How many people think Jesus really existed?

[bamademo]

Was he a real man or was it just a lot of stories based on myths and homogenized by the Pope whose name I can't remember to keep peace between the Pagans and Christians? I'm truly curious and I don't have the time to research extensively.

[Bryn]

1. You will learn more if you go to this site

www.truthbeknown.com

[Orrex]

6. I learned that truthbeknown.com looks like a place to hawk books

Or is there a deeper significance?

[Bryn]

25. A deeper significance

I am a member of one of her forums. The author works very hard to bring the truth to people, to free them from oppressive religions. She's a scholar, can speak in several languages, she's also archaeologist, mythologist, read the bible in original hebrew and greek. I read one of her books, Christ Conspiracy: the greatest story ever sold. I haven't read other books yet, but I'd like to read "Christ in Egypt".

[Solomon]

146. Yep Good books. I read Gerald Massey's books years

ago and when this author referenced Gerald Massey then I knew she knows her stuff. Her work is good.

[salvorhardin]

199. You'd do better to read Robert M. Price

At least he knows what he's talking about. Dorothy Murdock's stuff is all based on long ago discredited ideas without any basis in fact.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure if there was singular historical Jesus. More likely the Jesus of the New Testament is an amalgam of several of the many self-declared prophets and messiahs roaming the deserts about that time.

[Tutankhamun]

148. She's a charlatan. Her work on the subject has been totally debunked.

I'm not saying there was a Jesus. Just that there are far more accurate books on the subject.

[Confusious]

2. Have you heard the word of RA and OSIRIS?

RA was born of a virgin and healed the sick.

OSIRIS suffered at the hands of evil, defeated death giving eternal life to his followers.

[Hissyspit]

54. The mythology of resurrection and the mythology of martyrdom

were (and are) very effective tools for reaching two sometimes very distinct audiences - appeal to sacrifice full of meaning (young people) and appeal to eternal life (old folks). With the Jesus of Nazareth narrative, they are combined. The appeals overlap, of course. The concept of virgin birth has its own particular appeal to people, for various reasons.

[Zhade]

60. Hey, Mithra feels left out.

Christianity -- plagiarizing other mythologies since, er, BCE 0.

[aquart]

79. Be fair. EVERY religion does that.

Right now Iran is having a big fuss over a fire festival which, judging by dates, is the same holiday as the Jewish Purim which, despite the retrofitted etymology, really means "fires," although it has otherwise been altered beyond recognition.

[aquart]

77. Hey, don't forget Dumuzi.

A pun on his name is the reason Jesus was born in a manger.

[provis99]

3. Paul, the writer of most of the New Testament, said Jesus was not a real human.

Read yer bible. Jesus was not of this earth, according to Paul.

[demwing]

4. Yeah, but Paul was a lying sack of fish bait

so who cares. Besides, thats a very loose interpretation of what Paul wrote.

[gkhouston]

13. Paul was scum. Assuming *he* actually existed and wasn't invented after the

fact. Mr. Jew's Jew, laying down the law about how the law of Moses was no longer relevant and only his interpretations of Christ's message should be acceptable. I often wonder what Jesus would have thought of the cult of Christ that sprang up after his death, because he didn't seem interested in that sort of thing while he was alive.

[Zhade]

62. Most mythical characters get interpreted in wildly different ways. Goes with the territory.

NT!

[struggle4progress]

163. Paul's not a sympathetic enough character to be fictional. He's like a fanatic jackass

in recovery. It's like he's wandering around trying to set up groups for the 12-step program he just discovered: Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm an asshole (Hi, Paul!)

He's a strange man with a foot in two worlds. On the one hand, he's a Roman citizen; on the other hand, he's an intolerant religious extremist, following the local religion of folk conquered by the Romans. A Roman who became a zealous Jew? Or a zealous Jew who performed some service for the empire that won him citizenship? Then suddenly he changes his name and claims to be a new person. Yes, he's decided he's a Christian

Now, this can't make him look good to the Romans: he's inconveniently claiming that the Romans executed the King of the Universe

It can't make him look good to the Jewish community either: he's willing to throw out the whole of traditional Jewish religious ritual

How should the Christians react? Not much earlier, he was enthusiastic about stoning members of this new sect: now he says he's met the resurrected Jesus, and he's so sure of himself that he argues with people who actually knew Jesus before the crucifixion. It's schizoid. It smells of collaborateur or agent provocateur. Nobody wants him around. You can almost hear the early Christian community in Judea murmuring that the guy was not to be trusted: Yeah, Paul, why don't you go spread the word? How about somewhere far away from here?

[aquart]

78. Yes, that describes Paul quite well.

He never met Jesus so how exactly would he know anything about him?

[stopbush]

135. Actually, Paul met Jesus on the road to Damscus, at least according to Paul he did.

He met Jesus as a spirit, not as a corporeal being. Paul is quite insistent that this is the way that ALL people meet Jesus.

As Paul's writings preceded the writing of the 4 Gospels, it would have been the Gospel writers who borrowed from Paul, not the other way round. Ever notice that Paul doesn't mention a single event from the supposed worldly life of Jesus? Why is that? Could it be because the Gospel myths hadn't yet been written? I think so.

[AlecBGreen]

87. nothing comes to mind

do you have any specific verses? I dont remember as much of the epistles as I should

[stopbush]

126. Exactly, and as Paul invented Xianity, there you have it.

Whether Jesus existed or not once you get past the good stuff in his message (love one another, etc) the other 90% of what he had to say was loathsome. One must engage in some pretty heavy self-hatred to feel the need to be "saved" by the idiot Jesus.

[AlecBGreen]

206. wow

90% was loathsome? except for the quote about "coming with a sword" what else of what he (supposedly) said was so bad?

and btw, I dont hate myself :hi:

[ibegurpard]

5. I do

But I believe that very little of what we think about him is true.

[comrade snarky]

7. Maybe was one guy, maybe a few guys mushed into one story

Maybe completely made up.

There's no way to know since no one mentions him at the time.

[ericinne]

8. Nope, not real.

This has always been my favorite explanation for Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1FdtpH8lSI

[TeeYiYi]

43. Thanks for the link...

... and welcome to DU.

TYY

[sakabatou]

9. Many people do.

[Zhade]

65. Many used to believe in Thor, too.

But he's not the popular mythical figure of the moment.

Shame -- I think chucking Mjolnir to fly is a pretty cool method.

[Goblinmonger]

10. There is absolutely zero proof of a historical Jesus.

Certainly if there was some dude, he wasn't the son of god.

Personally, I believe that Jesus is just a retelling of previous myths in a time of turmoil.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Shhh...

don't say that the Roman people, who were meticulous with their record keeping, have no record of crucifying this person. Wouldn't want reality to rule the day :hi:

[harkadog]

46. Where do you get that shit from?

Making it up. How come Roman historians of the first century mention Jesus? Were they apart of the conspiracy too?

[stopbush]

53. Wrong. Contemporaneous Roman historians absolutely do NOT mention Jesus.

The ones that do mention him wrote about him decades after he supposedly died and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - they only relate that Xians living at that time said that they believed Jesus had lived, just as they report that certain Romans believed in certain Roman gods of the time. There are NO Roman records that say Jesus existed. Period. The best you have are writers like Pliny saying "Mel the Jew believes this Jesus guy existed and was a god."

[Zhade]

66. Thank you for clearing up that bit of untruth.

NT!

[harkadog]

The only untruth was in the post

[harkadog]

112. The poster I was replying to said the Romans kept records

of everyone they executed. I asked him/her to put up or shut up. They shut up. It was a lie. As a student of ancient history I found that statement to be absolutely laughable but that is the extent atheists go to deny that Jesus existed. It is not enough for them to not believe that he was a deity, they have to deny he existed in order to make themselves get through the day. Pathetic. Do you also think the disciples were fake? They didn't exist? Apparently willing to go to their deaths for someone they knew did not exist? Think there is no historical records on the disciples?

[darkstar3]

118. You just invalidated everything you have to say.

By stretching this far...

I found that statement to be absolutely laughable but that is the extent atheists go to deny that Jesus existed. It is not enough for them to not believe that he was a deity, they have to deny he existed in order to make themselves get through the day. Pathetic.

into ad hom, not to mention completely speculative and broad-brush territory, you've just sacrificed any credibility you had on this subject.

When you're willing to dive this far into fallacy, not to mention stupidity, just to attack a group you disagree with, what makes you think anyone here should take you seriously?

[struggle4progress]

130. The contemporary Roman historians probably don't mention most people executed as common criminals

by the Romans: they were interested primarily in the lives of the powerful and in conquests, rebellions, or wars

[darkstar3]

131. So does that mean I can believe in Brian?

He's not mentioned by Roman historians, but he WAS executed as a common criminal and HE'S REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!

[struggle4progress]

139. I've seen that movie more than once and laughed out loud, but the take-away message

in it for me was the running gag about the "Judean People's Front" and "People's Front of Judea"

I suppose YMMV

[darkstar3]

141. YMMV.

That should be written in the front of every religious text and every religious spoof ever created.

[struggle4progress]

143. In some sense, I can only say -- But, of course!

Traditional texts are footprints in ancient dust. When some community reads such a text, the views of community members must affect their readings. So our records of interpretation encode all manner of aspects of human psyche: vision quests, power struggles, ...

[trotsky]

144. Actually, they were quite meticulous record-keepers. n/t

[dmallind]

89. They don't

A few mention the nascent religion but the only one to "mention" Jesus the person is an easily established fraud inserted into Josephus some centuries later. (early church fathers commented heavily on Josephus and they did not see fit to point out he mentioned Jesus for well over 200 years. Bit of an omission for people keen to establish the truth of the Messiah. Not only that but the clumsy interpolation is lifted almost verbatim from the Lukan kerygma, is completely at odds with Josephus's typical style and syntax, and would have been anathema to the pro-Roman author anyway).

