It seems odd to me that so many of the presumably agnostic people who write posts on Agnostic.com are absolutely certain that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The claim that Jesus merely existed is not an extraordinary claim. The claim that the universe was created by a conscious, all powerful personality is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence. If you are uncertain whether or not God exists, how can you be so sure a certain first century itinerant rabbi from Nazareth did not exist?
3
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
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.During the period in question few (even Roman higher ups) were illiterate. However, there were scribes and a few devoted themselves to recording the history of the age. . “If no Christians had written anything about Jesus for the first hundred years after his death, we would still have two succinct accounts from those not connected among his followers.” John D. Crossan. History is a science and, as such, requires a lot of dedication and knowledge. The internet age seems to be full of ‘armchair’ historians who think they know better. Sometimes I wonder who is more open to facts, conservatives or liberals (or neither).
According to Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities 18,63: ”About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man…For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks…When Pilat, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not gave up their affection for him…And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him has still to this day not disappeared.”
Later the 'pagan' historian Cornelius Tacitus wrote in his annal 15-44: ”Therefore to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
Over the ages many people became prominent for their philosophies, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, Gandhi, Martin Luther to name a few. One person who I was introduced to * (really) was one Diogenese of Sinop [ancient.eu] (his philosophy is not to be confused with the Greek Diogenese who came some 500 years later). Diogense of Sinop is considered the father of Cynic Philosophy. He was banned from his city and fled to Greece. His idea was that in order to truly experience life one had to reject ones culture and live among the dogs. Some of his followers were John the Baptist and Francis of Assisi. Jesus the Christ (this was a title not a last name) was a follower but when he saw that one could have their head on a plate he backed off (in the end it did him little good).
- I was stationed at a military base in Sinop known as Diogenese station. This is how I learned of this philosopher. [nytimes.com]
JackPedigo
Level 9
Oct 4, 2019
1
A lot of us would question the 'Virgin Birth', and the 'Resurrection'. But, who said he never existed???'
davknight
Level 8
Oct 3, 2019
1
Take a look at the other comments.
From what I have read the original text said a virgin will be wed and give birth. It is normal and almost necessary for women in that part of the world to be virgins before marriage. As usual things got mistranslated and it became the ridiculous idea people have today. Also, the resurrection is impossible and there are a lot of studies that dispute this. The whole reason for crucifixion (it was part of a tried along with feeding to animals and burning) was to destroy one's body. Then (as now) people believed you couldn't get into heaven unless your body was intact. Crucifixion had the added benefit of letting people watch a person dying and be taken apart by vultures. The Romans used it as a way of sending a strong message.
Thank you for your respectful reply reply.
I totally agree. There is ample evidence of his existence. The thing that is missing is his influence and many of the myths about him.
JackPedigo
Level 9
Oct 3, 2019
1
"Ample evidence" ??? Really? Name ONE thing....nothing in the Census done in the year of his supposed birth, nothing in the (meticulous record-keepers! Roman accounts of crucifictions, nothing in the (supposedly rabid Jebus haters) Jewish authorities chronicles, zip, nada, nothing.....yes there is a mention of J"oseph of Arimethea", but nothing else. , you'd think if he sponsored a man arisen from the dead there would be a bit more.....like, say, the press Lazurus got?
@AnneWimsey In those days very few could write and it was easy to not get listed. Again an absence of evidence does not mean something is false. Many historians have read other things around his being alive and active and there are Roman writings and even inscriptions about his presence. His influence and sayings (he was illiterate and few people wrote so everything he supposedly said is questionable.
One John Dominic Crossan wrote several books on the history of this figure and one book "The Essential Jesus" contained numerous painting and carvings from the period showing a figure believed to be that of Jesus. One thing that was noted was that this figure was clothed differently than others in the depiction and JD Crossan felt it was a symbol of a cult he belonged. That cult was one known as 'Cynic Philosophy'
(this is a 12 minute video but here is a written version [ancient.eu] While in the military I was stationed in Sinop and became fascinated with the figure of Diogenese. In fact the base was known as Diogenese station.[nytimes.com]
It is far too easy to dismiss, out of hand, something we don't like. Unfortunately, the truth goes far deeper and is more complicated than most want to see.
