Was there even really a Jesus?

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

Apostolic authorship of Matthew is handled more than adequately here.

Indeed it is, and it includes comments such as :

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark.

G.Matthew being dependent on G.Mark, which was NOT by an eye-witness, shows G.Matthew was not by an eye-witness either.


Peter also says :

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus.


Iasion

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

I was just a little miffed that you seemed to be accusing me of some sort of deception.

I suppose that diversion could be construed as deception. My apologies.

I don't think it carries much weight though, because we don't see any early evidence of such a leader - except for Paul and James. Consider the Mithras cult which grew and spread without a real Mithras (c.f. Attis or Dionysos.)

If the Jerusalem sect was, in fact, a messianic sect, I would consider Mithras to be a horribly strained equivalent. You can have a Mithras cult sans Mithras, or, e.g., a Vishnu cult sans Vishnu, a good deal easier than evolving a messianic cult sans a messiah. Better for your argument might be the Teacher of Righteousness who, according Lawrence Schiffman, rose to prominance somewhat late in the history of Qumran.

At the same time, the argument from absence seems particularly weak here. For example, we would not have known of a half dozen messianic claimants were it not for the works of Josephus. A failure to preserve these works would have, in no way, rendered the Samaritan prophet less likely. The history of the period is a rather hin gruel. I suspect that there are any number of interesting and impactful people of which we will remain totally ignorant.

I find it instructive that in the argument between Paul and the Jerusalem pillars, Paul makes it clear he is "just as much an Apostle" as they are. And they never say anything like "well, we KNEW Jesus - you didn't"

Where might we find the writings of these pillars of Jerusalem?

You find it instructive that some unavailable text does not raise an obvious point against Pau's authority, but you don't find it instructive that there are no 2nd Century pagan polemics against historicity. Is this not a double standard? Furthermore, is this not an issue that I've already raised twice, and that you have already evaded twice. Why is that?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Who was this Christian you speak of?

How is this not simply disingenuous? If you think that you are an a position to falsify his statement, feel free to try.

============================

Edited to add: Apparently davewhite04 reconsidered his comment and deleted it ...

 

[Rappaccini]

Greetings,

Will you please quit it with the fucking greetings?

 

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

Again clever, but far less compelling. In fact, to reframe the internal disputes concerning the nature of Jesus as debates concerning historicity seems a bit disingenuous.

Fair enough.
However I argue this is entirely valid due to the different world view in that time - being the (neo)platonic idea of a multi-layered universe - physical world "below", spiritual realms "above".

The issue then was whether Jesus was a physical being who walked the earth, or was a spiritual being from the higher realms (like Paul describes.)

Consider what Sallust layer says about Attys - he makes it clear that Attys was not a physical being, but a spiritual one.

Of course, many ancients still believed that such spiritual beings were REAL beings. Nowadays, we generally do not believe that spiritual beings are real.

So,
I am not trying to shift the goal-posts - rather I think these are analogous dichotomies.

Some ancients argued against Jesus by saying he was a phantom (because they believed in phantoms then) - but nowadays we (mostly) don't believe in phantoms, so a spiritual Christ is therefore not considered a real being.

Do you see where I am coming from CA?

Where are the pagans insisting that Jesus never existed?

Well, in those days such preachers and miracle workers were a dime a dozen - thus believable in those gullible times (times that believed in teleportation and heifers giving birth to foals). There was little reason for a pagan to deny such a figure - c.f. how many pagans denied The Golden Ass was real?

Nowadays, we realise the Gospel stories are highly fictitious, leading to a much more sceptical view.


And did you see the fascinating comment by CHRISTIAN father Minucius Felix? He explicitly denies the crucifixion and the incarnation are Christian beliefs :

"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -

By the way, I'm curious as to your take on "Q" and the Gospel of Thomas.

No strong opinions there - Q is a reasonable hypothesis.
I doubt G.Thomas is 1st C.


Iasion

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Will you please quit it with the fucking greetings?

Greetings, Rappaccini, are we having issues?

 

[davewhite04]

The issue then was whether Jesus was a physical being who walked the earth, or was a spiritual being from the higher realms (like Paul describes.)

Consider what Sallust layer says about Attys - he makes it clear that Attys was not a physical being, but a spiritual one.

Of course, many ancients still believed that such spiritual beings were REAL beings. Nowadays, we generally do not believe that spiritual beings are real.

Hiya Iasion,

Based on the evidence we have Jesus did walk this earth as a man or he didn't/doesn't exist at all. Are you ignoring all historical records associated with him? If so, who did exist in around 3bc for sure?

Dave

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Well, in those days such preachers and miracle workers were a dime a dozen - thus believable in those gullible times (times that believed in teleportation and heifers giving birth to foals). There was little reason for a pagan to deny such a figure - c.f. how many pagans denied The Golden Ass was real?