[aquart]

80. Well, maybe that's true and maybe it's not.

You might want to look up the works of Robert Eisler.

[struggle4progress]

129. That is a fascinating claim. Where exactly do you find these alleged meticulously-keep records

listing who the Romans crucified? It would be almost criminal of you not to reveal your archival sources, since your discovery will represent a major break-through for historians of classical antiquity

[stopbush]

137. I saw a show about the Colliseum on The History Channel once

that said that the Romans kept detailed records of how many animals were slaughtered in their games but didn't bother keeping track of the number of humans so dispatched.

I doubt that the Romans kept records of the non-Romans they had executed. To do so would be to elevate such people to a status that the Romans would never give them. Roman executions - especially crucifixion - were public displays to leave no doubt in the minds of conquered populations that their lives meant nothing to the Romans, and that they'd better stay in line or they'd meet a similar fate. You don't degrade a person's existence by crucifying them and then list their name on a scoreboard of any kind.

[struggle4progress]

140. That's credible

[ChadwickHenryWard]

150. The word "obliterate" comes from an old Roman practice.

If one were sufficiently publicly disgraced, it could be ordained that all record of an individual be destroyed. This ignominious fate happened at least once to a man in line of succession to become Emperor, though, not surprisingly, I can't remember his name. (I believe his is the only example of somebody being so obliterated and actually having his name, almost miraculously, remembered by history. This shouldn't be surprising, though, considering the great volume of records not destroyed in this way that are no longer extant.) There still exists around Rome triumphal arches and columns with large blank sections where this unfortunate fellow's name and exploits were unceremoniously chiseled away.

I don't entirely agree with your main point, though. It depends on what your main persecutor's motivation was. Vercingetorix is remembered in Roman records as somebody that was shamed by Julius Caesar. Spartacus himself was crucified, or so it is believed, though his name is still remembered by history. The inability to identify a body, along with the unwillingness of any survivor to cop to being Spartacus (or to out their beloved leader) led to the ultimate decision to crucify everybody involved, living or dead.

[stopbush]

152. So does the word "decimate" and the practice of the same.

Decimation was part of Roman Army discipline. If there was a major fuck up, every 10th soldier was killed without regard to who they were (I'm sure there were special exceptions made - politics reigns, even in decimation).

The point of decimation was that the punishment wasn't carried out against soldiers because of their personal guilt, but as an expression of corporate guilt. In this way, decimation was just as impersonal to those carrying it out as was their crucifixion of rebels. The names weren't important - it was the gesture that was important.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

165. I disagree.

Decimation seems to me very personal. It was carried out by the other nine soldiers standing in line. Their victim would not be a stranger but a member of their own unit. It's thought today that such action was seen as cathartic. As an aside, I don't believe it was all that common. It seems to me to be the kind of thing you write about, but don't ever actually do. It's just way impractical. The Romans had a boundless ability to aggrandize themselves.

Returning to the matter of Jesus, he was more than just some thief on the street. He was, as the story goes, somebody organization against Roman authority. And that's never unremarkable. I think, on balance, that it's more likely that somebody would have written something about the affair down, other than a group of people with religious motivations, who are therefore not reliable narrators.

[stopbush]

175. I bow to your superior grasp of the subject. I learned something today, and that's good.

[Tutankhamun]

151. A lot of their records simply didn't survive.

There is hardly any record of their emperor, Caligula. I'm not saying Jesus existed, I'm just saying that a lack of surviving records doesn't mean none ever existed.

[gmoney]

11. Proof and everything

[Schema Thing]

12. hard for me to say...

... but on balance I think the stories are based loosely on one *real* guy but incorporate so much myth (and leave out so much information) that it's hard to know anything of substance about that one guy.

He may have been especially charismatic, or he may have lucked into a following, or some of both. Who could know? One thing seems clear: in his own lifetime, he wasn't a big enough deal to get himself on history's radar screen. And apparently, he didn't see the need to communicate in writing.

And of course that's all IF he existed at all.

[TexasObserver]

14. I believe there was a real man around whom myths and legends were built.

[Kaleva]

15. The Prophet Muhammad said Jesus was real...

but that he was a prophet of flesh and blood and not divine. Few scholars dispute that there was a Jesus. The main debate is that whether or not he was divine.

[Hissyspit]

57. "Few scholars dispute that there was a Jesus"

Basis for that? I know of plenty of scholars who QUESTION it, dispute not being the main issue because of the lack of definite evidence.

Whether or not he was divine? No debate about that, as far as I'm concerned. There is no such thing.

[Critters2]

105. Who are all these many scholars? nt

[harkadog]

113. They are called historians

Check out a book or two on the Middle east history. You might learn something but probably not.

[Critters2]

114. I have degrees in history and theology. Still asking. Do these scholars have names? nt

[harkadog]

116. Are you actually saying middle east historians deny the

existence of Jesus? Who are these since you are such an authority?

[lazarus]

16. nope

no contemporary evidence of any kind for his existence. Just a bunch of fairy tales.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. Oh yeah?

Well then who raised your ass from the dead after 4 days, Lazurus? :evilgrin:

[lazarus]

82. raised myself

through clean living and hard work. :hi:

[H2O Man]

17. A real man.

Not the figure found on stained glass windows, though.

[gkhouston]

18. That's good, because some of those stained glass windows are pretty disturbing. n/t

[951-Riverside]

20. Many people think Robin Hood was real too

Give it 1,000 more years and people will probably be preaching his "gospel".

[provis99]

21. are we talking about the Synoptic gospels Jesus, or John's Jesus?

They seem to be two different guys. And the Jesus found in the banned Gnostic gospels was something else altogether.

[GReedDiamond]

22. I'm an atheist, but I'm also an ex-"Roman Catholic"...

...so I make tortured soul-searching paintings such as this:



Jesus Fucking Christ (Hipster Jesus 2010) Tim K, March 2010.

Oil and acrylic with gold leaf on canvas mounted on board, 12" x 14" framed size, in a vintage refinished frame.

For the "record," I believe that there was some really-smart-guy-historical-figure in the past who exhibited extraordinary abilities at motivating his followers into carrying on his "teachings," hence, "Christianity." I know, that's a super-simplified version of Christianity/religion/spirituality, but I out of hand reject "supernatural beings" such as the Virgin-born Jesus Christ, along with all other manifestations of somebodies hyperactive imagination, spun into a disciplined ideolgy and rigid belief system...but I'm rambling on...

However, other than being raised as a Catholic, and now self-proclaimed "atheist," outside of "accepted science" in explaining the Present State Of Our Collective Shit, I also have an interest in the work of Rupert Sheldrake, so I haven't given up looking for an "answer," so to speak. I have an interest in the idea of morphogenetics/morphic resonance.

The painting is my view of what the "historical Jesus" would look like, if he were on the scene today. I know, it's fucking ridiculous...but no more ridiculous than the current popularly accepted Jesus Myth, IMO.

Edited for typo/spelling

[proteus_lives]

50. Wow, an edgy picture of Jesus.

Tim K. March sure is original. :eyes:

[harkadog]

23. Jesus was mentioned by contemporary Roman historians.

It certainly was not in their interest to make him up. Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger all wrote about or mentioned Jesus. There were other accounts by less well known historians also.

[gkhouston]

27. none of those are truly contemporary, IIRC, although they were first century.

They would have been documenting the early church, but would not have witnessed Jesus himself, so their accounts would at best be second-hand.

[Kaleva]

33. Same with Alexander the Great

The earliest written accounts we have of have of his life were published 400 years after his death. There is ample other evidence that proves he did exist but there are no first hand accounts of his life.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Right, but there is plenty of other evidence for Alexander the Great.

He wasn't just some schizophrenic cult leader from some backwater part of the world.

[harkadog]

42. I love it when atheists start foaming at the mouth when this topic comes up

[Zhade]

70. It's the accuracy we're concerned with. There's no evidence, and you know it.

Oh, you want to pretend otherwise. But we know you know.

It's okay to admit it. Trust me, it's not that scary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Pointing out flaws in your knowledge of history is hardly foaming at the mouth.

[TexasObserver]

155. You incorrectly conclude that anyone who disagrees with your version is an atheist.

And your blanket attacks on atheists only make you appear desperate and uninformed.

One can believe in God, and not believe that Jesus lived.

One can believe Jesus lived, and not believe he was a god.

One can believe Jesus may or may not have lived, and conclude that it's not possible to know whether Jesus did or didn't live.

There's a whole world of possibilities other than the one you have and the one by which you categorize all others.

My point of view:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x239139#239163

[Kaleva]

30. And few are willing to be executed for what they know to be a fabrication.

There is little debate about the actual existence of the disciples of whom many were executed.

[stopbush]

64. According to Pliny, most Xians were more than happy to deny Jesus to save their skins.

From his letter to Trajan, 112CE:

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

There is absolutely no proof for the existence of the Apostles, either.

[Kaleva]

73. Pliny doesn't say that "most" Christians were happy to deny Christ.

[Kaleva]

91. "...none of which those who are really Christians,...."

"it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged."

Pliny does give a first hand account of Christians who refused to deny Christ being executed or sent to Rome if they were Roman citizens.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. No, he wasn't.

Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger were not contemporaries of Jesus. Assuming Jesus existed.

I don't know what crazy creationist type source people keep getting that from, but it's wrong.

[harkadog]

41. They lived within 50 years or so of his death

That is pretty contemporary for ancient sources. Do you trust historians of this century who write about early American leaders? Thanks for playing.