@JackPedigo ummm, "from the period"? You consider 1,000 years later from the Dark & Middle Ages "from the period"???????
@AnneWimsey The period is during the time in question (2000 years ago). Just so you know I have a degree in European History from the University of Maryland European Division. Most of 'the period' we studied was early and medieval times. I not only studied history but often went to where it had been made including time in Rome. I was living in a 300 years old house in a city that once was a Roman encampment. Down river was a town, Ladenburg, [tompgalvin.com] that was a Roman town. There is a Roman museum and lots of stone engravings. This was one way of conveying information and even graffiti. I have a book full of Roman engravings of a person of interest (Jesus and his followers). The big problem here is that, since the internet all sorts of people can spew all kinds of conspiracy theories with very little proof. All this disputing what has been pretty established knowledge (yes there is a lot of hype and lies) really bothers me. It seems tRump and his ilk have had more of an influence than we know.
@JackPedigo 1,000 years after anything, heck 100 years away from anything, is bound to be obscured by hearsay & just plain Crap. If you are indeed a history scholar you should know this is the First thing they teach you!
"Roman engravings of Jeebus"? Really? And not in the Vatican, or being waved around by televangelists?????
Umm, and Dogenes the Cynic predated "jeebus" by almost 500 years...apparently he was clairvoyant?
@AnneWimsey History is real and just about not spreading gossips. I am fully aware of your hearsay idea as my late partner was an elementary school teacher. When school started she would get her class to sit in a circle and whisper in one child's ear a message and ask them to repeat. At the end the last child was to say what they heard and, of course, it was completely different. Oral history was the normal way of conveying information in the past and, yes, is can be suspect but there were historical scribes and one during the period of which we speak was Josephus [josephus.org] I sometimes feel insulted when people ridicule the field I study and still study. Just because something happened a long time ago does not mean it did not happen. I sometimes think the tRump virus is spreading where people think all news is fake news. It is not. A lot of historical happenings are only studied by historians and even though it is open to most, most aren't interested. Also, findings are made all the time and history is constantly revised. Funny, but just an hour ago I finished a report in the latest Smithsonian that talks just to this point: [smithsonianmag.com] I have pictures of the engravings/paintings and will try to see if I can find them on the internet.
@JackPedigo ummm, Facts? I still see no facts, just a bunch of wishful thinking on your part that flies in the face of what actual Facts there are, ,like Nazareth not exiting until after the supposed crucifixion. Kind of hard to be from a place that doesn't exist, no?
And your "authorities, like the Greek who lived 450 years before ground zero, and some medieval woodcuts from 1,000 years later. I'll just wait right here while you post some FACTS, shall i?
@JackPedigo OH come on you know you are being intellectually dishonest, the engravings you refer to and their associated writings are of several of the "Christs" or messiahs who abounded at the time and for whom we do have historical evidence for their existence
John the baptist called Christ by his followers
Simon Magus the samarian also known as the messiah or Christ
Menander, for who Mandaeism is named
the Ebionites
Dositheus Nathanael the Samaritan
If you are as qualified in history as you say YOU know this, or else are ill informed and are making a fool of yourself
Also you know the one "Jesus" Paragraph in Josephus is a forgery added later and the other Jesus paragraphs refer to a completely different Jesus a contemporary of Josephus.
@AnneWimsey Let me know when you become a historian. Because of the persecutions and killing of children the Jesus of history and his family fled to Egypt where they stayed during his childhood. Often, people are noted as being from an area not just a city. My late partner's family were called Baharloo-Abadan (Abadan was a city in Iran). There are lots of inconsistencies in the history and, yes, most of them come from a certain groups wishful thinking. Often History and especially anthropology don't have hard facts but have to put pieces together to come up with probabilities. A recent amazing editorial in the Atlantic Monthly about the loss of the airliner (I did post this) shows how this can work.
