Unraveling the Jesus Myth

[Zhavric]

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.
--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

jesuspuzzle.com

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins

BibleOrigins

Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus

Christian Origins Blog

The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes   (RL 307)

The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus

Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?

P.S. You'll find this same post word for word on another forum. Rest assured that if you do find it, it was written by myself under another screen name. If this becomes an issue, PM me.

[Nathan Struth]

Those are some great proofs, I don't disagree. I should tell my christian friends this. THey probably won't be convinced though,.

[samsara15]

I don't think anyone will be convinced by any evidence. All sides have long since hardened their positions However, it is also my opinion that the historical Jesus never existed.

[Heehoos]

Some of the information you give is interesting, but it is not all-encompassing, and it is not all accurate. That an author doesn't mention Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, for example.

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . .
[Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82]

Notice that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

(Yeshu is Hebrew for Jesus)

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Source

With regard to the Gospels, it is common knowledge to Christians that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not all necessarily the apostles after whom they seem to have been named. And none were written less than 30-40 years after Jesus' death. Sorry, I'm going to go very long here:

Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.
"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).
Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.


In addition to the known Gospels in the Bible, there have since been the discovery of very ancient original texts that we now know as the Nag Hammadi library. They were ancient codices containing over fifty texts, and were discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. Though we do not have the original texts that are now included in the Bible, we do now have these ancient original texts.

One of the texts, referred to now as the Gospel of Thomas, may almost pre-date those texts that were included in the Bible. Disregarded as a 'gnostic' text by the early Christian fathers, it talks specifically of the life of Jesus and has many similarities in content to the other Gospels.

See Nag Hammadi Library

[Zhavric]

Kenneth Humphreys' website has some interesting accounts of multiple individuals named "Jesus" who did things that mirror bits and pieces of what's in the gospels. So, I agree that there wasn't one historical Jesus, but several Jesuses (Jesii?) on whom the gospel myths were constructed.

There is a popular school of thought that the gospels are accurate accounts of an individual named Jesus of Nazareth who said some kindly things and were later on exagerated. Ironically, this position is COMPLETELY un-evidenced beyond the allegations of individuals with a clear doctrinal axe to grind.

[Heehoos]

Is having faith the same as having an ax to grind?

I'm not sure what the purpose of trying to disprove Jesus is. I suppose I can understand trying to put into place those who would use their religion to put down others. But does this person put equal time into trying to disprove the existance of Siddhartha? Of Lao-Tse or Confucius? Or Mohammad?

It is easy to put down faith and religion when you have not needed it to save your life. Ask an alcholic or substance abuser if faith helped them find a path to recovery. Ask a soldier in a war if faith helped them make it through a scary night. Ask someone who has recovered from a nearly terminal disease if faith was not crucial in their recovery.

Faith itself not a crutch. It is not a weakness. It is hope. It's the light at the end of a tunnel. Sometimes it can be one's only strength when they feel weak as hell.

If Jesus was one person or was several persons (ironic that so many of the smart ones were named Jesus -- didn't they have other names for the wise folks?), why does it matter to one who does not believe? Is it the person or the story that matters? When it comes to one person's link to God, does it matter? For a Christian, when it comes to understanding love, forgiveness, selflessness, hope, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc., does it matter?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Heehoos Is having faith the same as having an ax to grind? I'm not sure what the purpose of trying to disprove Jesus is. I suppose I can understand trying to put into place those who would use their religion to put down others. But does this person put equal time into trying to disprove the existance of Siddhartha? Of Lao-Tse or Confucius? Or Mohammad? It is easy to put down faith and religion when you have not needed it to save your life. Ask an alcholic or substance abuser if faith helped them find a path to recovery. Ask a soldier in a war if faith helped them make it through a scary night. Ask someone who has recovered from a nearly terminal disease if faith was not crucial in their recovery. Faith itself not a crutch. It is not a weakness. It is hope. It's the light at the end of a tunnel. Sometimes it can be one's only strength when they feel weak as hell. If Jesus was one person or was several persons (ironic that so many of the smart ones were named Jesus -- didn't they have other names for the wise folks?), why does it matter to one who does not believe? Is it the person or the story that matters? When it comes to one person's link to God, does it matter? For a Christian, when it comes to understanding love, forgiveness, selflessness, hope, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc., does it matter?