[comrade snarky]

76. A couple of them were born within 50 years of the new era

But the earliest writing is from Josephus in 93 CE and that is in serious dispute as a later forgerie.

Other than that you're looking at 111 or 112 CE and they don't mention a historical Jesus. Just the existence of contemporary 1st century Christians and what to do about them or strife in the Jewish community about supposed messiahs.

We have a lot better history of Early America than we do for 1st century Judea.


Before you thank others for playing... make sure you have game.

:edited for tpyo

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. That's not contemporary whatosever.

"Do you trust historians of this century who write about early American leaders?"

Since they base their work on contemporary accounts, yes.

Thanks for ridiculous analogies.

[stopbush]

107. What about the Jewish historian, Philo, who wrote around 20-50CE.

Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea

Of all the potential witnesses to the life of Jesus, Philo of Alexandria deserves special attention because:

* Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
* Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
* Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
* Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
* Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
* Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
* Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
* Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
* Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him

Philo was a Hellenistic Jew who lived in Alexandria Egypt, but traveled throughout the empire. Philo appears to have had both a Jewish and Greek education, for he demonstrates that he was well versed in both schools of thought, which he merged into his own worldview.

Philo traveled to Jerusalem at least once and he also traveled to Rome in 39 CE as head ambassador of the Jews to address complaints about the practice of putting statues of Roman Emperors in Jewish synagogues. Philo also made donations to the Temple in Jerusalem as well.

In addition to all of this, Philo was a grandson of Herod the Great and knew Herod Agrippa I to whom he personally loaned money. Agrippa I was king of the Jews of Judea from 41-44 CE. Philo's brother was also involved in government. Philo's whole life was intimately tied to the politics and events of the region and Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire.

In 40 CE Philo wrote On the Embassy to Gaius, in which he mentioned Pontius Pilate. Gaius refers to the emperor Caligula. Not only does this work discuss the reign of Pontius Pilate in Judea, but it also discusses a number of ideas that demonstrate Philo's deep concern for, and knowledge of, issues directly related to the Jewish religion.

Yet, he never mentioned Jesus.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

117. Wasn't there a linguist writing at that time

That wrote a treatise on all the interesting men named "Yeshua" throughout history, that lacked any mention of Jesus of Nazareth? I seem to remember hearing something about that once. It has kind of the same angle running, being somebody intimately familiar with the subject yet not seeing fit to mention our boy JC?

[struggle4progress]

132. Philo was at most once, and possibly never, in Judea. He was well-connected, but

there would have been little motive for his contemporaries in Jerusalem to discuss much a mere peasant who had been essentially lynched (under Roman official color) as a threat to the local religious and civil establishment: sympathizers would have had reason to keep their mouths shut, and non-sympathizers would quickly move on to other more current issues

[stopbush]

134. And I assume the same is true of all the other writers that have been mentioned in this thread.

All of their mentions of Jesus are in the "this guy said something about someone" category. None of them aver Jesus really existed, just that he was a god figure that people believed existed as a person (or - in St Paul's case - didn't believe he existed as a corporeal being).

[struggle4progress]

138. I think the question of historical evidence has been answered in the negative for a century or more:

if one wants absolutely watertight proof that the story somehow reflects a historical person, it can only be said that no such proof is known -- though one can also remark that the state of affairs is unsurprising, since the story involves a politically powerless homeless person who was railroaded to quick execution after offending the local establishment, which is not the sort of story contemporary historians were likely to record for posterity, since the historians were inevitably upper-class in a highly pyramidal society depending heavily on violently oppressive exploitation of the lower tiers

The interesting historical question that could be asked is -- Why would anyone in such a society adopt the point-of-view "My God is that man who was executed as a common criminal" -- especially since adopting the view was likely to be personally hazardous

The theological questions, of course, are different and do not really revolve around the historical evidence; see, for example, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

[ironbark]

157. Nice cut to the chase.

In the absence of any historical evidence for Jesus we are left with a narrative and the-

“story involves a politically powerless homeless person who was railroaded to quick execution after offending the local establishment, which is not the sort of story contemporary historians were likely to record for posterity, since the historians were inevitably upper-class in a highly pyramidal society depending heavily on violently oppressive exploitation of the lower tiers
The interesting historical question that could be asked is -- Why would anyone in such a society adopt the point-of-view "My God is that man who was executed as a common criminal" -- especially since adopting the view was likely to be personally hazardous”

Thank you, the passage and the question deserved to be repeated.

Why would anyone embrace such a story, why would anyone risk persecution/death for such a story,
why would anyone go on to sacrifice their lives to and for such a story, why would others buy into such a story?

Possibly people were convinced to the point of being mesmerised by a ripping yarn that was more captivating and hypnotic than anything Shakespeare could produce.

The probability is that peoples lives were transformed by the story and that, seeing this, others sought similar transformation.

[trotsky]

161. You bet that's an interesting question:

"Why would anyone in such a society adopt the point-of-view 'My God is that man who was executed as a common criminal'"

Why would anyone in today's society adopt the point of view that their religion's founder was a science fiction writer who once bragged about the money to be made in creating a religion? Yet millions do.

Why would anyone in today's society adopt the point of view that their religion's founder came across some golden plates that he translated all by himself, then lost, then re-created a translation with the help of an angel that oh, by the way, differed quite a bit from the first translation? Yet millions do.

Hopefully you get the point.

[ironbark]

180. Look to the common factor.

The Mormon Church and Scientology are both distinctly American developments.

The emerging Pax Americana, becoming dominant in economic, industrial and military power could not acquire the validation of being central/important in the realm of religion….unless Jesus himself had been there. A visit from the Son of God makes the US the New Jerusalem…centre of the world.
Very appealing stuff for young Americans in a young Pax Americana…but…in the eyes of the rest of the world…just another flakey offshoot denomination of Christianity among 30,000 others. And the most determined international proselytizing missions in history have not changed its lack of appeal outside the US.

So screaming from the zeitgeist comes the perfect example of American initiative and invention…the fusion of religion, science and entertainment. Scientology, the godless religion that can heal your damaged alien Thetans with science…very entertaining…big appeal in the US…not so much for the world.

Both provided a sense of community/purpose with validation and confirmation of the centrality of the US in the world.

Personally I am eternally grateful for American initiative in producing an Atheistic religion of such high entertainment value. From L Rons being sent back from Australia during WWII with written instructions from his naval commander that- “Under no circumstances was this man to be placed in any position of command or authority within the US navy”…to his subsequent captaincy of a US subhunter, his engagement of not one but >two< Japanese subs off the coast of Florida (he did battle with a magnetic field ;-)…to his subsequent sailing into Mexican territorial waters and conducting machine gun practice at an island upon which Mexican fishermen sat repairing their nets….it’s all such a great and hysterically funny story.

Why do you guys bother inventing scripts when you have such wonderful history to draw from?

Why would anyone in today's society embrace such religions?...Because they meet the needs of the people and the zeitgeist of the time.

The question... is how long will they last?
My money is on their not surviving beyond the decline of Pax Americana…but only time will tell.

[Hissyspit]

55. Josephus was pretty much a lousy historian (even by then-contemporary standards)

if I'm remembering right.

[Kaleva]

61. No contempory of Pontius Pilate wrote first hand accounts of him

,at least none that have survived, but proof of his existence was found in 1961 when a limestone block - that was apparently apparently a dedication to Tiberius Caesar Augustus — was discovered in 1961 in the ruins of an amphitheater at Caesarea Maritima refers to Pilate as "Prefect of Judaea". The inscription has been dated to 26-37 AD.

Much of what we know about the vast majority of people during that time period is based on second hand accounts written years after the subject lived so it's not odd there are no surviving first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. "There are no contemporary accounts of Pontius Pilate..."

"Except for that contemporary account discovered in 1961..."

Make up your mind.

[Kaleva]

136. I didn't say what you have in qoutes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

147. No, I'm paraphrase.

You said there were no contemporary accounts and then you contradicted yourself by mentioning a contemporary account.

[Kaleva]

158. I left out "historian".

The inscription on the limestone block provides physical evidence that there was a Pilate who was procurator of the Roman province of Judaea. We know that Alexander the Great did indeed exist because of the physical evidence. The earliest surviving manuscripts we have today detailing his life were written some 400 years after his death. We know there was a city of Troy because of the physical evidence discovered in the late 1800's.

[struggle4progress]

133. Philo mentions Pilate:

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html

[Kaleva]

156. But Philo write of Pilate some years after Pilate was procurator of Judaea

As far as I know, Philo never was in Judea during the time Pilate was procurator of Judaea.

[stopbush]

56. Josephus didn't mention jesus. Those Jesus-mentioned passages in Jospehus are 4th-century forgeries.

The others you cite do NOT talk about Jesus as if he was a historic figure. They only mention him as a man-god that early Xians said they believed in, just as they talk about the Roman gods that people believed in.

[Kaleva]

67. incorrect

Most historians believe that parts were injected by Christians at a much later date but most of it was written by Josephus. It is incorrect to say that all of passages that mentioned Jesus were forgeries.

[stopbush]

102. There are only TWO instances where Josephus mentions Jesus.

The most detailed is the Testimonium Flavianum which is an obvious forgery. the other is a passing reference to Jesus the brother of James, but if one reads that passage in context - ie: reads more than the sentence containing the name Jesus - it's obvious that the Jesus being discussed is not Jesus of Nazareth.

And that's it.