Apparently the only miracle worker who is not "a dime a dozen" is the one you need to be mythic. Why should we presume that a messianic cult arose without a messianic cult leader?

 

[davewhite04]

Apparently the only miracle worker who is not "a dime a dozen" is the one you need to be mythic. Why should we presume that a messianic cult arose without a messianic cult leader?

Geez CA,

You talk as if you lived in those times

 

[Rappaccini]

No, he doesn't.

If he did, his writing would look more like this.

 

[davewhite04]

No, he doesn't.

If he did, his writing would look more like this.

But we've evolved! Sort of in anyway...

 

[Rappaccini]

... or maybe hoc quod repperi tibi?

 

[davewhite04]

... or maybe hoc quod repperi tibi?

Maybe, you decide...

 

[tomasito]

Dangit tomasito!

Ya beat me to it..

Yes Sir!!
He(christ) said he who has ears to hear let hom hear and he who has eyes to see let hime see.
Then Jesus says to his opponents(the religious scholars of the day; pharisees, lawyers/scribes) that " they have eyes but they cannot see. they have ears but they do not hear. For hearing indeed they might hear but will never come to understanding".

Southstar we just tried what is humanly possible to let others see the Light but we cannot do more than that. That is why we don't have to stay in this forum forever. There are some cool ,intelligent ,spiritual thinkers but arguing with the many atheists and opponents of godly faith will to some level just tire one. That's why I will one day say adios to the religious arguments.(apotle paul tells us to shun scoffers,and vain arguments from those who are already puffed up. Their god is their stomach.)

At a certain time fellow comrade enlist in a faith-filled site/forum where you will learn more from those with more godly,scriptural upbringing. After we have told the world the truth concerning christ Jesus, the ball remains in their court.
Don't let their hostility/insults get to you heart.(Guard your heart with all diligence.From out of it springs the issues of life.)
Take care Southstar and always be a Star!

 

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

I suppose that diversion could be construed as deception. My apologies.

Thank you

If the Jerusalem sect was, in fact, a messianic sect, I would consider Mithras to be a horribly strained equivalent. You can have a Mithras cult sans Mithras, or, e.g., a Vishnu cult sans Vishnu, a good deal easier than evolving a messianic cult sans a messiah.

But Jesus as Messiah is only one part of the matrix, and a late one at that.

The Jews didn't recognise Jesus as their Messiah.

Paul's Iesous Christos is not messianic at all.

Nor is the mystery initiation figure found in Ephesians -
But all things, when they are reproved, are revealed by the light, for everything that is revealed is light. Therefore he says,
"Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christos will shine on you." ( Eph. 5:13 )

Nor the divine being described in Colossians 1:15-20

Nor the Jesus found in the Nag Hammadi writings.

Few, if any, of the early Christian writings show any clear emphasis on Jesus as a historical Messianic leader.

So, I just don't see this as a problem because Jesus as Messiah is a late aspect of his story.

Where might we find the writings of these pillars of Jerusalem?

We can see some of this argument between Paul and the pillars in his writings, and in Acts - if the pillars HAD known Jesus they would have shut Paul up by saying "we knew him and you didn't" - but there is not the slightest sign of this. What we DO see is Paul's argument that he is just as good an apostle as them.

You find it instructive that some unavailable text does not raise an obvious point against Pau's authority, but you don't find it instructive that there are no 2nd Century pagan polemics against historicity. Is this not a double standard? Furthermore, is this not an issue that I've already raised twice, and that you have already evaded twice. Why is that?

Didn't mean to evade anything.

I commented on this above, just recently.

Firstly,
the pagans of the 2nd century had little facts to go on - Jerusalem had been razed to the gound, the temple destroyed, and the Jews (that survived) dispersed - the evidence just was not clear or available to those writers.

Secondly,
the figure of Jesus was not un-believable in those gullible times - he sounds like one of the many minor figures of the period - in those days, Jesus sounded plausible.

Nowadays, our powers of analysis are much better, we are much less gullible, so why doubt Jesus.

Furthemore -
consider what happened to the works of Celsus - totally destroyed by the church because his critique was so damaging - if there WAS a debunking of Jesus' very existance in the 2nd century, would it have survived? I doubt it.


But,
when the Gospels DID finally arise (and which contain the vast majority of the Jesus story) they WERE debunked (Celsus, Porphyry, later Julian.)

Also,
the evidence from the 2nd century includes the comment by Minucius Felix that Christians did NOT believe in the incarnation, nor the crucifixion.

And,
writers like Theophilus and Athenagoras and Tatian wrote works describing Christianity WITHOUT mentioning Jesus at all !

This is clear evidence that some Christians did NOT believe in Jesus what-so-ever - this simply could not have happened if Jesus had been a historical founder.

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings Rappaccini,

Will you please quit it with the fucking greetings?

