are "only opinion", Cris, including a fair amount of what we regard as scientific fact. There can never be 100% certainty. Which is my quibble with the thesis of the first post. "There never was a Jesus" is an opinion, and one which has considerably greater issues than assuming that the stories were told about someone real, however misinterpreted the miracles may have been.Cris said:
Re: Josephus, I think it was good of Woody to post the entire entry on Jesus thus pretty much discrediting it as a valid historical source. No Orthodox Jew would write of Jesus that "He was the Messiah-Christ". Graham Stanton has recast the entry excluding the obviously Christological insertions, and claims it sounds like Josephus (which, with the insertions it certainly doesn't), but it's not compelling enough to prove the whole entry isn't a fabrication.
Expecting contemporaneous eye-witness testimony (and contemporary documents over scribal copies) is fallacious, and would lead ultimately to ditching practically all of Roman history.
Oh my God. The world is actually going mad. Cris, as a long standing skeptic and rationalist, it's utterly beyond belief that you would recommend Acharya S - astrologers ought not to be getting any kind of kudos from the rationalist community. All I had to do was look at her website, that was enough for me.Cris said:
Earl Doherty is described as "non-professional" on the bede.org.uk page, but he does appear to have sufficient credentials and background in terms of knowledge of the languages and history of the time, so what he says bears examination. I'm afraid it still amounts to "argument from silence", and makes the same double-standard about the quality of texts. As Michael Grant says, there's no more reason to doubt Jesus on the basis of historical sources than there is for a host of other non-Christian personalities of the period.
Woody's post was too long to effectively digest, but I do urge people to re-examine the first link detailing the broad scholarly consensus. I post it again: http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm
TheVisitor, do we have to have this argument again? We are dealing with matters of fact only on this thread, not matters of faith. Your posts are evidently faith-driven. It's great for you that you believe in Jesus, and none of us ever doubted it, but it's simply irrelevant to the point at hand.
Last edited:
stretched said:
That's not the point being made. The point is that the Jesus-never-existed theory is a myth. You can accept or reject the miracles. Apparent contradictions in the bible serve to verify the reality, by showing the originators presented detailed information that mostly agrees but came from different people. It's a simple principle -- no two people that witness an event can account for every detail and come to total agreement on what happened -- but they can agree on most of it. A simple example: In a sporting event, does everyone agree on a referee's call even with instant replay? Even the referee's can change their original call after viewing a replay.
Unfortunately there wasn't video technology in the 1st century. The biblical passages weren't written to be a history book, they were written to instruct others on how to practice the religion provided by the man named Jesus. It's pretty obvious to most historians. Why don't you ask one of them at your local university? Here's a list of some you can talk to:
Religion History Professors
Last edited:
On this issue, I revisited a site called "Biblical Errancy", a list of articles from the early 1980s criticising Biblibcal Literalism. Amongst the arguments were the following:
However, the point is that the differences are of minutiae, and absolutely conform to the kind of differences found in real life witness testimony. I happen to feel that differences in the gospel accounts - even mutually exclusive ones - form a weak argument for rejecting either the historicity of the underlying story, or (as the author of Biblical Errancy appears to espouse) for the rejection of Christian faith. It's a weak argument because the same grounds could be used to strengthen ones faith. In this case, the Resurrection of Jesus is told in terms of reportage, not of mythology - the Resurrection itself is not described, just its aftermath. Couple that with Jesus's remarkably fast death (the spear in the chest is not in the synoptics) and his straightway being taken down and into an above-ground tomb, and it seems clear to me that we are not dealing with mythology but a Life of Brian-type rescue operation.
Christians may get annoyed now for my maintaining the non-miraculous explanations, but my purpose is not to defend Jesus's divinity, my purpose is to defend rationality and proper skepticism.
A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection:
A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).
I was amused to note from point B that if nothing else, we could happily induce the presence of Mary Magdalene at the tomb! A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).