This is the kind of profession of faith that is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise putrid world. OK, so maybe I overstate a little. All I know is that if every believer was this reasonable, you would have significantly fewer agnostics and athiests being so defensive.

[Zhavric]

Ah...

Quote by: Heehoos Some of the information you give is interesting, but it is not all-encompassing, and it is not all accurate. That an author doesn't mention Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, for example.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario for a moment.

Superman lands on top of 10 story apartment building and saves a person from falling off the side. This is witnessed by all the people who live on the top floor of the apartment (there was a party going on). On the second floor is a blogger who blogs about comic books. Across the street is a guy who works in a comic-book store. Many of the party goers have blogs.

If Superman had really shown up, we'd expect to see mention of him in people's blogs either directly ("I saw Superman") or indirectly ("My boyfriend won't shut up about Superman").

The same is true with Philo of Alexandria and a host of other writers from the third and fourth decades of the first century.

Also, be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot: If a hellenized Jew who wrote about Jewish teachings didn't consider there to be enough evidence for Jesus in the 4th century ce, why would you consider there to be enough evidence in the 21st century?

Notice that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

This agrees with what's in the gospels. It in no way proves what's in the gospels. Subtle, but important difference.

Apologists are quick to quote Tacitus, but conspicuously silent when it comes to finding Tacitus' sources. Tacitus never mentions how he came to this knowledge and lived far too late to have met anyone who could have seen the mythic godman. Thus, Tacitus is simply the first in a long line of authors to conclude "since there's Christians, there must be a Christ"... which is on par with "since there is a flat-earth society, there must be a flat earth."

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian.

As I stated above, let's set aside the FACT the church doctored his works to make them more appealing to Christian dogma...

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4).

Source.

Josephus also mentions one particular Jesus:

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Note that this Jesus loved before the alleged time of Jesus and established "Jesus cults" before the alleged gospel Jesus ever existed.

So, if you want to use Josephus as a source, I suggest we stick with what Josephus actually wrote and ignore the parts the church embelished for their own ends.

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Maybe you can explain this to me: Why do apologists quote individuals like this as "sources"? No one is arguing that there weren't Christians in the second century or stories of Christ as early as the first century.

The argument is that these stories are invented.

Presenting individuals who lived over a hundred years after the fact... why should we consider this "evidence"?

With regard to the Gospels, it is common knowledge to Christians that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not all necessarily the apostles after whom they seem to have been named. And none were written less than 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

In 90 generations of scholarship, no one has found a copy or original of the gospels from the first century. The closest thing we have is a document the size of a postage stamp with a half-dozen recognizable words.

Matthew

Apologists assume that Ignateus is quoting Matthew in his writings. There's simply no evidence of this beyond "internal dating" which I've already established as completely untrustworthy. It's obvious that Ignateus invented a few "facts" about Jesus which were later on included into the gospel.

Mark

Mark was the first gospel written around 70 ce and is woefully ignorant of several very key events in Jesus' life. Apologists dismiss this because they assume (wrongly) that other gospels already existed. They have absolutely zero evidence for this assumption.

If you look in my original op, you'll see that Peter is every bit as fictitious as the godman he was allegedly the disciple of. Peter is attributed no fewer than three deaths

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

Again, this is an assumption based on internal evidence. How do you explain Athenagoras and the host of other late first century / early second century writers who were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus?

The gospels don't appear in Christian consciousness until 180 ce when they're mentioned in a third party text.

Remember also, that they're alleged eyewitness accounts of events which are very obviously nonsensical in nature.