Hmmm...
Let me guess -

You're a faithful Christian, you were badly stung by my argument, but you can't refute any of it, so you wildly lash out at my use of a standard politeness formula?


Feel free to contribute with actual evidence and argument

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings Dave,

Thanks for your comments

Hiya Iasion,
Based on the evidence we have Jesus did walk this earth as a man or he didn't/doesn't exist at all. Are you ignoring all historical records associated with him? If so, who did exist in around 3bc for sure?
Dave

Hmm..
There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all.

What "historical records" are you referring to exactly?


The evidence usually presented is either late, forged, not about Jesus, or merely retellings of later Christian beliefs -

Josephus -
at best tampered with, at worst outright forgery (the 2nd minor reference has its own problems.)

Tacitus -
merely reports later Christian beliefs.

Pliny -
merely reports later Christian beliefs.

Suetonus -
mentions a Chrestos causing disturbance in Rome - nothing to do with Jesus.

Phlegon -
his works are lost and we know almost nothing about him. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events, even if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.

Thallus -
his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE. 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: ''Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading, which leads Christians to falsely identify him, check this out here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Mara bar Serapion -
nearly 2 centuries after the events, and might not even be about Jesus at all.


In short,
there is NO evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events, and what evidence Christians DO adduce is all suspect. It was this which first caused me to become a sceptic - when I went to check the evidence for Jesus myself, I was shocked at how poor it is.

And,
the way that the Gospels are clearly derived from midrash on the OT (and some pagan elements) also argues against a HJ.


By the way,
some of you may be interested in joining the Internet Infidels forums, where we discuss these issues at length - don't worry, there are plenty of believers there as well as sceptics - the level of debate is scholarly and very active, feel free to pop in :
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60

Iasion

 

[Gravage]

Greetings all,



Pardon?
There is no evidence for this.

All we have is a CLAIM by Paul that Jesus APPEARED to 500 un-named witnesses (who are never named or mentioned again.)

Paul lists these appearances along with his own, SPIRITUAL vision, of Jesus - which argues these appearances were all spiritual visions.

Paul's Iesous Christos was a spiritual being - he says nothing about a historical Jesus - no Mary, Joseph, no birth stories, no miracles, no healings, no Sermon, no triumphal entry, no TRIAL!, no empty tomb!

This silence is found throughout the early Christian records - no mention of any historical details about Jesus until over a CENTURY afterwards.


How do YOU explain that Paula?

How do YOU explain that NOT ONE SINGLE Christian writer mentions e.g. the empty tomb story until over a CENTURY after it allegedly happened?

How do YOU explain that the chronologically first 20 or so Christian books make NO mention of the Gospel events? (or the Gospels, or the Evangelists.)
What did Christians writers know, when?


Consider this revealing comment by Christian father Aristides, sometime between 138-161CE :

"... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them".

This is clear and present evidence that the Gospel was NEW (and singular, and un-named) in mid-2nd century - which is supported by all the other evidence :

* First mention of proto-Gospels : Papias early-mid 2nd century

* First published Gospel : Marcion c.142CE

* First quotes from un-named proto Gospels : Justin mid 2nd century

* First to name the 4 Evangelists : Irenaeus c.185CE


This all shows quite clearly that the Gospels were late productions and their contents unknown (even to CHRISTIANS!) until mid 2nd century.

The Gospels are clearly derived from the OT (and some pagan myths, e.g. Virgin birth) not from history.


Notable, when the Gospels arose, they were criticised by Celsus as follows :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

In short,
the Gospels are myths, totally UNKNOWN until a CENTURY after the alleged events. Jesus was a myth.


Iasion

Hi,lasion! You should read the fable of Chist book by Luigi Cascioli-in this bok there are irrefutable historical evidences and demonstration that Jesus never existed at all.
On the following website you'll find any detailed information about the unexistence of Jesus provided by historical evidences and demonstration:

http://www.luigicascioli.it/sviluppi_eng.php

 

[Jenyar]

In short,
there is NO evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events, and what evidence Christians DO adduce is all suspect. It was this which first caused me to become a sceptic - when I went to check the evidence for Jesus myself, I was shocked at how poor it is.

What makes you expect better evidence? Can you provide an example of better evidence of a historical person who was only publically known for three years?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

But Jesus as Messiah is only one part of the matrix, and a late one at that.

Thanks, Iasion. I agree that messianic cult is an assumption. Could you tell me how you would characterize the Jerusalem cult of the 50's? Specifically, what theological issues would have separated them from normative Judaism?

We can see some of this argument between Paul and the pillars in his writings, and in Acts - if the pillars HAD known Jesus they would have shut Paul up by saying "we knew him and you didn't" - but there is not the slightest sign of this. What we DO see is Paul's argument that he is just as good an apostle as them.

But this argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Why should the Jerusalem sect stoop to such an argument, and, had it been raised, why should Paul or Luke report it?