BTW - the reasons for believing the reference to Jesus in the TF are forgeries are many:

* The passage contains overtly Christian content
* The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed
* The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing
* Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents
* There are stylistic variations from Josephus' style
* The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century
* The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus' earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference
* Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus
* The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other "false prophets"
* Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alterations

On edit: do yu have an data to support your assertion about "most historians?" All historians believe Josephus was real and wrote his histories, but "most" don't believe he wrote the references about Jesus.

[Zhade]

68. JOSEPHUS WAS A FAKE. His "mention" was added centuries later.

Even biblical scholars admit that.

No, Jesus was NOT mentioned by Roman contemporaries. You are stating an untruth.

[Kaleva]

75. Not true

The sentences in Caps are considered to have been added later:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Here's an Arabic version written in the 10th century translated to English:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

[stopbush]

108. 1. The 10th century is 10 centuries after Josephus lived. Ergo, any version

Arabic or whatever - is hardly proof of anything.

2. You are quite wrong about the capped words in the paragraph you cite. NO Xian writer before the 4th century mentions the TF. Not one. Is it credible to believe that such a passage was sitting in the writings of Josephus and no Xian writer bothered to use it as propaganda to proclaim a historic Christ? Really. Then, along comes Eusebius who discovers this self-serving passage and suddenly EVERYBODY is quoting Josephus' mention of Jesus. Right...and I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

BTW - Josephus mentions every character great and small in the Table of Contents for his Antiquities, EXCEPT Jesus. Does that pass the smell test? Does it make sense that a devout Jew who railed against many false prophets and - specifically - resurrected gods as being heresy would pen such a passage about Jesus, yet wouldn't bother listing him in the Table of Contents?

Seems more likely that the guy who forged the entire Testimonium Flavianum didn't have the smarts to attend to that little detail to make his forgery appear more authentic. But that happens all the time when people try to forge things - they don't think of all the loose ends that need to align for the forgery to appear real.

[Kaleva]

121. Your argument would hold weight if the early Christians...

felt a great need to prove that there was a historical Jesus by citing secular sources but there isn't any evidence to support that notion.

My wife just walked in so i have to leave this very interesting & informative debate with you for now!

[dmallind]

90. No.

Only Josephus "mentions" the person - the others mention adherents who believed in the person. And the Josephus reference is a clumsy insertion hundreds of years after the writing itself (which was by the way not contemporary in and of itself anyway!)

Nobody alive at the time saw fit to mention the miracles, the huge crowds, the dead rising from their graves at the crucifixion, etc. Nobody. We have price lists for tanners' shops from teh period, but nobody bothered to write down the feeding of the 5000?

[upi402]

24. Yes but Brian was a better savior

:evilgrin:

[onehandle]

29. 'You're all individuals!' 'Yes, we're all individuals!'

'You're all different!' 'Yes, we are all different!'

'I'm not.'

[Eric Condon]

26. As far as I know, it was just a movie

[onehandle]

28. Yep. And he was a liberal even if only half the writings about him were accurate.

Was he divine? That's a matter of faith.

Faith is not foolishness if you do the right things with it.

Most modern day 'Christians' have no idea what Christ was all about.

They can bitterly cling to their guns and twisted version of religion.

'But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
They're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.'

[Arugula Latte]

31. Existed? Probably. Divine? No f'ing way.

[Jamastiene]

32. I believe Jesus was a real person.

As far as all the assertions and views in the Bible, I can't say much there. I think an awful lot of the stuff that is in the Bible is parables and allegory and not all of it is, or even could be, literal.

Now, when it comes to the religious aspect of the topic, I still say being an agnostic is the best way for me to go. Others may feel differently. That's fine too.

I just personally think there is good and bad to be taken from every religion. Do I have major qualms with the anti-gay stances some people make based on the Bible? HELL, YES! Do I think the Bible mentions homosexuality as opposed to rituals meant for a certain time period? Nope. A noted pastor friend of mine happens to be the person who taught me the real deal about all that. Context matters. God doesn't hate gay people or homosexuality. Hate the sin, love the sinner is bullshit and not right either. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay.

Maybe spirituality is in the mind of the beholder of various beliefs. What people do with their beliefs is up to the individual. I just ask those who use the Bible to beat women and gay people over the head to stop and think about which master they are REALLY serving by doing that. I'll stand by that too. I know which master they are serving and it isn't any God of love.

I do believe Jesus really wept though. He tried and he tried and still the right wing "Christians" got it all wrong. He's still weeping and he probably face palms about a billion times a day too. I'm sure of that much. He probably does some of this too: :banghead:

That's just my $.02 worth on it.

[ironbark]

83. Nice post. n/t

[Bryn]

34. Check this animated image out!

IMG]

[Skittles]

37. too many

[Forkboy]

38. A real man blown way out of proportion.

Not unlike many we talk about these days still...

[laughingliberal]

44. +1 nt

[DefenseLawyer]

40. The sun god has been in many cultures

Whether there was a guy named Jesus or not, the major elements of the sun god myth were around long before the guy. It is curious that all the accounts of his remarkable life were written decades after he died.

[harkadog]

45. Since he was the leader of a group opposed to Roman rule

it is not curious at all. Writers could be killed for writing about him.

[turntxblue]

47. I do. n/t

[Cleita]

48. You should get back issues of Biblical Archaeology.

Although its main focus is Jewish biblical research, they do a lot of articles on Christian origins too. Sometimes they get it wrong but you don't have to accept everything within their pages. It just gives you a direction to start researching.

http://www.bib-arch.org/

[madrchsod]

205. one of my favorite magazines

along with the other archaeological mags

[Shining Jack]

49. There were several men traveling with "disciples"...

...and doing some magic tricks in those days in Palestine.Well like in India where you have street magicians and fakirs where they are considered to be holy men.So I think that it's plausible that someone smart with a lot of charisma and doing some tricks to get more followers could have been considered a threat by the religious and political establishment and put to death by crucifixion which was,depending of the crime,the Romans' most common way to put someone to death.In fact there must have been several candidates for the Messiah job.One was picked and a movement took shape and grew.

Just MHO.

[proteus_lives]

51. I believe he did.

Was he the son of God? Beats me.

[vixengrl]

52. I think there probably was a guy.

I'm an atheist, and I really can't imagine there was a son of god--but I can imagine someone using that imagery, and it seems weird if the religion was based on no guy at all. This would have made the first years totally rough, you know?) To my understanding, in the near east while it was occupied by Romans, prophets and magicians were thick on the ground offering prophecy and dissent. So the idea of one rebel rabbi trying to simplify the Judaic teachings under Greek influence, freaking out over the money changers, gaining an small following among some of the outcast, and pissing off the Sanhedrin, all seems plausible--I just think people wildly built from there.

[Zhade]

58. There is no extrabiblical evidence he existed -- the Josephus "mention" is a fake...

...as determined even by biblical scholars.

At best, there's evidence of christians existing -- which proves the existence of their alleged savior as much as the existence of Trekkies prove Spock exists.

[Kaleva]

69. The divine part is considered fake but not all of it.

[Posteritatis]

59. *Something* happened 2000 years ago, it's just a question of what. (nt)

[jmowreader]

63. Jesus is the religious version of Paul Bunyan

Now, there actually was a man named Paul Bonjean. He was a French-Canadian logger (by all accounts a very good one) who lived in Quebec in the early 1800s, and he probably stood about seven feet tall--big guy but not fantastically huge. In 1837, the Lower Canada Rebellion against the British Army happened. Bonjean (which is pronounced something like "bonyan") just tore the living shit out of the British troops. Next thing you know, his name is spelled Bunyan, he's forty feet tall and he dug the Grand Canyon by dragging his ax.

In the case of Jesus, this is a guy who was a combination of philanthropist and evangelist. He probably had people giving him money to fund his operation. Consider the Feeding of the 5000. We're led to believe Jesus showed up and managed to feed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish--that he created food from thin air. Assume he didn't just pull food out of the sky--rather, he picked two disciples, gave them the Holy Purse and sent them to town to buy food. This is still a hell of a thing to do, showing generosity of spirit, but it doesn't make Jesus look like a miracle man because anyone who's got the money can buy a lot of food then pass it out free.

[saltpoint]

71. If you have some spare change order on-line a used copy of

JESUS: A LIFE

-- by A. N. Wilson.

To answer your post question, a good number of people have believed Jesus existed. They've believed this for over 2000 years. Of note many of the folks writing histories accounts and opinions for the early years of those two centuries were the holy originals of the church. One might say they had a vested interest in the interpretation.

There is no actual evidence that the man referred to in the New Testament existed, much less that he was the savior of the world. Any number of people believe this to be so but it is 'belief' and not 'grounded fact.'

Some writers call the current era "post-Christian." Certainly Christian institutions are under significant strain. Certainly Christianity is represented by anyone from an anonymous nurse on the night shift in an assisted living facility in Hamilton, Ohio all the way through a decidedly unpopular Pope and foaming-at-the-mouth televangelists wailing about stem cell research and gay marriage. It's a zoo.

Wilson's book is cool-headed with many insights. Well worth your time, IMO.

[Newest Reality]

72. After looking into it over the years ... NO.

In fact the Piso Family as authors of the NT, is very compelling to me and those who are curious might find it very, very interesting:

“The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso
(pronounced Peso w/ long “E”) family (a), who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and
all the characters in it—Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and
John the Baptist—are all fictional.”

“The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in
history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the
Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!)
characters.”


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso01.htm

There is a good deal of info on this and even some books that point out the obvious writing styles of each of the authors and where they are. The above site is just one I pulled up and is not the only source of info about the Piso Family.

[On the Road]

74. He Absolutely Existed

While there are a lot of differences among scholars of the gospels, pretty much all of them agree that Jesus existed. Paul, whose core letters are considered the earliest and most authentic Christian documents, had very public and visible disputes with Jesus' family.

