Did Jesus exist?

[boost]

I am not interested in debating whether or not he was the son of god, or whether god exists. I am curious if Jesus actually existed as a historical figure.

I have read, in various places, that there really is no secular written account of his existence that would have been contemporary to him. Moreover there are supposedly glaring omissions in records that would have been made of certain events that he participated in, such as the offense in the Jewish market that got him crucified.

I've also seen these claims rebutted by the logic that we accept non contemporary accounts of plenty of historical events and figures as fact, simply because that's the best we have to go on.

It seems like its a subject that will cause otherwise rational people to respond irrationally. When you suggest that many (most?) of the stories in the bible clearly just could not be true, reasonable Christians will say, "well ya, but these are just stories, metaphors for how to live a good Christian life." But when the existence of Jesus is brought into question its another story. I guess this is understandable, because without Jesus being a real man, born of a virgin, the son of god, on this earth.. they are essentially just Jews. So I can understand why this would make any Christian uncomfortable. However, it does not make the question any less valid and their lack of comfort on the subject is not a substitute for evidence of him having really existed.

So being less than a biblical era scholar, I figured I'd open the question up to the commune and see how you guys filter the evidence for and against his existence.

[spoonitnow]

nsfw http://www.avitable.com/wordpress/wp...009/08/jfc.jpg

[jyms]

I wouldn't doubt that someone existed that people made up those stories about, but I doubt it was 2K years ago and I doubt it was even a white dude in Jerusalem.

[boost]

I wouldn't doubt that someone existed that people made up those stories about, but I doubt it was 2K years ago and I doubt it was even a white dude in Jerusalem.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So at some point in time a man existed and people made up stories about him, the very stories that define him as who he is to us today? Then I would argue that he did not exist. You follow what I'm saying?

edit: or are you saying that someone existed before the "time of Jesus", and the stories about this person were tacked onto a made up figure named Jesus born 2,000 years ago?

Either way, it seems quite important to the Christian faith that he did in fact exist, and that he did exist 2,000 years ago, was prosecuted and crucified for his beliefs, etc etc. If a Christian were to ever conceded that any of these things were not true, they would be denouncing their faith, no?

[bigspenda73]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So at some point in time a man existed and people made up stories about him, the very stories that define him as who he is to us today? Then I would argue that he did not exist. You follow what I'm saying?

yet, that's exactly what you asked in the OP

[boost]

yet, that's exactly what you asked in the OP

Right, I was just trying to clarify what jym's meant.

[wufwugy]

The answer is no. There is no evidence for an historical Jesus, and the scriptures are propaganda written by different people at later dates than attributed

The New Testament isn't a product of Mark and Luke and all them, but of church clerics long after all that shit supposedly happened. The Old Testament is probably harder to pin down, but it's also more easily debunked. Things like we know that there was no mass exodus from Egypt based purely on archeological evidence

"Jesus" has existed in many religions at many times. The whole virgin birth, resurrection, heal the blind, and all that shit has been attributed to literally hundreds of gods unconnected to Jesus. Hell there are like a hundred known Noah Flood stories all across the globe

The whole thing is just a myth. There is a possibility that the myths started with some hippie who said "money sucks lol", but that's about it. Also, it's not like Jesus could actually exist. Here's what really happened: some guy at a party was congratulated on good wine, he joked he made it out of water, then Sarah Palin got nominated for VP.

Self-consciousness necessitates making up stories of these sorts. This is partly because consciousness brings fear of the unknown. Fear is incredibly detrimental to a species' survival, and so we make up stories because that's virtually the only way to alleviate the fear that consciousness brings

[boost]

some guy at a party was congratulated on good wine, he joked he made it out of water, then Sarah Palin got nominated for VP.

ha.

So then why are historical-Jesus deniers lumped in with the truthers that demand to see Barry's real birth certificate(the Saudi Arabian one ldo)?

[jyms]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So at some point in time a man existed and people made up stories about him, the very stories that define him as who he is to us today? Then I would argue that he did not exist. You follow what I'm saying?

edit: or are you saying that someone existed before the "time of Jesus", and the stories about this person were tacked onto a made up figure named Jesus born 2,000 years ago?

I'm saying exactly all of this, a bunch of made up or embellished stories were about some guy, or guys throughout time that has been retold over forever and now has been gripped by the modern religions that follow the bible.