However, the point is that the differences are of minutiae, and absolutely conform to the kind of differences found in real life witness testimony. I happen to feel that differences in the gospel accounts - even mutually exclusive ones - form a weak argument for rejecting either the historicity of the underlying story, or (as the author of Biblical Errancy appears to espouse) for the rejection of Christian faith. It's a weak argument because the same grounds could be used to strengthen ones faith. In this case, the Resurrection of Jesus is told in terms of reportage, not of mythology - the Resurrection itself is not described, just its aftermath. Couple that with Jesus's remarkably fast death (the spear in the chest is not in the synoptics) and his straightway being taken down and into an above-ground tomb, and it seems clear to me that we are not dealing with mythology but a Life of Brian-type rescue operation. Christians may get annoyed now for my maintaining the non-miraculous explanations, but my purpose is not to defend Jesus's divinity, my purpose is to defend rationality and proper skepticism.
(Incidentally, I've registered at the Internet Infidels board [link on that bede.org page] where I will probably do a lot more to indulge my current obsession with Bible scholarship. I recently bought the entire Bible in Greek: a classic English translated edition of the Septuagint, and the Greek New Testament, the Nestle Aland 27th Edition Novum Testamenutm Graece. I think I'm going insane.)
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
You say that you have studied almost every Myth there is and yet you
have learned nothing.
wayne_92587 said:You say that you have studied almost every Myth there is and yet you
have learned nothing.
*************
M*W: I've never stated that I have "studied almost every myth there is." What I have studied is the myth of jesus and christianity, but there was little to learn. I've also studied you, wayne, and unfortunately you don't dwell in reality, so you, too, must be a myth. Get some professional help.
Silas said,
Actually the differences mentioned substantiate the eye-witness gospel accounts rather than making them rejectable, indicating that there was more than one witness to the events. If there were four carbon copy gospel accounts, everyone would say they were from one person.
It would be kind of hard for him to walk wouldn't it, considering he had spikes driven through his ankles and he spent a day standing on those spikes? It would probably be hard to ever walk again given the amount of tissue and nerve damage it would cause.
And if he were still alive, where did he go? How did someone that well known just disappear? Don't you think his followers would have kept up with him?
Ok, so you have to explain him coming back to life without a miracle -- that's understandable. It's hard to imagine anyone having just survived an execution, just getting up and walking it off like nothing happened. Especially walking about 4 miles with two other men from Emmaus to Jerusalem the same day he was "resurrected", without even a limp. (Luke 24)
The Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified, but everyone mistakenly thought he was. They say Judas was crucified.
Actually the differences mentioned substantiate the eye-witness gospel accounts rather than making them rejectable, indicating that there was more than one witness to the events. If there were four carbon copy gospel accounts, everyone would say they were from one person.
It would be kind of hard for him to walk wouldn't it, considering he had spikes driven through his ankles and he spent a day standing on those spikes? It would probably be hard to ever walk again given the amount of tissue and nerve damage it would cause.
And if he were still alive, where did he go? How did someone that well known just disappear? Don't you think his followers would have kept up with him?
Ok, so you have to explain him coming back to life without a miracle -- that's understandable. It's hard to imagine anyone having just survived an execution, just getting up and walking it off like nothing happened. Especially walking about 4 miles with two other men from Emmaus to Jerusalem the same day he was "resurrected", without even a limp. (Luke 24)
The Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified, but everyone mistakenly thought he was. They say Judas was crucified.
I haven't had the time to read though 17 pages of posts, but thinking of the questions "Did Jesus exist", makes me think of something I saw on TV the other night.
Marty Stuart was talking about Johnny Cash. He said that he finds he hard to believe that he ever knew Cash, because the man himself is so mythical. Now, Cash has only been gone for less than 3 years. Jesus Christ has been physically gone for thousands. It's no wonder people are questioning his existence... but that doesn't mean he never did.