This is not the effect of religious belief -- many if not most historical Jesus scholars are practical atheists.

That is not to say that Jesus said and did all the things attributed to him. He was undoubtedly quite different from most people's conception.

[BurtWorm]

100. Please cite those very public and visible disputes with Jesus's family.

I think you'll find that there are differing interpretations about the identities of the people in question.

The reason "pretty much all" scholars of the gospels agree that Jesus existed is that pretty much all of those scholars have been Christians, who are raised in the faith that Jesus was god and man. Many Christians since the age of the enlightenment have lost faith in Jesus's divinity. Many of that group eventually find that there's not much reason to believe in Jesus's humanity either. It requires faith to believe in anything about Jesus. Firm faith. Very difficult to shake in people when the object is absolutely unavailable to us for verification purposes.

[On the Road]

124. There are Definitely Differing Interpretations

The Catholic Church, for one, insists that Jesus' brothers were only step-brothers or cousins, because otherwise it would conflict with their doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary. However, even if that were the case, they would still be relatives of a real person. I've never seen any argument, for example, for James not being Jesus' real brother that was not fueled by a desire to make it so.

-------------

As far as the scholarly consensus, if you want to see discussion straight from the horses' mouths, here's a message board for professional Jesus scholars:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/

There are over 23,000 posts, most of them from from published acedemics. While some have a degree of religious sentiment, many don't. Any evangelical that wanders onto the board and starts taking about faith gets tombstoned faster than a freeper on DU.

Everything is held open to question: Jesus' miracles, the history in Acts, the existence of characters like Moses, and in fact much of Old Testament history. But when it comes to doubting Jesus' existence, the position really doesn't have that much support. Earl Doherty, who wrote The Jesus Puzzle, tried to start a discussion questioning Jesus' existence and he was vigorously rebutted and hounded from the forum. (I actually think he was treated a little too severely.)

Here's some indication of the sentiments on the board:

> > And I'd like to second Jeffrey Gibson's remark - some of these
> > "scholars" aren't scholars at all. Freke? Gandy? Frank Zindler's
> > credentials are in the sciences, not history. And some are on the
> > extreme fringe, like Earl Doherty. This project has a foul odour about
> > it.

I lack expertise in Greek, but I have found it persuasive usage against Doherty/Carrier on this issue that Paul uses the same phrase later in Romans to clearly mean literal, physical, earthly, ancestry. In Romans 9:3, Paul uses the same phrase to refer to, "my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." It seems that Paul here means that he is a kinsman according to the flesh because he shares Jewish ancestral lineage. Furthermore, Paul once again reiterates Jesus' physical lineage here by using the same exact phrase he had just applied to himself -- that Jesus too is descended from Israelis "according to the flesh.

When asked by IIDB members to support this claim, I pointed to the particular section, quoted below, in Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle where Carrier discusses the meaning of KATA and applies his conclusions on this matter to the question of what KATA SARKA means in Rom. 1:3, and then noted that the linguistic analysis put forward there not only shows a woeful incompetence in matters Greek, but is a text book example of someone cooking the evidence of the source one has used for the data one discusses.

> >They get more than tendentious when you point out objectifiable
> errors in their methodology--they get petulant. Don't point out to Earl Doherty that
> >Paul uses different grammar when he speaks of James as "brother of the Lord"
> >then when he speaks of anyone else as a "brother in Christ." Unless, of
> >course, you want to duck insults.
> >
> >Having broached the subject on some forums elsewhere, I've found the same
> >thing. They cherish the belief that Jesus never had historical existence
> >with the same sort of simplistic faith that a Southern Baptist believes
> >Balaam's ass talked. Like you, I quit trying to explain the problems with
> >their method, because they cannot discriminate between the idea that Jesus
> >was a person about whom legends formed, and the idea that everything in the
> >Bible is true. It's either accept their position, or be a superstitious
> >fool.

----------

I actually think some of Doherty's points are very interesting. I learned something from it, but he didn't prove his point in the least.

[darkstar3]

127. Once again we see an improper application of logic.

You have started with an assumption (historicity of Jesus) that NO ONE has been able to prove beyond doubt, and stated that because we cannot DISprove the historicity of Jesus, we should simply accept your assumption. The supposed scholars on that yahoo group are guilty of the same thing. Those who suspect Jesus' historical existence have good reason to do so due to the incredible lack of irreligious evidence, and laughing off those suspicions is irresponsible.

Furthermore, if the people contributing to that discussion board are indeed respected and published scholars, then perhaps you could provide a link or three to their published material. I find that published authors, no matter their accolades, tend not to use the same academic rigor when posting to out of the way message boards as they do when actually publishing.

[stopbush]

111. Baloney.

All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims.

see here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10

[On the Road]

125. And Yet Strangely Enough,

scholars who actually devote their careers to studying the history of the period don't seem to think this is unusual in the least. People who make a business of doubting almost everything in the Bible rarely doubt that a person called Jesus walked the earth as a real person.

The mythical Jesus material has as about the same relation to mainstream scholarship as anti-global-warming material does to mainstream climate research. Sometimes they make a good point, but they are a long, long way from proving their case.

[darkstar3]

128. There were many men called Jesus,

or in Hebrew Yeshua, during that particular time, and in that particular place. If the bible had been written accurately, then Jesus would have at least once met someone with his own name. There is no reason to suspect that any one of those Yeshuas is the person to whom the biblical myth was attached, nor is there any proof at all that the biblical myth of Jesus isn't a composite of several contemporaries.

There simply isn't enough information from the time to prove the historical existence of the Jesus described in the bible. Christian scholars have been trying for many centuries to come up with irrefutable extra-biblical proof of Jesus' historical existence, yet they have never succeeded. At this point, the existence of Jesus, both as historical figure and as son of God, is a matter of faith, and of dogma. Those who believe it is true will bend over backwards through incredible logical hoops to try and prove it to those who don't, but they will never succeed unless they can tap into the non-believer's human ability to willfully suspend disbelief.

[On the Road]

187. This Has Nothing to Do with Religious Belief

I am an atheist, as are half of historical Jesus scholars.

The most universally accepted writings from first century Christianity, Paul's core letters, contain Paul's account of his conflicts with Jesus' brother James. In other places, Paul defends himself by comparing his own physical ancestry to the lineage of Jesus.

Not having studied the relevant background, you have heard some claims that you believed. You don't have the knowledge to back them up. People with no religious faith who doubt 80% of what's in the Bible and have devoted their lives to this issue don't agree with you. At all.

To paste from the other sub-thread, a crosstalk member offered this about Jesus-mythers:

> >They get more than tendentious when you point out objectifiable
> errors in their methodology--they get petulant. Don't point out to Earl Doherty that
> >Paul uses different grammar when he speaks of James as "brother of the Lord"
> >then when he speaks of anyone else as a "brother in Christ." Unless, of
> >course, you want to duck insults.
> >
> >Having broached the subject on some forums elsewhere, I've found the same
> >thing. They cherish the belief that Jesus never had historical existence
> >with the same sort of simplistic faith that a Southern Baptist believes
> >Balaam's ass talked. Like you, I quit trying to explain the problems with
> >their method, because they cannot discriminate between the idea that Jesus
> >was a person about whom legends formed, and the idea that everything in the
> >Bible is true. It's either accept their position, or be a superstitious
> >fool.

[darkstar3]

188. Nothing you've said here answers the post you have replied to.

You are diverting into a religious discussion to distract from the fact that you have no answer to the simple statement of "you don't have enough proof."

[BurtWorm]

194. Why should anyone trust that anything in the Bible is what it purports to be?

We know it's full of interpolations and fakery--trying to pass off Gospels as authored by Apostles when we don't see them even referred to until the century after Jesus supposedly died. Most of these scholars acknowledge that Paul wasn't the author of a lot of the Pauline epistles. Why should we trust a word in any of them?

[BurtWorm]

173. It's not really about proving a case. It's about urging higher standards of proof on the other side.

We actually have nothing to prove (literally ;-) ). We are skeptical of the claim that Jesus existed. We find evidence for it lacking.

Because of us, historicists have been put on the defensive and, after finding the well of evidence pretty shallow, have come back with a variety of strategies to make belief in the reality of Jesus the man seem more reasonable in the face of unblinking scrutiny. The most notorious ones for me are those criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment (they should be embarrassed!) they put stock in to decide which weird facts about Jesus, based on comparisons among impossible-to-believe primary sources, are "probably" based on a real person. They can't possibly be certain of any of their facts, but they sure seem confident about their conclusions!

It's one thing to accept Jesus on faith if you're a Christian. The rest of us don't have to do that. That's my main message in this debate and why I return to this subject so often. We no longer have to take Christians' words for the historical truth of their religion. It turns out that when you scratch that surface assumption about Jesus the historical person just a little, the whole structure seems to come crashing down.

[PhD]

81. Contemporary Roman historians write of a Jewish leader and "troublemaker" named Jesus

who was executed by crucifixion. Among them are Pliny the Younger and Tacitus.

[laconicsax]

92. Both were born a generation after the supposed events.

Funny how there are no accounts written by people living at the time.

[PhD]

154. I consider +/- 100 years "contemporary" in the grand scheme of things

Is the Trojan War a myth because Homer wrote the Iliad 400 years later?

[laconicsax]

171. There's not much evidence that the Trojan War was a real event. Either way...

Homer's account in the Iliad can't be taken as a reliable source...unless you believe in the Greek gods actually exist and directly interfered in human events, that Achilles was invulnerable save for a spot on his ankle, or that any of the specifics of the Iliad are credible historical accounts.