It's kind of like that campfire game where you sit in a circle and the first person makes up a sentence or two and whispers to the person beside them. When it goes around the circle the last person has a completely different story. The bible is the second last person in the circle and now the story is just a huge clusterfuck. Some guy/guys throughout time did something or some things and the stories have been bastardized to what is now known as the bible.

[boost]

Ah, the telephone game analogy is a very good one jyms.

[Warpe]

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

[BennyLaRue]

Jesus is a Mexican.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Agree with wufwugy

woah did i really just say that

[b-rabbit]

you guys are all going to hell....
haha jk

[supa]

My new religion, The Satanic Buddists for Christ, teaches that Jesus is.

[couriermike]

There is more textual evidence for the life of Jesus, written down closer in time to his life, than for any other person from the ancient world. Even non-Christian sources like Josephus and Pliny mention him. While the gospels and epistles may have been redacted some at a later date, there is no reason to doubt the main story because the authors eventually chose martyrdom over denying Christ.

[Monty3038]

On a slightly different tack... couldn't the 'author' of the story have made the whole Jesus legend up? Then convinced people it happened? More like a fictional character in a novel?

[Roid_Rage]

JesusDiedLol

[WillburForce]

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

[a500lbgorilla]

This thread is too easy to troll, so I'll give the only thought I care to give - if Jesus existed as a real man, he still wasn't born of a virgin mom whilst hosting 3 gift-bearing wisemen. Nor did he turn water into wine, be the son of God, or any of the other non-sense ascribed to him in any of the hilariously fictional stories of the Bible.

And, no matter the weight of your evidence for his non-existence the following sentence is beyond enough for any Christian to know that he existed: Jesus existed.

It either doesn't matter if he existed because you know at best he was a good man and at worst a tall tale; or it doesn't matter what you say about his existence because the Bible is the Word of God and he's all over the place in that thing.

Though, my personal opinion is that yes, someone likely existed whom we would consider to be the analog of Jesus.

[Hawk]

^^this

[StarGrinder]

Personally I think the Bible in it's entirety is one big book of bullshit. Anyone who lives by the thing is a little off their rocker imo. But I really don't care either way, or what you believe in, as long as the Bible thumpers don't come knocking on my door trying to sell Jesus like he's a chocolate fucking ice cream cone. "Go ahead, try Jesus, you'll like it." Lolz.

[boost]

There is more textual evidence for the life of Jesus, written down closer in time to his life, than for any other person from the ancient world. Even non-Christian sources like Josephus and Pliny mention him. While the gospels and epistles may have been redacted some at a later date, there is no reason to doubt the main story because the authors eventually chose martyrdom over denying Christ.

Dying for their beliefs does not validate their beliefs as true, it just validates that they really believed it.

Also while these sources appear to be contemporaries of Jesus, or at least close, I was reading that the people who wrote of him around his time could have very well been writing about a man they believed to have lived centuries before the first century A.D. After their writings were a few hundred years old, religious scholars could have placed the J-man's life in their times as a way to lend credibility to their writings. What I'm saying is, we know when the writers of the source material lived, but not when Jesus himself lived. Therefore we cannot really say for certain that there are writings about Jesus that were written in his day.

[wufwugy]

Anybody who wants to see how awful the Bible really is, watch nonstampcollector videos on youtube. Extremely funny, and display what the Bible actually says about different issues or histories. Even as somebody who studied the Bible quite intensely as a teenager, I was baffled to find out how evil and stupid this God guy really is.

One of my favorites

YouTube - What Would Jesus NOT Do?

[couriermike]

Dying for their beliefs does not validate their beliefs as true, it just validates that they really believed it.

Also while these sources appear to be contemporaries of Jesus, or at least close, I was reading that the people who wrote of him around his time could have very well been writing about a man they believed to have lived centuries before the first century A.D. After their writings were a few hundred years old, religious scholars could have placed the J-man's life in their times as a way to lend credibility to their writings. What I'm saying is, we know when the writers of the source material lived, but not when Jesus himself lived. Therefore we cannot really say for certain that there are writings about Jesus that were written in his day.

TBH, this is not my favorite topic to discuss because it inevitably touches questions of faith, and, like others have said, i think it's rude to try and proselytize one way or the other.

However, if you're interested in these questions, maybe you've already read it, I'd recommend the book The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, an ex-Christian Jesus scholar. It is an authoritative study of the culture of the period and actually a pretty good read. His thesis is that Jesus was a Jewish Cynic, kinduva Hebrew Diogenes.

