Did Jesus exist?

[Zaira]

Did Jesus exist?

And if he did, did he die on the cross?

[Jocky]

My opinion:


Did Jesus exist?

A preacher called Yeshua the Nazarene probably existed. Whether or not he actually said and did the things attributed to him is more doubtful.


And if he did, did he die on the cross?

It's plausible, as lots of people did at that place and time. There is no independent evidence for it though.

The evidence is insufficient to be certain of either of these things.

[Zaira]

The jury is still out on whether Jesus existed or not. Let’s assume he existed… I personally do not think he died on the cross. I think he was simply unconscious for three days and then regained consciousness and walked away - and went to India. I think like all enlightened souls, he realised that he was whacking a dead donkey and threw in the towel. If that part were to be true then Judas was not a bad guy, he was in fact Jesus’ best friend, turning him in because he asked him to do so.

And the questions and the curiosity and the wondering go on.. And on.. And on.

[Jocky]

Let’s assume he existed… I personally do not think he died on the cross. I think he was simply unconscious for three days and then regained consciousness and walked away

Well, more likely carried away by his mates, since he would have been in a very bad way. This is remotely possible though - there are accounts of people surviving crucifiction.

[vbloke]

Did Jesus exist?

Doubtful. At least, in the way that the Bible descibes.

Mithras - born of a virgin, remained celibate, his worship involving baptism, the partaking of bread marked with a cross and wine as sacrificial blood, held Sundays sacred and Mithras was born on 25th of December.

Horus - born of Isis (a virgin) around December 25th, demanded his followers remain celebate, Horus as a baby was laid in a manger.

Buddha - born on December 25th when the "Holy Ghost" descended on his virgin mother Maya

Hercules - born on 25th of December, the son of the supreme god of the Greeks, Zeus, through the mortal woman Alcmene.

Adonis - revered as a "dying-and-rising god" among the Greeks, miraculously was also born on the 25th of December. His worshipers held him a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer. The ceremonies of his birthday are recorde d to have taken place in the same cave in Bethlehem which is claimed to have been the birth place of Jesus.

Freyr - born on 25th December, the son of the sea god Njörðr.

The Romans observed this day as the birthday of the god of the sun, Natalis Solis Invicti ("Birthday of Sol the invincible"). There was great rejoicing and all shops were closed. There was illumination and public games. Presents were exchanged, and the slaves were indulged in great liberties. Remember, these are the same Romans who would later preside over the council of Nicea (325 AD.) which lead to the official Christian recognition of the "Trinity" as the "true" nature of God, and the "fact" that Jesus was born on the 25th of December too.

[Zaira]

Wow! Some good stuff there.

So glad I wasn't just dismissed for my strange and wonderful ideas. Thanks folks.

[Cuddles]

I recommend "The God Delusion" for this, although no doubt there are far more comprehensive references out there. I haven't actually read most of it, but near the start there's a bit about whether Jesus existed and what exactly happened.

Basically, the person known as Jesus probably existed, but he wasn't born on December 25th (shepherds with lambs in the middle of winter?). He wasn't born in the right year, or the events around his birth didn't happen (Herod died before Jesus was born, yet he still ordered the killing of babies?). He wasn't born in Bethlehem. Joseph probably wasn't a carpenter, and may not have been called Joseph. A census wasn't ordered by the Roman emperor and people certianly didn't have to go to where their ancestors lived. And may more problems.

The trouble is, most the accepted stories about Jesus come from Matthew, and the nicest thing that can be said about him is that he made it all up. Not only does Matthew not agree with historical record, he doesn't even agree with the other gospels.

As vbloke has pointed out, much, if not most, of Christianity was essentially made up to make it acceptable to people at the time. Virgin birth, resurection, time of festivals and so on were all chosen because people already believed in them. Christianity was basically a way of letting people carry on believing what they already did, but putting them under control of a central authority.

One thing that is very interesting to note is that Judaism and the old testament are acutally polytheistic. The Jewish god is not the only god, he specifically says he is jealous and doesn't want people to worship the others. Islam also goes back to this idea, it is only Christianity that really claims there is only one true god. This is interesting because many of the problems brought up with Christianity, and especially creation, are not actually problems in the bible. For example, Adam and Eve are not the parents of all humans and there is no problem with their children not having wives. Humans already existed and their children married into other tribes, and even took over their cities. The Jews were always the favoured tribe, not the only one. Not really relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed, but interesting nonetheless.