Marty Stuart was talking about Johnny Cash. He said that he finds he hard to believe that he ever knew Cash, because the man himself is so mythical. Now, Cash has only been gone for less than 3 years. Jesus Christ has been physically gone for thousands. It's no wonder people are questioning his existence... but that doesn't mean he never did.
True, though he may have been based on people that did exist...more of a composite character (like Maximus from Gladiator) of many Jewish rebels in the area (rebels not only against Roman occupation, but also rebels against the senior Judaic authorities). Nonetheless...the character Jesus was a traitor to Rome, no better than the Rebel scum from Star Wars. The swift justice he aquired was well-deserved, much like the justice delivered on Hoth to the rebel forces.Medicine Woman said:
Silas,
But you miss the key issue. The actual existence of these other pagans is not pertinent. The basis of Christianity is a resurrection that leads to the saving of the human race. If he never existed then he could not have been resurrected and that leaves Christianity as a total mess. If Christian claims were true then JC would be by far the most important person in the history of the universe, yet no one can point to a single irrefutable piece of evidence to show he actually existed. The comparison with pagans is a devious misdirection; the issue here is essentially one of critical credibility.
You are confusing the inductive nature of scientific theory with the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
Misdirection through exaggeration isn’t helpful. Much of Roman history has multiple independent sources that provide adequate verification, not so with JC claims. And again I remind you of the critical nature of JC existence to support Christian claims.
Astrology??? Did I miss something? She isn’t an astrologer. Her attempts to explain the origins of Christianity in terms of astrotheocracy is interesting but her primary skill is historical research specifically the mythical nature of the JC period. You should perhaps read “The Christ Conspiracy” which is probably the most extensive book written on the subject of the JC myth proposal and examine her extensive research and extensive references. My specific point in this thread was to indicate that the tired claims made by Woody for proofs of JC historical references are very well refuted in her book, regardless of her other leanings. You should perhaps examine the logic of the reasoning and actual research rather than form opinions based on reputations only.
And again there are key issue of significance here that makes your dismissive argument fallacious.
And again this is largely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. No one can point to anything that can confirm he ever existed. We should no more conclude that he existed any more than we should conclude the earth was once flat because virtually everyone at one time believed it.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
I found your post which I mistakenly took to mean Myth in general and
for that mistake I apologize
M*W: What it would mean to *me* would be all those years of research that I've put into this subject would finally come full circle to fruition. Even though somebody else may get the credit for it and get rich, it would still bring Christianity down, and for that, I would hope to be a contributor bringing the truth to humanity.
I never would have responded to one of your posts if I had Known that your expertise in myth was limited Christianity.
No surprise in your response, I should not have expected you to a clue as to what I am talking about.
Quote Silas:
“It only looks important because of the importance Christianity has achieved since then, and because of the level of detail we know about it through the Gospel tales, but really, how much of a splash would it make?”
* Nicely put Silas, but surely an alleged person who’s persona and legacy influenced and arguably changed the course of Western (and global, for that matter) history, would have made a splatter big enough to gain at least a couple of small mentions? Also if you look at the quantity of alleged miracles, and the raising of 3 people from the dead, the healing of the blind and the deaf, (mostly in front of the “multitudes”) I find it hard to believe that there would be only silence. He was after all “a doer of startling deeds”. These are the things that make the history books.
“It only looks important because of the importance Christianity has achieved since then, and because of the level of detail we know about it through the Gospel tales, but really, how much of a splash would it make?”
* Nicely put Silas, but surely an alleged person who’s persona and legacy influenced and arguably changed the course of Western (and global, for that matter) history, would have made a splatter big enough to gain at least a couple of small mentions? Also if you look at the quantity of alleged miracles, and the raising of 3 people from the dead, the healing of the blind and the deaf, (mostly in front of the “multitudes”) I find it hard to believe that there would be only silence. He was after all “a doer of startling deeds”. These are the things that make the history books.