One of my all time favorite books, written by the German pastor Martin Hengel, is Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. It's a scholarly treatise on the role of crucifixion in the ancient world. Short but chilling. His conclusion is that the Romans used crucifixion primarily as a punishment for disobedient slaves, and that the body would often be left hanging for days as a deterrent message to other slaves, in ancient Rome that was basically the working class. Crucifixion was 'the body used as a banner,' and crucified slaves were the biggest losers of the ancient world. This is the context when the bible talks about the folly of the cross. If you say he is the son of god, how could he end so badly? Paradoxical. Def not bedtime reading.

[boost]

I really hate the idea that it is rude to discuss an issue that has such profound impact on the world we live in. I find it rude that religious people can't grasp the idea of seperation of church and state. I find it rude that they push their non-nonsensical agenda on society in ways that block progress, and in some cases cause regression.

The lack of logic and facts on the religious side always seems to end up with them claiming that the person raising legitimate questions is being rude. Isn't that an obvious red flag that something is up?

It's like insinuating that someone has not been truthful and their only rebuttal is "DID YOU JUST CALL ME A LIAR!?!!"..

[wufwugy]

I concur with boost. It may be rude to proselytize, but so what? Religion may seem benign on the surface, but it creates and facilitates some of the worst aspects of human society.

If you were to practically break down why bad things happen to humans, first place would be the struggle for resources, and second place would be religious beliefs

[Roid_Rage]

I gotta check out some of those books now.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's rude to challenge one man's beliefs. If you try to tell my granny that Jesus isn't real and that she has to now come to terms with the fact that all of her friends and family are not in a better place, that's cold, bra.

It's politically necessary to tell people they're being fools if they're circlejerking themselves over God's design all the way to the voting booth. If you think God would never allow Global Warming, you're highlighting yourself and your friends as an enormous problem facing America.

Rude or not, it's necessary if your delusion-loving influences your vote, this nation, my life and the life of my children.

I envy the democracies of the world that don't have to deal with this ridiculous debate.

[boost]

While I understand that it is rude to challenge a specific persons beliefs, I feel that it is unfairly so. If your grandma found out I was an atheist and said, "Young man, you really ought to find god." It would not be seen as being rude on the same level as me telling her that her system of worship is deeply flawed and based on nonsense.

Yet, I understand why this is; there is a very good reason for this disparity in perceived rudeness. One person is basing their assessment on sound reasoning, while the other is ignorant and delusional. Calling a retard stupid is rude; a retard calling you stupid is almost endearing.

[Roid_Rage]

I want to make boost's last post my facebook status.

[couriermike]

While you guys are sitting around talking about Jesus, I thought you might enjoy a little country music. So here you go. Enjoy, everybody!

Josh Turner - Long Black Train

Johnny Cash - When The Man Comes Around

Randy Travis - Forever And Ever, Amen

[supa]

Oh, I like good country music. I've just never heard any.

[supa]

Buddha was born of emaculate conception and said he'd come back to teach others in whichever ways and languages they needed to be taught. Just sayin'.

[WillburForce]

Supahaole, your avatar looks like she has just slid down that slope and left a skid mark.

[Roid_Rage]

I was raised on country music, so naturally I hate about 90% of all of it, I do love me some Johnny Cash tho.

YouTube - Johnny Cash - 'Hurt"

I think this is my hands down favorite from him, never fails to give me the chills.

[Hawk]

NIN is probably still my favorite band ever, but I like his version of that song better.

This version is pretty damn awesome too
YouTube - kermit sings hurt

[BennyLaRue]

I was raised on country music, so naturally I hate about 90% of all of it, I do love me some Johnny Cash tho.

YouTube - Johnny Cash - 'Hurt"

I think this is my hands down favorite from him, never fails to give me the chills.

Rusty Cage > Hurt, imo

[surviva316]

NIN is probably still my favorite band ever, but I like his version of that song better.

i don't get what about cash's version makes everyone like it more than the original. i think it's awesome that a legend covered one of my favorite songs, but the original still gives me the hibbitties like ten times as worse.

[a500lbgorilla]

i don't get what about cash's version makes everyone like it more than the original. i think it's awesome that a legend covered one of my favorite songs, but the original still gives me the hibbitties like ten times as worse.

His old voice carries more natural umph than the more processed NIN sound? I don't necessarily think this is true, each is good in its own way and comparing them is really just trying to measure preferences.

[Hawk]

His old voice carries more natural umph than the more processed NIN sound? I don't necessarily think this is true, each is good in its own way and comparing them is really just trying to measure preferences.