All there is for the Trojan War is the possible site of Troy and the probability that the Iliad grew out of an oral tradition surrounding a real event. Actually, it's the same evidence that Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler were real people.

[laconicsax]

172. ...and because it's too late to edit my above response:

Do you consider Abraham Lincoln a contemporary of George Washington? He was born a mere 10 years after Washington died.

Do you consider Theodore Roosevelt a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln? He was born seven years before Lincoln died.

Do you consider Bill Clinton a contemporary of Teddy Roosevelt? He was born less than 30 years after Roosevelt died.

[PhD]

191. 2,000 years from now, yes

They'll all be part of the same historical period. My grandmother remembered Teddy Roosevelt and was still alive when Bill Clinton was elected. Her grandfather once rode on a train with Abraham Lincoln. Those time periods are like the blink of an eye.

[darkstar3]

192. You do of course realize

that the concepts of significant digits and standard deviations have absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy?

If person A was an infant when person B died, then no matter how far into the future we go, persons A & B will never be "contemporaries" of each other from a historical viewpoint.

[laconicsax]

195. Well, gosh! When you put it like that, I'm a contemporary of Tacitus.

I'm just looking at things on a geologic time scale. We lived less than 2000 years apart, and when you consider how short a time that is in a 4.5 billion year planetary history, we might as well have played in the same sand box as kids.

I guess I'm also a contemporary of Hammurabi. I don't really remember him though; he was a few grades ahead of me in school and we never hung out. I mean what's 5000 years over a span of 4.5 billion? It's just a blink of an eye.

Funny story, though, since I'm also a contemporary of Pilate, I asked him about Jesus and he said, "who?" When I elaborated, he said that it didn't sound familiar at all.

[stopbush]

110. Wrong. How can you say they were contemporary when Jesus died

60-80 years before they wrote?

[crumb77]

84. What is sad is that his existence doesn't need evidence

We live in a world so evolved from the faith based reasoning to accept as something as "factual" based on frivolous scribblings--except for when someones religion is attacked. I mean can you imagine trying to prove Jesus existence beyond a reasonable doubt in modern day court system. It would be a joke and thrown out. Even Jonny Cochran couldn't pull if off. Because, simply there is no substantial evidence. If people weren't brainwashed into believing that denying his faith would result in the boogieman pulling them down into the fires of damnation, the demand for real evidence would be more prevalent.

[WVRICK13]

85. I Tend To Believe

that Jesus was a real person, with some great ideas. I also believe that all of the mystical stuff surrounding him was recycled from the older religions, virgin birth, heal the sick, rise to heaven, eternal life, etc.

[Loudmxr]

86. Yes I THINK he existed. For a reason that drives Christians crazy.

Jesus like all the Prophets of the one True God had an effect.

The teachings of Jesus transformed Europe and the Near East from tribal organizations to fairly competently run city states.

Mohammad's teaching transformed a nomadic peoples into fairly sophisticated semi nations.

Look further back and you see Zoroaster as the founder of the Persian Empire that has lasted, in one form or another, for thousands of years.

Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Abraham. They all had their affect and still have their affect today.

A Hitler, a Reagan, a Cromwell all pass in influence in a few generations. Even a Jefferson and a Franklin. But what these special people say and stand for, sent by God, to guide us to the next level of civilization, last.

That is why I think Jesus existed. Even though no one can prove he walked the earth. Its down to four guys now ... none of them named "Jesus."

Oh and BTW as I said to Rev Barry Lynn once (Americans United for Separation of Church and State), "I would have answered that presidential debate question about the truth of the Bible like this:"The Bible contains many truths but if you don't think that powerful people have not used the Word of God for their own political gains....you are naive." I hope he uses that on TEE VEE one day.

And to those who say some of those religions have many gods and such... primitive messages for primitive and traditional people. God is smart. The trinitarian Christian (Catholics for example) actually believes in 4 gods. The old god, the bad god, the young god the the pigeon god. Tell them that and they freak!!! "Well it sure looks that way to me."

One God. One religion. Ancient and Eternal. That means all of them.

[dmallind]

88. Tough to say

Lots of circumstantial evidence that the stories mirror various mystery cults current at the time.

No contemporary evidence from observers as opposed to adherents. (and strictly speaking nothing contemporary even then - earliest writings with any christological impact are 40+ years after supposed death.

But who can say whether this just means the stories were exaggerated/conflated with myths but based on a real human, or just nothing more than myths at all?

We'll never know until either more evidence, or of course after we die if the Xians are right after all.

[laconicsax]

95. Jesus makes more sense as an allegorical character.

The Gospels were written to sway different audiences and their content is often contradictory. If Jesus was an allegorical character meant to embody the ideology of the early Christians, then the flagrant contradictions of the Gospels are unimportant. What do the details of his life matter if he didn't really exist?

Chances are that he didn't exist.

[caitxrawks]

97. well, i'm an atheist.

Soooo...yeah. No Jesus.

[DeSwiss]

98. MYTH

[Critters2]

99. Sooner or later, people try to deny the existence of sacrificial scapegoats,

to allow them to feel better about the scapegoating violence, and to free them up to commit more violence. Jesus, for whatever reason, made people aware of the violence of his death. But those who are comfortable with scapegoating are bound to deny its existence and that of its victims. When I hear this question asked, the thing I wonder is who the questioner is hoping to scapegoat.

Girard explains this kind of dynamic in _The Scapegoat_ and _Violence and the Sacred_.

[trotsky]

101. There are a lot - I repeat, A LOT - of people whose fragile beliefs...

are tied to the belief that Jesus really existed and did the things attributed to him in the bible.

As you have seen on this thread, they really don't like to be confronted with anything remotely resembling a challenge to that "official" story.

[Critters2]

104. You don't seem altogether comfortable with people disagreeing with you,

either.

[trotsky]

106. If you say so.

:shrug:

Clearly you didn't like what I had to say.

[kwassa]

115. She got you there, trotsky.

Pot, kettle, and all that.

[trotsky]

122. LOL

You chiming in is the icing on the cake! :rofl:

[darkstar3]

119. And YOU are?

What a laughable attempt at an argument. NOBODY likes to be disagreed with, but many of us don't go to the trouble of fabricating a myth or propping up fabrications of a myth while suffering from serious cognitive dissonance. I believe THAT was part of the point trotsky was making.

YOU don't like it when people disagree with YOU either!...please...next you'll be telling me the sky is blue and bears shit in the woods.

[trotsky]

123. It's the double standard at work, of course.

Atheists are supposed to shut up and respect belief. Believers need not extend the same courtesy. In fact, if an atheist DOES object and voices their opinion, why then they're a vile militant fundie atheist who can't handle any kind of disagreement.

[AlecBGreen]

177. I cant speak for all Christians

but I would never ask you to shut up. I DO ask you to respect others belief, regardless of what you think of them. Issues pertaining to God (or a lack thereof) have vexed humanity since we climbed out of our trees and started thinking. Lets discuss them, but lets do it cordially and with respect. Please show us that you are NOT a vile militant fundie atheist but rather a person willing and able to have a dialogue. Ill try to do the same :)

[ironbark]

183. +1.......n/t

[darkstar3]

184. You ask for respect, and I would give it, but we have a differing view on what constitutes respect.

Atheists and believers have a very difficult time on agreeing to just what exactly constitutes "respect."

I respect you as a human being.
I respect that you have made a choice.

That, with few exceptions, is where my default state of respect ends. I do not respect your particular beliefs. I do not afford them any more weight or import than the beliefs of anyone else, past, present, or future.

I genuinely and truthfully see no difference between today's worship of a single deity called God and the ancient worship of a pantheon of deities that are no longer believed in. Yet, when I make statements like this, I am labeled as "disrespectful," because I dare to compare religious thoughts and practices of today to mythology or fantasy. It's not that I or any other atheists who do this are trying to be flippant or assholish, it's just that we genuinely don't see a difference, and your particular flavor of mythology has earned no more or less respect than any other idea on the planet.

Just because it's something that's important to you or others does not mean that people should respect it. Sharia law is an important and closely held belief of Muslims, and it requires that women adhere to laws that essentially turn them into nothing more than property. Should we respect those laws or the beliefs that led to their creation and enforcement any more than we respected segregation laws in our own country decades ago?

Respect is a funny thing. It comes in different levels. Basic respect for someone as a human being should be given by default, but respect for just about anything else, including ideas (whether they are closely held or not) is earned.

[sixstrings75]

197. This reply deserves it's own OP. Good stuff. n/t.

[darkstar3]

198. Thank you very much.

Though I suspect the post would be considered flamebait.

[trotsky]

185. But there's the rub, eh?

"respect others' belief"

Everyone has a different idea of what it means to "respect" their belief. And for most Christians, because they are accustomed to the very privileged position their faith enjoys in American society, even the mere opinion of the atheist constitutes disrespect. If you think there is ANYTHING I have said in this thread to quality me as a "vile militant fundie atheist" then please feel free to point it out. The other individuals who jumped on me have been exposed in the past, one who harbors significant prejudice against Muslims, and the other who can't advance an argument past the "Is too!" 3rd grade level. Hopefully you are better than that!

[ironbark]

159. Passing strange

“NOBODY likes to be disagreed with,”

Such certainty of belief.
Such absolutist conviction.
So easily demonstrated to be false.

MANY PEOPLE like to be disagreed with. Some see it as feisty intellectual enquiry. Some see it as an essential component of the scientific process. Some see it as the spark of truth arising from the clash of ideas. LOTS OF PEOPLE enjoy disagreement.

What >most people< don’t like is having their point of view fabricated for them by others ;-)

“…many of us don't go to the trouble of fabricating a myth or propping up fabrications of a myth while suffering from serious cognitive dissonance.”