BTW the rude accusations are not welcomed. This is not how honest dialogue is supposed to work.
@LenHazell53 There are differences of opinion among historians and as I am not a specialist especially during this period I can't say for sure. However, no one here has given me anything that goes against what I have learned.
One thing this thread has shown me is that supposed open minded people are just as closed minded as those they point fingers at. Despite the temptation I will not return rude comments and accusation. Sorry if people don't like some things on this site and it's too bad people can't agree to disagree, respectfully.
@JackPedigo
"Agree to disagree," the last resort of the losing interlocutor 
@JackPedigo " honest dialogue"??? You have addressed exactly None of TV he questions put to you, ignored things you have been called out on several times, quoted an "expert" who lived 450 years too early, even posting a viIdeo on him (D8ogenes), etc etc etc, and claim you have "woodcuts" of jeebus....the t woodcut/printing techunique was UNKNOWN during Roman times (wrong ink!) "Honest my ass!" Closed mind blinded by faith vs. Facts!
Interesting. Can you cite one reference of Jesus’ historical existence which isn’t Tacitus or Josephus?
@Geoffrey51 I am not an expert on biblical or late Roman period history. His existence has been a foregone conclusion for people and serious historian for 2,000 years. All the myths and lies around him are a different matter. I have a book with tons of paintings and engravings from around that period. People did not write then and Josephus and Tacitus are consider reliable sources. Yes, it is hard to prove something with little evidence but science does just that. Things like dark matter and energy has not been measured or seen but scientists now they are real. Besides, I'm tired of this topic It seems like I'm butting heads with a bunch of conspiracy advocates.
I wish others were as polite as you, thanks.
@JackPedigo Don’t blame you. Can get a bit wearing!
Truth is what the facts are, the fact is Jesus is a combination of mythologys that came before him. Attis of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horace of Egypt, and Krishna of India all bore identical traits to Jesus. Preformed miracles crucified raise from the dead etc. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus or any other God ever existed. All fables have to get their origins from somewhere such as the story of Noah and the ark was derived from the book of Gilgamesh as was the story of Adam and Eve, Moses parting the red Sea was derived from the book of Saigon which was written hundreds of years earlier.
Ritchie
Level 6
Oct 3, 2019
3
According to some. And people who have studied history and this time are of another mind. I have a history background/degree and I support the known facts not some people's suppositions.
No one has ever said "a certain first century itinerant rabbi from Nazareth did not exist" in fact we know at least nine of them did one of which was John The Baptist (lots of proof of his life and deeds but none for Jesus of Nazareth, probably because Nazareth was not built till 33 A.D.).
What is contested is that that anyone one of them was the Jesus of the gospel stories, who is apparently a cumulative character made up of various stories, the teachings of and the death of all of them.
The four canonical gospels agree on all most nothing, contradict one another and place various events at different times and places. When they do agree they vary on details and on philosophical and theological stand points sometimes in direct opposition to one another.
If you include the apocryphal gospel accounts theirs are even more contention and the four bible bound stories are in the minority when it comes to agreement on anything where as Thomas, Peter, the gospel of the disciples, Judas, Mary and other all agree with one another to a much greater extent.
Therefore, in much the same way as in the legends of Robin Hood or King Arthur, the contention is NOT that A Jesus did not exist but that that THE Jesus of the Gospels is a composite character made up of several other people and the deeds and teachings of many other people, and therefore as an individual did not exist and Certainly, Definitely was not born 1 A.D.com/C.E. (historically provable as Herod the great was dead by then) and did not die at passover 33 A.D / C.E. on Golgotha as Roman records of their equivalent dating existing from the time show no such execution of anyone of that name.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Oct 3, 2019
2
The only part I agree with is that the Jesus after his death is full of myths, miss-translations and lots of people's conflicted fingers in the pot. Most of what his, supposed followers believe is pure crap. He was a Jew and stayed a Jew. This has been stated by several reputable historians. He had no intention of finding a new church but, as since the beginning of time and even now, wanted changes to his own faith. Religious cults have as many ideas as followers.