This is pretty much it. The way he sings it gives the song an entirely different feeling.

[a500lbgorilla]

While you guys are sitting around talking about Jesus, I thought you might enjoy a little country music. So here you go. Enjoy, everybody!

Josh Turner - Long Black Train

Johnny Cash - When The Man Comes Around

Randy Travis - Forever And Ever, Amen

And while I'm enjoying a bit of your more Jesus'd culture, maybe you'll enjoy a bit of mine - YouTube - Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us [Carl Sagan Tribute Series, Part 1]

It's a 6 parter in 1 playlist and well worth the watch.

[wufwugy]

turn for the worse

[supa]

i don't get what about cash's version makes everyone like it more than the original. i think it's awesome that a legend covered one of my favorite songs, but the original still gives me the hibbitties like ten times as worse.

This. Plus Johnny changed the lyrics, apparently to make it more radio friendly, deal breaker imo.

[Halv]

Cash is king.

[NobleTruths]

epic thread de-rail.

[Galapogos]

i don't get what about cash's version makes everyone like it more than the original. i think it's awesome that a legend covered one of my favorite songs, but the original still gives me the hibbitties like ten times as worse.

I like Cash's version, but I think it's just because I like the song on its own. I don't understand how people like his version more either. I like a lot of Cash songs old and new, but his version of Hurt just sounds like an old guy trying to sing it.

[sweetlemon69]

I'm a massive roman history fan, and read the princeps approached pontius pilate when he finally retired and asked him what the heck he did that caused so much upheaval. Something definitely happened. It's in roman history. It doesn't reference the name Jesus though. But I'm banking on that being JC.

It's cool how you're still searching for answers though.

[givememyleg]

was jesus a cowboy?

[Galapogos]

was jesus a cowboy?

I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.

[boost]

My Jesus is a British sapper.

[a500lbgorilla]

was jesus a cowboy?

He was the greatest cowboy of all. He was once cornered by a gang, pinned down behind a bar taking small arms fire. His gun chambered only 1 round... and by some miracle, that 1 bullet lasted for 8 shots, killing the entire gang. Eventually, the legend of his wild west exploits were stolen and bastardized by the Jews to be used for the basis of some lame counter-Christmas holiday.

[a500lbgorilla]

[boost]

:deep belly laugh:

[givememyleg]

from my fb, every day is the same thing.

[kingnat]

I was reading a book called "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" (i think) by Check Klosterman (i think)... any who... in it somewhere I think he says something like "most fundamentalists want to literally fuck Jesus Christ." ... the whole love being in love thing made me think of this and chortle.

[boost]

"... and walk in the love of our Creator.."

What does this even mean?

[Galapogos]

I was reading a book called "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" (i think) by Check Klosterman (i think)... any who... in it somewhere I think he says something like "most fundamentalists want to literally fuck Jesus Christ." ... the whole love being in love thing made me think of this and chortle.

Quality book.

[jyms]

It's from status's like that, that I now have only 89 friends. Not always religion but stupidity in general.

[kingnat]

It's from status's like that, that I now have only 89 friends. Not always religion but stupidity in general.

I prefer to just hide those people from my Recent News or whatever, because, like you, they make me pissed off. I used to like having them there because they would make me think, but then realized I had grown tired of that annoyance... still I don't want to unfriend them totally. I guess I'm hopeful that they might see what kind of ideas I put forth and reflect on them ever-so-slightly to be a little less fundo in their thinking.

[MNMP2]

It is simply amazing how the normal rules of scholarly historical analysis are thrown out the window when dealing with the issue of Jesus Christ.

Actually, there are very few sceptics remaining that would contend that Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. Josephus, for one, refers to him in his writings. Luke especially is considered a very accurate and reliable historical writer, with many facts in his chapter being verified by archealogical findings thousands of years after the writing.

In all seriousness, the only question remaining is whether or not he rose from the dead. If he did, then you have to contend with the fact that he proved himself to be the Son of God.

Why would people that knew him personally accept death rather than denounce that fact? It is ridicuolous to think that anyone would knowingly die for a lie.....

[bigred]

It is ridicuolous to think that anyone would knowingly die for a lie.....

[boost]

It is simply amazing how the normal rules of scholarly historical analysis are thrown out the window when dealing with the issue of Jesus Christ.