[Dr B]

I am skeptical about all the virgins......yeah right....;D

[Araneus]

Besides, Jesus couldn't have been born of a virgin because there would be no source for a Y chromosome. The only way this could happen is if Jesus was a female clone of the mother.

[Matt]

The jury is still out on whether Jesus existed or not. Let’s assume he existed… I personally do not think he died on the cross. I think he was simply unconscious for three days and then regained consciousness and walked away - and went to India. I think like all enlightened souls, he realised that he was whacking a dead donkey and threw in the towel. If that part were to be true then Judas was not a bad guy, he was in fact Jesus’ best friend, turning him in because he asked him to do so.



And the questions and the curiosity and the wondering go on.. And on.. And on.

That's a theory with many things to commend it. It may be acceptable to christians and skeptics alike. It allows a limited faith in certain biblical events without stretching credulity with tales of the supernatural.

What it doesn't have is evidence (or at least you have specifically listed any) and so I have to remain sceptical. (unless you can provide your reasons for thinking this)

The movie "The god who wasn't there (http://www.thegodmovie.com/)" suggests that he didn't exist. Like Robin Hood or King Arthur there may be some grains of truth in the story with a real historical precident or the character may be a composite of a number of historical figures melded together by the vagiaries of oral tradition.

The truth is that we really don't know. This site (http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part1.htm) disspassionately discects the movie with admirable neutrallity.

[RubyRedRose]

There is a wealth of evidence that a man called Jesus or the Aramaic derivative did exist. The evidence points to this figure being a revolutionary NOT a Messiha.

As a trained arch, I hope John will at least vouch for that credential, I will try to find links etc to illustrate this "fact".

There is one recorded piece of evidence to prove the reality of crucifixion, no others that are not textually based.

[Admin]

Yes I've read that too. There's only one case where evidence of crucifixion has been gathered. ??? There's a lot of textual reference to crucifixion taking place but if it was so common, where's the physical evidence?

Are there good reasons why such evidence would not survive?

And yes, Rose trained as an archaeologist. I'll vouch for you. ;)

[Zaira]

This is amazing. I’m just relieved that I wasn’t kicked off the forum for my strange and wonderful ideas.

I took exception on another forum when I was told I read too much and think too much. !!

[Jocky]

I took exception on another forum when I was told I read too much and think too much

Sounds like a believers' forum to me :cheesy:

[median]

You can never think too much;D

[Zaira]

Thank you. Your reassurances are much appreciated.

[RubyRedRose]

Yes I've read that too. There's only one case where evidence of crucifixion has been gathered. ??? There's a lot of textual reference to crucifixion taking place but if it was so common, where's the physical evidence?

Are there good reasons why such evidence would not survive?

And yes, Rose trained as an archaeologist. I'll vouch for you. ;)

Thanks John!

I think maybe crucifixion did not rely on blood loss to cause death, in fact little blood would be lost with injuries to wrists and feet, always ruling out piercing of arteries. The nails would need to be placed through BONE not soft tissue to stop the flesh ripping. It causes death by suffocation, so in theory, rope would have been sufficient.

It is odd that the "water" that flowed from the pierced side of Jesus in the biblical accounts is spot on. A match for periocardial fluid from around the heart.

[RubyRedRose]

There ARE many broken legs in the evidence though. In theory SOME of these could be a side effect of the crucifixion process. The crucifixion victim needs to push up with his legs to breathe in, breaking the legs would make this too difficult and therefore make the death faster. It was considered a "kindness" and there are accounts of families paying soldiers to do it to their loved ones.

[RubyRedRose]

Both the Roman historians of the time, and the Jewish ones were writing about him, as a man. It does seem likely that he did exist as a man at least.

[Dr B]

and what of Brian? :cheesy:

[RubyRedRose]

and what of Brian? :cheesy:


They said he was a splitter!:cheesy:

[RubyRedRose]

There is some American doctor, a cardiologist or thoracic specialist, who regularly crucifies his son to study the effect it has on the body. I think the longest they have been able to document os 20 mins or less because of the physical stress it causes to the chest.

[Admin]

There is some American doctor, a cardiologist or thoracic specialist, who regularly crucifies his son to study the effect it has on the body.

The pay was good but he got hammered with tacks! ;D

That's interesting about the broken legs. Pretty grim but it's indirect evidence that matches up with the textual evidence.

So, didn't someone recently claim to have found the tomb of Jesus or something?

[RubyRedRose]

The pay was good but he got hammered with tacks! ;D

That's interesting about the broken legs. Pretty grim but it's indirect evidence that matches up with the textual evidence.

So, didn't someone recently claim to have found the tomb of Jesus or something?