In addition to the known Gospels in the Bible, there have since been the discovery of very ancient original texts that we now know as the Nag Hammadi library. They were ancient codices containing over fifty texts, and were discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. Though we do not have the original texts that are now included in the Bible, we do now have these ancient original texts. One of the texts, referred to now as the Gospel of Thomas, may almost pre-date those texts that were included in the Bible. Disregarded as a 'gnostic' text by the early Christian fathers, it talks specifically of the life of Jesus and has many similarities in content to the other Gospels.

You'd think that, but that's simply not the case...

Search in vain for orthodoxy in the 1st or 2nd centuries. "Apostolic teaching" is a fantasy invented by the Church. The "early Fathers" were bitter rivals, protagonists in a struggle between fiercely competitive groups and schools of thought.

It was only three centuries after the supposed "facts" of JC's life and teachings that rancorous assemblies of ambitious and fanatical clerics decided what precisely was that life and teaching.

The distinction between orthodoxy and its opponents was never as clear cut as later 'official' Church historians were to maintain. Many so-called Gnostics had held positions of authority within the early Church, as did the Apologists later stigmatised as heterodox and heretical. Orthodoxy even appears to have had its own factions. The synoptic "12 Apostles and a ministry of 12 months" has a hint of gnosticism about it, connecting the superstar with the zodiac and astrology. A rival faction of the orthodox favoured a much longer ministry for their hero and a rebuttal of the more esoteric gnostic doctrines. Their ideas entered the canon in the Gospel of John.

Orthodoxy favoured a set of simplistic tales, little more than "comings and goings" of the godman, comprehensible to the uneducated, and readily re-enacted in pageant and ceremonial. These fables were held to be "true accounts from recent history".

In a series of councils and assemblies spanning two centuries, an officially approved and obligatory dogma was hammered out which was then stamped upon the credulous mind of humanity. Those with the temerity to question the creed and sacraments were criminalized, persecuted and eliminated.

Much more to be found here. So, the gospel of Thomas is one of the texts that "didn't make the initial cut"...

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos Is having faith the same as having an ax to grind?

Not at all. Faith was just a means to an end. The early church fathers had the goal in mind of establishing a religion.

I'm not sure what the purpose of trying to disprove Jesus is. I suppose I can understand trying to put into place those who would use their religion to put down others. But does this person put equal time into trying to disprove the existance of Siddhartha? Of Lao-Tse or Confucius? Or Mohammad?

Really, you're right. There's no point in "disproving" Jesus because we don't have enough evidence to conclude that he ever existed. If you want to start another thread about Lao-Tse or Mohammad, be my guest. Otherwise, I'll thank you to keep the red herrings out of the pond.

It is easy to put down faith and religion when you have not needed it to save your life. Ask an alcholic or substance abuser if faith helped them find a path to recovery. Ask a soldier in a war if faith helped them make it through a scary night. Ask someone who has recovered from a nearly terminal disease if faith was not crucial in their recovery.

This is another (very blatant) red herring. No where in my thread have I attacked "faith". Christians make the claim that Jesus was an actual flesh and blood person. This has nothing to do with positive thinking or willpower; it's a demonstrably false historical claim.

If I stated "Santa Claus doesn't live at the North pole (insert comprehensive satelite imaging, explanation of logistican impossibilities, etc.)" would you address the evidence I presented or talk about how important Santa is children?

Now, that's enough off-topic-ness. Address the issues of this thread or do not, but please don't put words in my mouth.

[Heehoos]

It is still not a proved fact that Jesus did not exist. There is evidence to both theories. There are historical figures and historical documents that refer to a Jesus that died and whom the Christians revered. There is evidence from three Roman officials, from Jewish Rabbinical writings, and a Samaritan-born historian all wrote about a single man named Jesus.

I don't consider proof a theory that just because there were a lot of wise people named Jesus that there wasn't one Jesus of Nazareth.

In addition, there are many text, written at different times, with different perceptions of the man by different sects of a religion by people that saw him, and most of which have similar experiences documented. As of 1949, we now even have the original texts.

The burden of proof still lies on the disbelief.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos It is still not a proved fact that Jesus did not exist. There is evidence to both theories.

