Did Jesus even exist?
I totally reject the idea of Jesus (not his real name) as Christ which I consider absurd. Yet, of all the Palestinians living in the 1st century AD, the only one of which we have greater validation of existence than Jesus was Josephus the historian, and that is only because of his own writings. Dozens of historical documents testify that the man Jesus actually lived, including non-Christian sources. Yet, many Atheists continue to vehemently deny the mere existence of the man Jesus as if his very existence is a threat to Atheism itself. It is as if the very denial of the existence of a mere man has become an article of Atheistic "faith" in a worldwide Christian mythical conspiracy in defiance of historical scholarship. I have never understood this seemingly paranoid attitude. I realize that it cannot be proven with 100% certainty that he lived, but neither can it be proven with 100% certainty that any other individual back then lived. Any historical document could have been edited or forged. Who cares if a man named Joshua ben Joseph, either from Nazareth or a Nazarene, a political rebel and one of over 200 false messiahs, who was crucified as a common criminal as were thousands of others, actually lived? So what?
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I agree with you that the man Jesus probably lived. Now my question to you is: Was he a mystic? I have a psychologist friend who insists that he was a mystic. Please let me know if you know.
Condorandino
Level 5
June 21, 2018
0
The argument that Jesus was really a mystic is rather weak.
- All the sayings that have been attributed to Jesus would rival that of all the sayings attributed to Confucius. See, for example, The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature.
- Most of the scriptures that do indicate mystic teachings are Gnostic scriptures from Nag Hammadi Library such as the Gospel of Thomas which are of questionable origin.
- The scriptures in the canonical gospels that indicate that Jesus may have been a mystic are few, and many scholars believe these are later interpolations.
- The few canonical scriptures of Jesus that could be interpreted as mystical teachings are not consistent with his other teachings.
- The main scripture pointed to for Jesus's mystical teaching, Luke 17:20-21, is only interpreted mystically if you cherry-pick a specific translation.
Saw an interesting talk by three Mythicists, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and David Fitzgerald on the topic "Did Jesus Exist?" Very interesting.
Robert Price admitted that the historical Jesus may have existed.
Richard Carrier stated that we can't extract "truth" from the Gospels. However, this is a philosophical argument (his training is as a philosopher) and not a historical argument. He is improperly imposing a philosophical judgment upon history. Historians don't even go there.
David Fitzgerald said Mysticists love Ehrman because he agrees with them so much and makes their arguments for them such as in his book Forged. He also said that the only difference that Mysticists have with Ehrman is that they take their conclusion a little further than he does. Carrier then agreed and said that Mysticists are only a couple of tweeks away from Erhman.
This is exactly correct! The only major difference between Ehrman and the fringe group the Mysticists (they refer to themselves a fringe group in this talk) is that Ehrman, out of scholarly honesty, refuses to leap to the illogical conclusion that the historical man Jesus never existed.
Hurray for honesty! Without professional honesty we simply become what we despise...just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Heraclitus
Level 8
June 12, 2018
0
Even if there was man named jesus who was crucified, there certainly was no resurrection. Once dead, you are dead. You don't come back, so that is the myth upon which christianity is based. In effect, based on a lie. It doesn't exist. Also, as it is written, the man, whoever he was never criticized slavery and actually told slaves to obey their masters; not exactly my kind of guy.
Healthydoc70
Level 7
June 11, 2018
1
Actually, I think you are referring to Paul in Colossians 3:22 and Ephesians 6:5 who told slaves to obey their masters. However, I consider Paul to be the true founder of Christianity. Jesus the man never stopped being a devout Jew or gave any indication that he was trying to start a new religion.
Maybe he did or maybe he did not. For me , if he did existed 2000 years ago, I respect him for he was a good man who stood up for Magdalene(woman), while men aimed to kill her. Back then a woman was stoned to death ,if she was caught sleeping around. Jesus ,however, rescued her from being stoned to death. For his bravery ,I admire him since he was the only man who stood up for her even when she broke the Jewish law whic
which said ' do not sleep around' . Therefore, i Care !
delilah
Level 5
June 10, 2018
1
The Josephus reference is widely regarded by scholars as a "pious fraud". The other claimed secular references are dicey at best for various reasons.
It's not a problem for me if Jesus actually lived or if the Jesus mythos is based on a discrete individual, but I personally don't buy it. Not only because of the dearth of extra-Biblical corroboration, but for a whole lot of other reasons that I won't sidetrack this thread with.
What is manifestly NOT the case, is that the fabulist mythos of the gospels are describing literal, actual events. So whether Jesus is or isn't a real person, or is a composite character or a completely made up person, is only of academic interest. Because even if he's real, he didn't raise the dead or restore sight to the blind.