They did yes. All the main players were there. Mary the brothers, their wives and all had the Ben/Bat Yeshuah tag. Everything tied in. The biblical context, the bomes etc. The mitochondrial DNA blew it clean out of the water. Wasn't Jesus tomb at all.

It certainly does tie in. Remeber the Nativity story? Little Donkey and the road to Bethlehem? That journey would have been HORRIFIC for any traveller. After the Jewish uprising the year before Jesus' birth, the Roads of the region were decorated with decomposing crucified corpses!

[RubyRedRose]

Grrrrrrr tacs!:cheesy:

[Matt]

Both the Roman historians of the time, and the Jewish ones were writing about him, as a man. It does seem likely that he did exist as a man at least.

Really? Do you have a reference as the earliest account I'm aware of is Josephus Flavius who was born after Jesus was suposed to have died. One of the strongest planks in the Jesus as Myth argument is the lack of contemporary sources.

[RubyRedRose]

Really? Do you have a reference as the earliest account I'm aware of is Josephus Flavius who was born after Jesus was suposed to have died. One of the strongest planks in the Jesus as Myth argument is the lack of contemporary sources.


To be truthful not off the top of my head, there is one that I DO recall but the name is elusive. Can I plead a rain check and look for it in the morning? I am sure if it's in a book it must be on the net as well, somewhere.

[RubyRedRose]

I hold my hands up and admit that my area is NOT this one. I am very much an amateur here. Holy Land arch is a specialism in itself.

Might well be Josephus, I have an idea it can be traced to an earlier commentator, but I may well be wrong.

[Zaira]

John,

"The pay was good but he got hammered with tacks!"

How long have you been waiting to use that one? lol

[Legaleagle]

I would recommend Prof. E P Sanders "The Historical Figure of Jesus" to anyone as a good source of information on this subject.

The only written historical source for Jesus that we know of (other than the Gospels) is Josephus.

On balance Sanders comes to the conclusion that Jesus did exist as a historical figure and that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were all compiled from sources written during or shortly after his death. In fact, he says there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great!

The problem of the written records of what he actually said is this: Jesus was expected to return shortly "some of you present will still be alive when the saviour returns" (chapter and verse unknown, sorry!) and there was thought to be no need to write anything down at the time as it was all fresh in people's minds and they wouldn't have to wait too long in any event. When it became apparent that Jesus wasn't coming back any time soon the 3 synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) were compiled, I believe about 50-100 years after his death.

The Gospel of John is something different and should probably not be regarded as a historical source coming into being about 250 years later (I think).

The 3 synoptic gospels are thought to be stitched together fragments of text from various sources, little bits and pieces that people had written down and referred to over the years following Jesus's death. This is why the editorial of the Gospels is sometimes a bit fishy with bits taken out of context, repeated, contradicted etc.

So the Gospels can, with caution, be taken as a contemporary record of what was said by Jesus, in Sanders' opinion, and can't be simply dismissed as being made up years later by the Romans (sorry chaps!).

[Matt]

of course there's plenty of contemporary eveidence that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical character. Here is anecdotal evidence of the confusion that this may cause. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msherlock.html

It is often quoted that many people sincerely believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical character and it is evident that many others act and write as if he were.

I'm not sure of any emipirical evidence as to how many genuinely believe in Holmes as a historical character and would welcome soem data if anybody has any.

However...

Imagine if some modern day Council of Nicea excised almost all mention of him as a fictitious creation...

[Cuddles]

So the Gospels can, with caution, be taken as a contemporary record of what was said by Jesus, in Sanders' opinion, and can't be simply dismissed as being made up years later by the Romans (sorry chaps!).

The trouble with the gospels isn't that they were made up by the Romans, it is that they were made up by the people involved, and then cherry picked by the Romans. For example, most of the stuff in Matthew is simply forcing the Jesus story to fit the prophecies about him, and it often disagrees with the other gospels and other historical sources. For example, Jesus, assuming he existed, almost certainly wasn't born in Bethlehem, that is just where the prophecy said he would be born. The whole nonsense about an empire-wide census (there wasn't one) and everyone having to travel to their ancestors' homeplace (which ancestors exactly, and why would this ever happen?) was simply made up as an excuse to get him there.

In addition, there were far more than four gospels. The four we have are just the ones that were chosen, for whatever reasons. The others are just as valid but were not considered appropriate, for example, apparently one had stories about a baby Jesus playing magic tricks on visitors, which is hardly what you want from the messiah.