Establishing that an ancient narrative is mythological can be problematic.
It might prove to be an Illiad ;-)

Establishing that the fabrication is of a pov in a post is far easier…and a much clearer indicator of “suffering from serious cognitive dissonance.” ;-)

[AlecBGreen]

103. he was and is real

He walked the earth just as surely as we are now. He lives on

[darkstar3]

120. How can you possibly know that?

The biggest debate happening in this thread is disputing the proof that supports your first statement. As for your second statement, "He lives on", what possible proof do you have?

[AlecBGreen]

168. i cant know for sure

I wasnt there. I choose to believe that 1) the new testament was recorded from orginial eye-witnesses and secondary sources and 2) some error has crept in (misquotes, etc) but it is accurate for the most part. Many of Pauls epistles were written around the years 50-60 AD, fiften twenty years after Christ died. It is my belief that there were many eyewitnesses alive at that time who corroborated Pauls testimony, many others were alive who "heard X from their Galileen cousin" and added credence to the testimony. Israel is a small place and had a small community back then. Word of major events like the ones that supposedly happened would travel far and wide. If those things DIDNT happen, people would call BS and say (rightfully so) if it REALLY happened, why havent I heard anything about it til now?

I have no hard evidence outside of the few original manuscripts that exist. I dont know much about Biblical history so this thread has gotten me to looking. Its always good to examine "why we believe what we believe."

As for why I think he lives on, obviously that is based upon my first belief that he was a real human who walked the earth. I wont go into the theological details about the Body of Christ and the Resurrection, but strictly from a philosophical standpoint, as long as someones memory lives on and they continue to affect others, they 'live.'

[saltpoint]

142. But Alec. You are offering your belief.

Not everyone shares it, which throws the OP's question into clearer light: the issue at hand has to include not just if you personally believe in Jesus but whether Jesus existed, and who else believes what other things about him.

"Who do men say I am?" opens a lot of trapdoors, doesn't it? The odds of persuading several billion people across two thousand years plus to believe the same thing about this figure would be insurmountably difficult, if not completely impossible.

Thus the task at hand is not a weekend project like shampooing the dog or cleaning out the garage.

No one knows anything about Jesus, including knowing whether he even existed.

[AlecBGreen]

170. hi saltpoint

you are right. I answered the OPs title question "How many people think Jesus really existed?" but didnt offer any reasons why. You can see my reply to darkstar3 above.

Basically it boils down to a personal decision to believe based upon what I have heard and read and experienced up to this point. Its hard to put into words so I apologize if I am unclear. Let me share an experience I had in college which might give you some insight.

Philosophy class, day 1. The professor says, "Ok, pretend for a moment that you were just created, along with the rest of the world, a few moments ago with all memory intact. Is this feasible? Is it probable? Is there any way to prove that it did or didnt happen?" We had a good, long discussion (most of the class time) and I came to a conclusion: there are many facets of our life where we just have to PICK what we want to believe. We might be right, might be wrong, probably/usually somewhere in between, but you just have to make your choice and move on. We should always be willing to rexamine our beliefs in light of new evidence, but to be functional humans we have to ground our belief structure and outlook on life on SOME kind of foundation.

Im not sure if this clarifies it much but, basically, I have come to believe that 1) Christ was real 2) He was and is both fully human and fully divine 3) He died and was resurrected and 4) He lives on. I dont know much about Biblical history and archaeology but Ive taken this as a chance to educate myself and reexamine my beliefs.

Hope this helps. Here are some thoughts on your comments:

"Who do men say I am?" opens a lot of trapdoors, doesn't it? The odds of persuading several billion people across two thousand years plus to believe the same thing about this figure would be insurmountably difficult, if not completely impossible.

Yes it sure does open a lot of trapdoors :) No two people have ever come to complete, total agreement on religion. I dont think we ever will. This always reminds me of Walt Whitman (my favorite!) "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes." Like physics, women, and religion, duality/nonduality is a very hard concept for me to wrap my brain around.


No one knows anything about Jesus, including knowing whether he even existed.

True, I suppose no one knows for sure whether or not he existed b/c none of us were there to see it firsthand. But that doesnt stop me from believing based upon the evidence and my own experience. Just like the formation of the Earth. I wasnt there to see it, but based upon the evidence Im pretty sure it happened 4.5 billion years ago. Do I know for sure? No, I choose to believe based upon the evidence. Thanks for reading all this! It helps me clarify my own thoughts to have to put them to words.

:hi:
Alec

[saltpoint]

182. We're cool, Alec.

And all good wishes to you along the road.

:hi: :thumbsup:

[moobu2]

109. Complete fiction

Jesus is just another version in a long line of virgin born resurrected savior sun gods. I win!

[frogmarch]

145. Jesus didn't exist.

The biblical Jesus wasn't a real person. He was a fabrication.

If the biblical Jesus existed and was crucified as the Bible says he was, the Romans would have recorded the event, even if they didn't always keep records of crucifixions. According to the Bible, when Jesus was crucified, the sky darkened, the earth shook, and corpses began roaming the streets. Witnesses to the Jesus crucifixion would have correlated the death of Jesus with the suddenly darkened sky, the shaking earth and the zombies. Even without Jesus in the mix, the Roman government would have made note of these remarkable events, but they didn't. Why? Because they didn't happen.

[iris27]

196. EVERYONE forgets about

the zombies! :)

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. Matthew 27:52

[ChadwickHenryWard]

149. How many people think Hercules really existed?

I find it interesting that this question is only asked about Jesus. We have nobody here seriously debating the existence of Odin or Osiris or Ceres or Huitzilopochtli. These mythical religious figures are fairly universally regarded as fictional. I don't know if there are any reasons to regard Jesus any differently.

[laconicsax]

153. There aren't.

At least no good ones. Just lots of bad ones that could apply to any number of the gods that humanity has belived in over the millenia.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

164. This isn't an endeavor enjoyed by any other gods.

You could take the events surrounding the life of any god of old myth and strip away all the miracles and then make a (not very compelling) case for actual existence. This isn't done for any god I am aware of except Jesus.

[laconicsax]

167. Most other gods don't have over a billion worshippers and the religions built around...

Their worship haven't been the official religion of Western culture for over a thousand years.

[ironbark]

181. But how did it get to be “official”

with a “billion followers”?

Was it on the basis that Jesus could be seen/verified and Odin couldn’t?...nope, clearly not.
Was it on the point of a sword and compulsion? The deadly Christian ninja monk missionaries overcame the lily livered Vikings and their ‘official’ Odin?...nope, Christianity didn’t take all Europe by force.

Clearly the reasons for conversion reside in explanations other than visibility/verifiability of the deity or compulsion/force.

[laconicsax]

200. By law, by missionaries, and by force.

Christianity started becoming the state religion in various places, namely the Roman empire, in the 4th century. It's also a missionary religion. Those two factors led to Christianity becoming the dominant religion in Europe. The other religions of the area were absorbed by Christianity and died out. Once we get to European colonialism, the religion was spread, often by force, to newly colonized areas.

Did you really not know this?

[ironbark]

160. Having trouble distinguishing the living from the dead?

A living religion has (a set number? A significant number?) of followers.

A dead or extinct religion no longer has any significant number of followers.

The link might help-
23. Extinct and living religions
http://www.schoyencollection.com/religions.htm

Watching Xena warrior princess and hoping that Hercules gets laid…1/ It aint gonna happen…2/ It does not constitute a living religion.(No one is interested in Hercules...his show is dead ;-)

There could be some serious debate/discussion about how and why some religions lived and others died….but experience tells me that aint gonna happen either.

According to the Jesus narrative when the deciple guys asked him about false prophets/gods he responded-
"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

In this cosmology Odin, Osiris, Ceres, Huitzilopochtli, Hercules bore no fruit, got “cut down and thrown into the fire”.

The problem for this Christian cosmology is that the trees of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all still stand….and some of their ‘good fruit’ is magnificent. ;-)

Bottom line….The interest resides with the living…the shows that didn’t get cancelled

[Orrex]

162. For the record, I hated both Hercules and Xena when they were still on the air

Not sure where that leaves me in the theological scheme of things, but there you go.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

166. And yet, that's exaclty my point.

I'm not aware of any good reason why Jesus should continue to be believed while Odin, Osiris, and the rest should be thrown onto the slag heap of history. The simple fact that people still believe in Jesus is not in itself compelling evidence that he ever existed. Belief in all those other gods was once very well attended to, just as belief in Jesus is today, and yet nobody ever debates whether any of those characters were real. I'm not aware of any compelling reason why it should be otherwise for Jesus.

[ironbark]

178. If we are talking about historical evidence for

the existence of any of these figures…we have none.

“why Jesus should continue to be believed while Odin, Osiris, and the rest should be thrown onto the slag heap of history”.

That’s a question that I don’t believe ever had anything to do with evidence/proof of a being/persons existence.
Abandoning the unseen Odin or Osiris was not dependent upon video footage or even a splendid icon of Jesus.

One or two Christian missionaries came to Odin villages and Osiris towns and through the power of the narrative and their personal conduct conversion took place. That is the predominant historical pattern for most of the worlds living religious traditions. (And sure, there was military conquest but it was always easier to capture/hold a territory than it was to capture/hold peoples beliefs. )
Point is, then and now, it was not the verifiability of existence of a person/God that persuaded people to convert. Debate about “whether any of those characters were real” was irrelevant…people embraced or rejected the new belief on the common sense drive- ‘does this belief system do any good, is it better than what we have… does it change lives/conditions… does it bear fruit”?