It would be really interesting to see some comments using research from valid historians who specialized in the period in question.
@JackPedigo Luke 4:23
Not sure where your getting that impression. Atheists probably, most of the intelligent people here would go down the road of ‘lone revolutionary preacher -maybe/maybe not. Composite of many apocalyptic prophets of the era - quite probably
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Oct 3, 2019
1
Many people who post comments on Agnostic.com claim they know for certain that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. If you read the responses to my post, you will see that. It seems to me that if they are agnostic about the existence of God but certain about the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, they have things backwards. You don't need much evidence to accept that a human person may have existed, and there is some evidence (however weak) that Jesus did exist. There is no evidence I'm aware of that God exists.
I remember reading a book about this a while back. I think there is historical evidence that there is a conflation of stories of many messiahs that existed around the same time with the story of Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, as one thinks of him today' is actually a composite of many messiah stories.
In that sense Jesus of Nazareth never really existed. Sure maybe there was a guy named that...he may have been a messiah that got crucified, but his real story is lost. No one really knows anything about who he actually was and what he did or said.
MakeItGood
Level 7
Oct 3, 2019
2
Personally I never thought Jesus never existed. I think there was an extraordinary person named Jesus Christ that probably engendered many of the stories of his exploits and like all tales passed down things can get exaggerated. Like being the son of God and a savior. Not unlike the hope placed on our savior Mueller to curb the evil in the WH. (this is a joke)
How about who gets called the father of the modern computer age. Can we really know how man thought in an age with so little of the knowledge and technology that we have today?
silverotter11
Level 9
Oct 3, 2019
1
There are lots of misconception about this person and most are obvious (and I did not see them until someone pointed them out). For instance 'Christ' is a title not a name. Otherwise his mother and father would be Mr. and Mrs. Christ (lol). The correct title should be Jesus the Christ. As I have been explaining above there are lots of engravings/painting that depict a central figure. That figure was crucified because he was thought to be a danger to the empire. Lots of evidence from different sources show that. I don't understand why we constantly go down this road. We are sounding like the ignoradi (my word) who think everything is a conspiracy. Many, historians have studied and dedicated their lives to this period of history. Yes, there are lots of myths, translations, gossips and on but there is a basis for fact. History is a science and as such people in the field need some respect.
@JackPedigo OH WOW! A new word ignoradi, NOT my only take away from your response. Yes, you are correct, it is Jesus the Christ, lazy short hand on my part due to too much swearing. The broad history is there to support this figure has having existed. Humans like to argue, short term memory or who doesn't like a good conspiracy? Take your pick. I am getting worn out with religion and spirituality but NOT history!!
@silverotter11 This conversation has forced me to go back and look for a little more concrete evidence. As I mentioned to another member there were scribes that did write things down as a record of what was going on, sort of early historians. I need to spend a little time to put together what they wrote and will do so tomorrow.
@JackPedigo Until this post I was not totally aware of your background. You may have mentioned it somewhere but I missed it. Looking forward to the post.
@silverotter11 I am going to post it as a comment. Took a while to 'transcribe' the information + my thoughts.
@JackPedigo @silverotter11 Odd that you know that Christ is title but do not know that Jesus is also a title, the Latinisation of Yehoshu'a a common epithet for the promised Messiah, which in itself is the Hebrew version of Christ both meaning the "An anointed One" and that No one knows who the supposed Jesus of Nazareth was or what his real name was.
So you contention that Jesus Christ should be actually Jesus The Christ is completely wrong , the correct term is Christ Jesus "An anointed one the anointed Messiah"
Also why use the spanish plural of ignorado ignoradi and claim it as your own word when the word you actually want exists in English and is the ignorati
I never thought Jesus never existed..there is enough documented evidence that someone known now as Jesus Christ did exist. However, I do not believe he was divine and the Son Of God, obviously because I have found no evidence that God exists, but merely a man and some kind of charismatic mystic leader.
Marionville
Level 10
Oct 3, 2019
3
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.