You are correct that there's not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of an actual Jesus of Nazereth, but there is certainly no reason to afford belief to Jesus as depicted in the gospels, as the miracle-working god-man.
mordant
Level 8
June 9, 2018
2
Fundamentally, I agree with your position. Yet, I would say that there isn't really a dearth of non-biblical corroboration. Actually, there are more non-biblical documents attesting to the existence of Jesus than there are biblical ones. In most instances, the existence of a couple of dozen documents attesting to the existence of a person, even if not eyewitness accounts, would be of considerable persuasion. The problem is with the historical objectivity of the sources. I only know of two secular references to Jesus, the others are Gnostic, or "other" Christian sects which have not survived. This is not even to mention all the Islamic references to Jesus which are not taken very seriously because they come later and therefore must be based on earlier accounts. But keep in mind the canon of the Bible was not solidified until the 4th century AD, long after Jesus allegedly lived at which point most known "other" accounts of Jesus' life were destroyed under threat of heresy. However, I would maintain that it is also non-objective to claim that just because people are believers in a faith, that the people they attest to in their narratives are therefore completely imaginary. Sure, it could be that neither Confucius or the Buddha ever existed either, but to casually proclaim them as imaginary beings for simply that reason is too easy, and I would maintain, biased.
@Heraclitus As others have pointed out, mention of Christians or Christianity is not proof of Christ, but of a cult of Christ. That is what nearly all of the extra-Biblical references discuss. It is clear that Christianity existed in some form in the first century (though not homogenously resembling modern orthodoxy) and that it's based on the Christ mythos (or various prototypes thereof) but that still doesn't get at the existence of Jesus himself.
I don't know what others do but I don't assert that Jesus was outright imaginary, I just am not convinced there's enough evidence to form much of an opinion about whether he's a real historical character or some sort of embellishment or composite or invention.
I admit to bias in the sense that I'm persuaded more that Jesus is a literary fiction than that he's not. But I do not admit to bias in the sense that it presents zero problem for me if I'm wrong. My views have to do more with inconsistencies and oddities in the Biblical accounts and what looks to me like an evolution of ideas about Jesus when you consider the NT books in rough chronological order, than it does about extra-Biblical documentation.
@mordant Fair enough.
That's funny.
I have a good friend who lived monastic for almost a decade, and he said theres no historical context for jesus.
Mary and Joseph were very common names then, like Tom and Jessica today, so that's probably why they were used.
Hes is 1000% convinced in the existence of god, yet even he says you cannot prove nor disprove, and that's why it's called faith.
Angus
Level 5
June 9, 2018
1
@Theskeptic no, I don't believe in or worship gravity. It just exists.
That's why the floor rose up, to care for us and support us.
For what it's worth this is interesting:
LibrePenseur
Level 7
June 9, 2018
2
Thanks very much. This has been helpful. I've always known about the Testimonium Flavianum forgery, but this is causing me to rethink the James Passage. But, of course, the existence of Jesus the man isn't totally dependent upon the James Passage or we wouldn't even be talking about him.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
June 9, 2018
1
Thanks for the link. However, this Kenneth Humphreys website, a fraud/forgery conspiracist. Hard to argue with someone who simply dismisses EVERYTHING as a fraud and/or a forgery even if you agree with much of what he says, which I do. The vast majority of what he has to say is actually evidence that Jesus the Christ is a myth, not that Jesus the man did not exist. However, in his debunking enthusiasm he has a propensity to overstate cases. For example, the claim that there is no evidence of ancient Nazareth is nonsense. The archeological evidence has even made mainstream news.
[nbcnews.com]
His attacks on Ehrman's book involve not only out of context quotes, but inconsistent interpretations of Ehrman's book for which he attacks Ehrman, rather than admit he interprets Ehrman one way one time and then a different way the next. He goes to such extremes that he even claims Ehrman said things he didn't actually say, such as 'So Christians could "shape" a story but not copy it?' Not only did Ehrman never say that, but since when does it follow that claiming that the early Christians shaped the story of Jesus mean that they couldn't have copied anything. It does even follow logically which proves his bias. In his critical enthusiasm, he doesn't even notice his own inconsistencies.
Don't prosletize to me.
@Ellatynemouth I am not, of course. I am agnostic and think the gospels are a myth. But that doesn't make me a Humphreyian either or a follower of the 3 Fs Theory.
There are plenty on this site who's only purpose is to prosletize. Often they are indistinguishable from the genuine members because they are deliberately covert, trying to blend in.
It becomes a tiring, tedious game that wastes time. Needless to say, it's sometimes difficult to spot which side of the fence someone is on.
" Dozens of historical documents testify that the man Jesus actually lived, including non-Christian sources."
Sorry, no, not a single one. The mention in Josephus has long been recognized as a later addition, while all the rest attest to the existence of Christians and/or what they claimed, but not of the man Jesus himself.
jeshuey
Level 8
June 9, 2018
4
The Testimonium Flavianum forgery aside, the dismissal of the other dozens of other historical documents attesting to the existence of Jesus simply because it is contained with the Christian mythos of believers is too easy. Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish Messiah, but the Messiah was in no way expected or prophesized to be someone crucified as a common criminal. If early Christians were making up a narrative about a supposed Messiah, why would they deliberately compose a narrative in defiance of all messianic expectations and subvert their own cause? The answer would seem to be that they simply couldn't deny the crucifixion because everyone in the first century AD knew it happened.
I'm not QUITE old enough to have lived at the time (HAH) but I've read that Joshua/Josephus/etc were common names then. The fact that someone with such a name existed in NO WAY ''proves'' anything from the bibble. Christians will grab at the proverbial straws until they drown.
LucyLoohoo
Level 9
June 9, 2018
2
I agree. The mere common names mean nothing. I've always been amazed that after 2000 years, Christians still can't even get Jesus' name right or even close. It most certainly wasn't Jesus...unless he was Greek.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.