The general concensus is that Jesus did exist, but that most of the stories about him, including the gospels, are either exaggerated or just made up to fit prophecies. There can certainly be no doubt that large portions of Christianity were lifted wholesale straight from other religions and myths that existed at the time. The gospels may be good enough sources to make us think that he existed, but there is no reason to take them as historical fact any more than stories about global floods are.

[Legaleagle]

of course there's plenty of contemporary eveidence that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical character. Here is anecdotal evidence of the confusion that this may cause. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msherlock.html

It is often quoted that many people sincerely believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical character and it is evident that many others act and write as if he were.

I'm not sure of any emipirical evidence as to how many genuinely believe in Holmes as a historical character and would welcome soem data if anybody has any.

Are you actually implying that you think that Jesus was a fictional character? If you are then please back up the assertion with something of substance.

This is perhaps where the incompatibility of the scientific method with history comes to the fore. there is often no empirical proof for things which happened in the ancient world as it has disappeared from our view with the passing of time. Scholars have to make their judgement based on the sources available. If you are insisting on empirical evidence which can be tested scientifically of the existence of Jesus then I am afraid the debate is over. We might as well just consign all the history books to the fiction section and then we can just decide what we each want to believe was the history of mankind (might be kind of fun!).




However...

Imagine if some modern day Council of Nicea excised almost all mention of him as a fictitious creation...

OK, I can imagine that, but where is the evidence that that is what the Council of Nicea actually did in the case of Jesus?

[Legaleagle]

The trouble with the gospels isn't that they were made up by the Romans, it is that they were made up by the people involved,

So the gospels were fabricated by Matthew, Mark and Luke, not put together from fragments of text collected from the (very) early Christain churches and edited together into a story of Jesus' life and Ministry? Where does this idea come from please and who is it's author?


and then cherry picked by the Romans.

The Romans "cherry picked" as you put it. This I can agree on.


For example, most of the stuff in Matthew is simply forcing the Jesus story to fit the prophecies about him, and it often disagrees with the other gospels and other historical sources. For example, Jesus, assuming he existed, almost certainly wasn't born in Bethlehem, that is just where the prophecy said he would be born. The whole nonsense about an empire-wide census (there wasn't one) and everyone having to travel to their ancestors' homeplace (which ancestors exactly, and why would this ever happen?) was simply made up as an excuse to get him there.

I can agree with that up to a point, however, the sermon on the mount is not in there to fit in with OT prophecy now is it?


In addition, there were far more than four gospels. The four we have are just the ones that were chosen, for whatever reasons. The others are just as valid but were not considered appropriate, for example, apparently one had stories about a baby Jesus playing magic tricks on visitors, which is hardly what you want from the messiah.

True, but I believe that scholars suggest that these tales are the ones which were discarded as being later embroideries on the original, more simple story, which is set out in the gospels.


The general concensus is that Jesus did exist, but that most of the stories about him, including the gospels, are either exaggerated or just made up to fit prophecies. There can certainly be no doubt that large portions of Christianity were lifted wholesale straight from other religions and myths that existed at the time. The gospels may be good enough sources to make us think that he existed, but there is no reason to take them as historical fact any more than stories about global floods are.

There is certainly speculation in some quarters that large parts of Christianity were lifted wholesale from other religions and myths, to say that "there can certainly be no doubt" is overstating the case.

Remember, Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. The myths in the old testament are Jewish in origin, I trust that you are not suggesting they are from the Pagan, Bhuddist, Hindu or from any other ancient tradition as I think we would have to disagree on that. I am sure I need not remind you that the global flood myth is not in the New Testament, but the Old.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not a Christian and discussion of these questions does not offend me in any way, but scepticism needs to be brought to bear in this subject just as much as in any other. The need of modern man to discard his religious heritage has led to some unfortunate speculative thinking which doesn't really bear thorough examination and as Skeptics we should be, well, sceptical, about such ideas;)

[Matt]

Are you actually implying that you think that Jesus was a fictional character? If you are then please back up the assertion with something of substance.

I'm offering a context within which the hypothesis my seem less ridiculous than it might at first seem.

I'm not a proponent of the Jesus Myth hypothesis but am interested in it. I have already provided mention of Brian Flemming's "the God who wasn't there" as a detailed exposition of the hypothesis alongside a well researched rebuttal. There's also the book "the Jesus Mysteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries)" and the work of Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm)

My position is that we simply don't know.