I'm also baffled by this odd argument. You've effectively invalidated your own argument by admitting there isn't enough evidence to conclude Jesus existed and at the same time insinuated that it's perfectly natural & normal to believe nonsensical stories simply because evidence to the contrary isn't obviously available. i.e. You cannot prove that I flew to the moon and back today, nor can you prove that I DIDN'T fly to the moon and back today, thus... what? We should believe I flew there and back?

Claims require proof. Claims which contradict existing established claims are false until proven true.

There are historical figures and historical documents that refer to a Jesus that died and whom the Christians revered.

Which prove that there were myths about Jesus. You seem to be attacking the argument "No one was telling stories about Jesus". This has NEVER been my argument.

There are two categories of historical documents: those written by individuals with direct knowledge and those written by individuals with indirect knowledge.

The individuals claiming to have direct knowledge all have extreme doctinal axes to grind, don't agree with one another, and are full of events which are very obviously impossible. This isn't like arguing over which river Alexander the Great crossed in which year: this is 12 people saw Jesus allegedly "come back from the dead" versus say... 500 witnesses (Paul). The people with direct knowledge had no coroboration whatsoever.

Christians often treat indirect sources as though they were direct sources. Tacitus & others are simply the first in a long line to ASSUME (without evidence) that because there are Christians there must be a Christ. There's simply no evidence for this. Tacitus doesn't even list his source.

There is evidence from three Roman officials, from Jewish Rabbinical writings, and a Samaritan-born historian all wrote about a single man named Jesus.

I've already explained why these sources (who I see you are reluctant to name specifically) are impotent. As a Christian it's YOUR burden to explain WHY these individuals should be considered evidence.

I don't consider proof a theory that just because there were a lot of wise people named Jesus that there wasn't one Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a straw-man argument. You have attacked a mischaracterization of my argument. Josephus (in a passage NOT altered by the church...) tells us of individuals who performed deeds like the gospel Jesus. They are the basis of the Jesus mythology.

In addition, there are many text, written at different times, with different perceptions of the man by different sects of a religion by people that saw him, and most of which have similar experiences documented. As of 1949, we now even have the original texts.

As of 1949 you have absolutely NOTHING where the gospels are concerned. Also, accurate copies of a myth are still works of fiction, not history.

The burden of proof still lies on the disbelief.

Really? Invisibly Flying Monkeys are real. Prove they aren't or retract your statement.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Zhavric I'm also baffled by this odd argument. You've effectively invalidated your own argument by admitting there isn't enough evidence to conclude Jesus existed and at the same time insinuated that it's perfectly natural & normal to believe nonsensical stories simply because evidence to the contrary isn't obviously available. i.e. You cannot prove that I flew to the moon and back today, nor can you prove that I DIDN'T fly to the moon and back today, thus... what? We should believe I flew there and back? Claims require proof. Claims which contradict existing established claims are false until proven true.

No, he's validating his argument by saying there IS enough evidence to conclude Jesus existed. I can not prove that you did not fly to the moon and back, although I can safely assume that a guy on a forum hasn't done so. If I so wished I could even look up the moon flight records of NASA and see if you're name's in there. The Gospels may be a whole lot of bullshit, as it is a book with both religious and historical details intertwined that tell a culture's story and way of thinking. That does not mean in any way that the person called Jesus did not exist, and considering all the miracles and things the writers oobviously DID have to make up, the details of the actual person and his name and what teachings got people to follow him would all be a great deal of extra work. The fact that a human being existed is not a nonsensical claim. I think the real issue here is that Jesus is not the GOD that christians think he is. There is a great deal of evidence to prove he could not bring dead people to life, his body did not ascend to heaven, he could not turn water to wine, etc. because no human being ever could do that. There is however, alot of evidence that he was just a guy who taught people philisophical shit, plain and simple.

[Heehoos]

Okay, Zhavric, I will be an intellectually honest person and say that I know of no archeological evidence that proves the historical existance of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth by those who actually laid eyes on him.

It could be an agreement to your theory...

Or it could be that the times did not warrant the writings of a homeless, poor man regardless of how well he spoke, until after his very unusual death and the spring of a new faith that spread like wildfire within less than half a century.