Quote Woody:
“The point is that the Jesus-never-existed theory is a myth.”
* Now Woody, you know you can’t just say that. At the very least, the matter will remain undecided. There are plenty good arguments both ways.
Quote w:
“It's pretty obvious to most historians. Why don't you ask one of them at your local university? Here's a list of some you can talk to: Religion History Professors “
* Goodness Woody, not another pro Christian site? No biased Professors here eh? But at least Prof Koester concedes that:
“What Jesus actually said, and what Jesus actually did, as a brute historical fact we will never know....”
“The point is that the Jesus-never-existed theory is a myth.”
* Now Woody, you know you can’t just say that. At the very least, the matter will remain undecided. There are plenty good arguments both ways.
Quote w:
“It's pretty obvious to most historians. Why don't you ask one of them at your local university? Here's a list of some you can talk to: Religion History Professors “
* Goodness Woody, not another pro Christian site? No biased Professors here eh? But at least Prof Koester concedes that:
“What Jesus actually said, and what Jesus actually did, as a brute historical fact we will never know....”
stretched said:
No serious historian questions it given the evidence, What do you expect, video footage?
You show you aren't even looking. No wonder you don't find the "facts" you are looking for. The site on the professors, by the way was provided by PBS - your local secular humanist television network.
Here of are some of the references:
John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School
Now everybody knows Harvard University is a bunch of bible thumpers -- right stretch?
Eric Myers: Professor of Religion and Archaeology Duke University
Archaeology is another myth -- right stretched?
Allen D. Callahan: Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
ok, I confess I was wrong -- Harvard isn't your local university, and it's a repository for drooling husks.
John Dominic Crossan: Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University
The bias is odviously on your part. Nobody knows for sure what a lot of people said throughout history -- unless someone else writes it down -- then the fragments must be put together -- more sources of factual information meets the burden of proof that they existed -- but what they actually said will always be in question given the technology of that day. Fortunately for christians, that job was done for them with all the records placed together in the bible with all their minute inconsistencies to show they came from different sources.
In the final balance, history is judged not by written documentation which will always be in question, but by the impact it had on future generations.
Can you think of a person that had more impact on future generations of the human populace than Jesus Christ?
When you question the existence of Jesus, you question the very foundations of historicity. Applying the same standards to the rest of history, you relegate all of it to the trash heap.
Why don't you just admit you are in denial?
Last edited:
I would have no problem believing Jesus existed if it wasn't for some of the radical claims of his ability to walk on water, rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven etc etc...
These claims tell me that it is just a story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the writers of the new testament write about Jesus 50 years after his alledged death? This also wreaks of story telling being passed on through the generations. A classic game of chinese whispers.
These claims tell me that it is just a story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the writers of the new testament write about Jesus 50 years after his alledged death? This also wreaks of story telling being passed on through the generations. A classic game of chinese whispers.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
I found your post which I mistakenly took to mean Myth in general and
for that mistake I apologize
M*W: What it would mean to *me* would be all those years of research that I've put into this subject would finally come full circle to fruition. Even though somebody else may get the credit for it and get rich, it would still bring Christianity down, and for that, I would hope to be a contributor bringing the truth to humanity.
I never would have responded to one of your posts if I had Known that your expertise in myth was limited, Jesus Christ, Christianity.
No surprise in your response, I should not have expected you to have a clue as to what I am talking about.
One question though, how do you have years of research on Jesus the Christ and Christianity without having come away without any general knowledge on other religious myths?
The Muslims, Sunni I think, still await the coming of the Final Imam, Savior.
The Salvation of Man requires that man become the Ultimate Survivor.
The Term is not Jesus Christ, it is Jesus the Christ.
Since you have all those years of research on Jesus Christ perhaps you could explain to me, at what point did Jesus become the Christ?
I am inclined to believe that your long years of reach are gleaned from a single point of view, your own.
You have an ill conceived perception of knowledge pertaining to the Reality of the Christ.