Actually, there are very few sceptics remaining that would contend that Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. Josephus, for one, refers to him in his writings. Luke especially is considered a very accurate and reliable historical writer, with many facts in his chapter being verified by archealogical findings thousands of years after the writing.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

In all seriousness, the only question remaining is whether or not he rose from the dead. If he did, then you have to contend with the fact that he proved himself to be the Son of God.

Ok, You've completely lost me now. You do realize that you come across as a bit of a lunatic when you drag "he rose from the dead" into the a discussion like this right? We are trying to establish the truth through reason and logic and here you are, trying to inject magic into the debate as if it stacks up to logic and reason.

Why would people that knew him personally accept death rather than denounce that fact? It is ridicuolous to think that anyone would knowingly die for a lie.....[/QUOTE]

I thought that it was established that it is unlikely that the gospels were written after the time of Christ.

[BankItDrew]

If religious people were rational, there wouldn't be any religious people.

[jyms]

The rational bot makes an excellent point. The religious people do nothing for this debate anyway because they refuse to believe anything that would make them consider their beliefs. I am sure if someone would be able to bring any real proof or evidence to an atheist they may actually consider it.

[Warpe]

I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.

Typical. Everything's just black and white to you, isn't it.

[couriermike]

Here's a little stat for you to think about. It's from the book The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins, a Penn State Professor of History and Religious Studies.

In the world today, there are about 6 billion people, 2 billion of them are Christian and 1.5 billion of them are Muslim.

By the year 2100, there will be 9 billion people in the world, 4 billion of them Christian and 4 billion of them Muslim.

So, if you hate religion, as op and some others do, you're gonna have to work a little harder to get your message across.

Here's the truth. Secularism is a bubble on the back of Christianity. You only have the freedom to think anything you want because you live in a Christian society that honors individual conscience. If you ever succeed in getting rid of 'stupid', 'evil' Christianity, you won't be free, you'll be Muslim, or dead. Just saying.

[wufwugy]

If we technologically progress without destroying ourselves, religion will become just a small minority and eventually all but eradicated. Modernization is responsible for making atheists one of the fastest growing and largest-without-representation demographics in the modern world.

We're hardly even at the beginning of how far technology will modernize things.

Thunderf00t coined, "the internet is where religion comes to die", and that's a more specific rendition of the truth that modernization is where religion comes to die.

[a500lbgorilla]

Here's a little stat for you to think about. It's from the book The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins, a Penn State Professor of History and Religious Studies.

In the world today, there are about 6 billion people, 2 billion of them are Christian and 1.5 billion of them are Muslim.

By the year 2100, there will be 9 billion people in the world, 4 billion of them Christian and 4 billion of them Muslim.

So, if you hate religion, as op and some others do, you're gonna have to work a little harder to get your message across.

Here's the truth. Secularism is a bubble on the back of Christianity. You only have the freedom to think anything you want because you live in a Christian society that honors individual conscience. If you ever succeed in getting rid of 'stupid', 'evil' Christianity, you won't be free, you'll be Muslim, or dead. Just saying.

I disagree. Atheism is the only "religion" that can never die. You need to work to make and keep your Christian kids Christian whereas everyone is born believing in no gods, as they haven't been told about any yet. Two Christian parents are far more likely to spawn an atheist than two atheist parents are to birth a Christian.

As the wealth of information man-kind possess continues to grow and be made available, people will increasingly see how less and less you need a god to answer all of your questions, to have meaning in life, to establish morality, etc. The gaps for gods to fill in the lives of people have been shrinking since the inception of the idea of God and they few left are closing fast.

There was a quote I once read which I shall butcher for you now, "You don't try to change anyone's mind because that's impossible. Rather, you wait for them to die off and hope that the younger generation has grown up knowing the right answer the whole time."

So long as you don't act to keep information from children (which Christian do act to do with "teach the controversy" nonsense), my team'll be the winners in the long run.

[couriermike]

I appreciate your civil discourse, Rilla. You too, wuf. Good luck to you.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, civil discourse pretty much doesn't exist on the internet. The format doesn't loan itself to conceding points and it does loan itself to everyone talking past each other.

I'm sure we could have an enjoyable evening discussing these things in real life, though.

[wufwugy]

Everybody's an atheist

Christians disbelieve in a million gods, I disbelieve in a million and one

[Roid_Rage]

I'm a pagan.

[BennyLaRue]

I'm a pagan.

Really, you wouldn't use the term unless you weren't one. So, I'd say you belong TO THE CHURCH OF LYING LIARS!!!!

[MNMP2]

lol - you didnt quote my whole statement