All we have are texts that reference him after his life. We have four separate writings in the Bible and numerous others outside of the Bible (thought of at the time as heretical). All we have are the spiritual experiences of millions of human beings throughout the last 2000 years.

We can call both presumptions theories that have yet to be proven. Sort of like evolution (which I partially believe is true but have a few holes to muddle through).

[Zhavric]

Mr. Blue Sky:

The oddest and LEAST supported claim in this entire discussion is the "un-embelished gospel Jesus". It stems from a few faulty premises:

1) There is evidence he existed.
There simply is none. The ONLY mention of him ANYWHERE is by individuals who clearly had an agenda and are attributing supernatural acts to him. Mark comes close with his nearly mundane tale, but still manages to toss in a few bits of magic.

2) The gospel writers were just innocent writers.
The gospel writers and early church fathers were individuals with a very clearly defined agenda. They wanted to create a new religion. We've been conditioned by apologists to blieve that these saintly individuals could have NEVER done this / wouldn't have done this... which is EXACTLY the sort of thing we're meant to believe. It's an integral part to any good propaganda.

Once we cut through the very obvious falsehoods we can start to ask "where did the story of this Jesus guy come from?" The answer is in the documented writings of Josephus (which are backed up by other Talamudic sorces and the dead sea scrolls) and the earlier myths such as Mithrasism (which was the "warm up" for Christianity).

There was no ONE Jesus who happened to be the embelished version of the gospel account. There's simply no evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos Okay, Zhavric, I will be an intellectually honest person and say that I know of no archeological evidence that proves the historical existance of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth by those who actually laid eyes on him. It could be an agreement to your theory... Or it could be that the times did not warrant the writings of a homeless, poor man regardless of how well he spoke, until after his very unusual death and the spring of a new faith that spread like wildfire within less than half a century.

While I'm happy that you're looking to argue honestly, I have to point out that you don't get to have things both ways.

The gospels don't depict the actions of a quiet homeless poor man. Even if that's what the myth tells us, we don't refer to individuals who can raise the dead and perform miracles as simply homeless people. This is what I refer to as the great apologist paradox: the desire to depict Jesus as having done all the outlandish things attributed to him, yet still have him be humble "off-the-radar" Jesus at the same time.

It's nonsensical.

For as long as there has been writing... for as long as there have been CAVE DRAWINGS... human beings have been recording stupendous events (the ones that actually happen, anyway...). The notion that Jesus could do what he allegedly did in the gospels and remain "off the radar" is nearly as logical as a married bachelor.

All we have are texts that reference him after his life.

No. We have texts that claim he existed, yet provide no evidence for them.

We have four separate writings in the Bible and numerous others outside of the Bible (thought of at the time as heretical).

As we've already established, this isn't a road you want to go down. You've yet to even ADDRESS the issue raised by Athenagoras' writings wherein Jesus isn't referred to as a person and the author is blithely unconcerned about his personhood.

The gospels weren't established in the second century. It wasn't until the council of Nicea that Christianity FINALLY got its story straight.

All we have are the spiritual experiences of millions of human beings throughout the last 2000 years.

No, you don't. See the Gravitus thread for an illustration of how easy it is for a religion to take credit for normal human experiences.

We can call both presumptions theories that have yet to be proven. Sort of like evolution (which I partially believe is true but have a few holes to muddle through).

*sigh* All right, look. I just came back from being banned. This is at least the third time you've tried to muddy the waters with something completely off-topic. DO NOT GO OFF-TOPIC. If you aren't able to contribute to the discussion, then don't contribute. This isn't a debate about evolution.

It's a debate to point out the very obvious fact that Jesus isn't proven and to highlight the many facts that establish how ridiculous it is to claim he is.

[another day]

You know, Im an atheist and though Jesus was a myth, he represents some of the greatest qualities that most organized religion has to offer. The God from the bible is a total prick compared to Jesus. Too bad most christians shit all over his values and twist them to use against people. Typical.

[Zhavric]

What attributes are those exactly?