“I'm not aware of any compelling reason why it should be otherwise for Jesus.”

Because the unseen and unverifiable Odin was offering Valhalla if you died like a warrior with a sword in your hand and the widows at home in the hut with the kids got sick of that shit…so when the strange foreign missionary came door knocking with the unseen and unverifiable Jesus and his “Put up thy sword, love thine enemy” the girls went with that and refused partnership/sex with any man that didn’t follow.

Compelling reason why the unseen Jesus might be more attractive than the unseen Odin ;-)

[ChadwickHenryWard]

203. Now we're talking about memetic fitness.

In memetics, the only salient quality of a meme is how well it keeps itself going. The idea need not have any intrinsic value, any actual benefit to a society or individual, in order to be memetically fit. It just needs to have some quality that causes it to spread at the expense of other, competing ideas.

Take, for example, the memeplex (group of related ideas) of capitalism. Capitalism has what we might call a "missionary rule," an idea that it is extremely important (why doesn't matter) that the idea be spread to as many places and as many people as possible, through the use of force (overt of covert,) coercion, propaganda, and undemocratic, totalitarian regimes if necessary. This memeplex is quite obviously very fit (i.e., very good at propagating itself,) though it is not necessarily beneficial to those living under its ideals as it creates a small group of very wealthy people in control of society, and a very large majority of desperately poor people who exist for little other reason than to produce wealth for the rich.

In this same way, it is possible for a religion to spread by means other than the intrinsic value of its ideas. Think for a moment of the viking religion - it put a premium on brutal men, who were altogether willing to go out and terrorize the people to the south and west, and take all their food and possessions. This had the distinct advantage of being the only way people living in Scandinavia at that time could feed their families. The people who believed that tended to have food to eat, so in a roundabout way, the system was memetically fit. But that does not mean that the ideas were morally good; even less so that Odin and Loki, Valhalla and Muspelheim, really existed. Similarly, we should expect to find that Christianity was more memetically fit than the indigenous Norse religion that it replaced. As we have seen, this sometimes comes in the form of some real societal benefit, but not always. The truly important point is whether the idea is good for itself. It should also be noted that Christianity has in our time been mostly replaced by a general lack of religious belief in Scandinavia.

Lastly, and I think most importantly, we should note that the memetic fitness of an idea has nothing to do with its truth value. An idea can be totally factually false and still be very good at spreading itself - the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2003, for example. And I think it important that we note the the only good reason for believing something is that it is true, regardless of whatever perceived benefit the idea might yield. And that's what we're really talking about here - whether or not a real, historical Jesus once walked the Earth. The only good reason to believe that he ever did would be if we had some compelling historical evidence. Which, to my knowledge, we don't.

[Iggo]

169. Too many. (n/t)

[iris27]

174. Jesus is equally as likely to have been a real guy

as King Arthur or Robin Hood. If he really lived, the gospel accounts are as likely to be a fully factual account of his life as "The Once and Future King" is likely to be a factual account of the King of the Britons.

[darkstar3]

176. Kingathawhoo? n/t

[iris27]

190. I didn't know we had a king.

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[RagAss]

179. I prefer the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas.

I'd like to meet that guy. He was cool.

[cynatnite]

186. I think it's very possible he did exist. n/t

[onager]

189. Assignments for the Josephus spouters...

1. Read the New Testament accounts covering the trial of Alleged Jesus. Pontius Pilate is depicted as a vacillating coward who finds a prisoner innocent...then reverses his own verdict, caves in to a mob, and orders the prisoner to be executed.

And that, as People Smarter Than Me often point out, is just about as likely as a modern American judge getting a Not Guilty verdict, then overruling the jury and sending the prisoner to the electric chair. IOW, very damned unlikely, and it proves that the New Testament writers didn't know jack about Roman law. They were writing propagandistic fiction, not history.

Now read the accounts in Josephus of how Pilate dealt with mobs. Take your pick, Josephus describes several riots breaking out in Jerusualem: i.e., when the Roman garrison troops carried the Emperor's standards into the Temple courtyard, thereby violating the rule against graven images; during negotiations over plumbing to provide more fresh water for the city. (Though I've always wondered WTF even the most fundamentalist citizens could have had against basic sanitation...)

I'll save you some trouble - according to Josephus, Pilate didn't cave in or negotiate. When the locals got uppity, Pilate called out the Riot Police and cracked heads.

In one riot, according to Josephus, Pilate even cleverly used his own Outside Agitators. Pilate sent armed soldiers into the mob, dressed as civilians, with weapons under their cloaks. The soldiers helped whip up the mob to a frenzy. And when the rioting started, waded into the mob with swords and clubs, killing and wounding many.

2. Compare Josephus' religious beliefs to that infamous forgery, the Testimonium Flavinium: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonders...He was the Christ.

We can stop right there. We know - because Josephus tells us so - that he spent most of his life as a Pharasaic Jew. Those Pharisees that Alleged Jesus was always ranting about? Yep, one of them.

A Pharasaic Jew would never have described Alleged Jesus as "the Christ," i.e., the Messiah. If he had, he would have no longer been a Jew.

3. What Did You Do In The War, Daddy? - some posters seem to think Flavius Josephus is a truthy trump card, almost as infallible as Alleged Jesus.

For anyone who thinks that, compare Josephus' accounts of his own actions in The Jewish Wars with his Autobiography.

In one account, he was a sort of roving peace ambassador between the Romans and the hard-line Zealots. In the other, he claims he was a rebel military commander...

...who bragged about surrendering the key fortress of Jotapata to the Romans. IOW, he was a Judean Benedict Arnold.

After the war, the grateful Romans gave Josephus a large land grant in Judea. AFAIK, he never lived there. Instead he hauled ass to Rome and got himself adopted by the powerful Flavian family. And no wonder. In Judea, his life probably wasn't worth a plugged denarius.

4. "Oh, we don't know much of anything about that period in Jerusalem..." - Pfft! Tell that to people like Steven Dando-Collins. He's written popular histories of several Roman legions, mostly using ancient sources.

One On-Topic example, off the top of my head with assistance from Wikipedia a mass of ancient Roman-looking scroll-thingies piled on my desk:

In 66 CE, the nightmare of Pontius Pilate and every other Roman governor in Judea finally came true - the Zealots openly attacked the small Roman military garrison in Jerusalem.

Reinforcements finally arrived from the big Roman base in Syria, led by the XII Legion Fulminata, the "Thunderbolts."

Apparently the Twelf...er, XII was more like "The Pathetic Dry Farts." Maybe they spent too long on soft garrison duty, getting fat and lazy. Anyway, the Roman military brass in Judea took one look and sent the XII straight back to Syria.

That was humiliating, but their troubles were just starting. As the XII marched thru the narrow pass of Beth-Horon, they were attacked by insurgents and clobbered. In the fighting they even suffered the worst humiliation possible - they lost their aquila, the imperial Roman eagle standard carried by every Legion.

That got the Romans' attention and they sent in massive reinforcements from the homeland. The story ended the only way it could, as the pro-Roman Josephus often pointed out - in a Roman victory.

We know a lot about our ancient ancestors. Trying to compare the historically invisible Jesus to people like Julius Caesar will only get you mocked, and rightly so.

Oh, BTW, if anyone ever goes to Alexandria, Egypt, I can show you the spot where Julius Caesar almost drowned, the place where Cleopatra VII died, and the last location of the famous ancient Alexandria Library.

How is this possible? Because I lived in Alexandria for 4 years. And because those old-timers DID keep records! For example, JC (the Roman, not the Judean) kept at least 2 secretaries with him at almost all times.

And they wrote stuff like this...

When the war broke out at Alexandria, Caesar sent to Rhodes, Syria, and Cilicia, for all his fleet; and summoned archers from Crete, and cavalry from Malchus, king of the Nabatheans.

He likewise ordered military engines to be provided, corn to be brought, and forces dispatched to him. Meanwhile he daily strengthened his fortifications by new works; and such parts of the town as appeared less tenable were strengthened with testudos and mantelets...

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/alexandrian.html

Last Annoying Footnote: Caesar needed all the help he could get in Alexandria. He was outnumbered about ten-to-one. After he won the war, his first act was to disband the Egyptian army.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

193. Bueatiful post.

I love to see somebody with historical literacy.

[onager]

201. Thanks, but I ain't that literate...

:hi:

For years, Xians threw Flavius Josephus in my face. They claimed the Testimonium Flavinium was "proof" that Alleged Jesus lived.

I finally went and read Josephus. What a letdown. Right up there with all the other works that were supposed to convert me - stuff like C.S. Lewis and that idiot Josh MacDowell.

For the record - my copy of Josephus' Collected Works was translated at Fuller Theological Seminary. Right up front, in the Foreword, the Testimonium is called a fraud.

That's also the case with Michael Grant, in his book The Ancient Historians. I believe Grant identifies himself as Xian, but he also says it's clearly a later insertion.

Most likely author of the Testimonium, from my reading - the same culprit other posters identified, Eusebius in the Fourth Century CE.

As they say on CSI, Eusebius had both motive and opportunity. Motive: he's on the record as saying it is perfectly acceptable to lie to people, if you are trying to convert them to Xianity. Opportunity: he was in charge of transcribing ancient manuscripts.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

202. I tried reading Lewis once,

but it was so bad that I literally threw it down in disgust. It was a confuses babble of fallacies and non sequiturs. I would place it on the same level, in terms of coherence and logical grounding, as the "Time Cube" guy. And it was all dependent on the assumption that the reader agrees that everything in the bible is literally true. How am I supposed to take that seriously?

[madrchsod]

204. yes he was semite prophet and not the son of god.

along the way he was elevated to the son of god.