This is perhaps where the incompatibility of the scientific method with history comes to the fore. there is often no empirical proof for things which happened in the ancient world as it has disappeared from our view with the passing of time. Scholars have to make their judgement based on the sources available. If you are insisting on empirical evidence which can be tested scientifically of the existence of Jesus then I am afraid the debate is over. We might as well just consign all the history books to the fiction section and then we can just decide what we each want to believe was the history of mankind (might be kind of fun!).

Historical sources are good enough evidence for me. Not definite proof but as you say they do help scholars to reconstruct a picture.

I used the word empirical to describe the sort of evidence I'd be interested to see in support the oft quoted claim that many people believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real historical figure. The only evidence I'd seen was anecdotal.


OK, I can imagine that, but where is the evidence that that is what the Council of Nicea actually did in the case of Jesus?

Well we do have copies of certain Gospels that didn't make the cut. Jesus Mythers contend that these were rejected for various reasons including reference to Jesus as a metaphysical character.

[Zaira]

"We might as well just consign all the history books to the fiction section and then we can just decide what we each want to believe was the history of mankind (might be kind of fun!)."

I recon there are some history books that belong there. What are they after all, just someone’s interpretation of events.

[Mongrel]

"We might as well just consign all the history books to the fiction section and then we can just decide what we each want to believe was the history of mankind (might be kind of fun!)."

I recon there are some history books that belong there. What are they after all, just someone’s interpretation of events.

"History is decided by the winners" - Napoleon Boneparte

[Cuddles]

So the gospels were fabricated by Matthew, Mark and Luke, not put together from fragments of text collected from the (very) early Christain churches and edited together into a story of Jesus' life and Ministry? Where does this idea come from please and who is it's author?

It doesn't come from any one person, as far as I am aware this is the general consensus. There is definitely a bit of "The God Delusion" that mentions this. There are many parts of the stories that flatly contradict genuine historical records and often common sense, although obviously that is rather less conclusive. As I've already mentioned, the claims of an empire-wide census are wrong and the idea of sending everyone to the birthplace of an ancestor for a local census is utterly laughable. Things like that have absolutely no reason for being there other than to fit in with prophecies, they are very obviously not based on any factual evidence. There is also the problem, as I also mentioned, that the gospels very often disagree or just plain contradict each other.


I can agree with that up to a point, however, the sermon on the mount is not in there to fit in with OT prophecy now is it?

I never said the whole thing was made up. However, the fact is that some things in the gospels did not or could not have happened. Given this, it would seem rather odd to take other parts as true without some decent evidence to back them up. It seems likely that a preacher called Jesus did exist, but when it comes to details such as where and when he was born, the Bible is just not a reliable source.


True, but I believe that scholars suggest that these tales are the ones which were discarded as being later embroideries on the original, more simple story, which is set out in the gospels.

Some people say the other gospels weren't reliable, others say that they just didn't fit in with the ethos of the new religion, or would appear less acceptable to the people the religion was aimed at. As far as I am aware there is simply not enough evidence to choose between the two, although personally I find the latter a more reasonable hypothesis.


There is certainly speculation in some quarters that large parts of Christianity were lifted wholesale from other religions and myths, to say that "there can certainly be no doubt" is overstating the case.

Virgin birth, resurrection, Christmas, Easter, walking on water, healing the sick, rebelling against the established temple. The holidays were lifted straight from existing ones and most of the stories that from the very basis of Christianity are stories that can be found in pretty much any religion you care to look at.

I think my favourite is Christmas. The idea that shepherds could be sitting out on hills watching sheep in the middle of winter and the somehow magic up some lambs as offerings is just great. If anything in the stories about Jesus' birth are true, he must have been born during the spring, but pretty much every culture that experiences winter has a mid-winter festival, so that's where Jesus' birth had to go, and reality be damned.

[Legaleagle]

I never said the whole thing was made up. However, the fact is that some things in the gospels did not or could not have happened. Given this, it would seem rather odd to take other parts as true without some decent evidence to back them up. It seems likely that a preacher called Jesus did exist, but when it comes to details such as where and when he was born, the Bible is just not a reliable source.

I don't take issue with much in your last post except for the above. If we accept that a lot of the stuff in the Gospels was inserted for the purpose of making Jesus look as if he fulfilled various OT prophecies it does not necessarily follow that other stuff written down in them about what Jesus said during his ministry is made up.

If we accept that Jesus was a preacher and that he preached to the people, and that some of those people belived him to be the son of God and started a religion based around his teachings, is it not reasonable to assume that the people he preached to actually listened to and took down what he said rather than just made stuff up and attributed it to him?

If they dressed up the story of his life to try and fit him into the Jewish faith as their Messiah it does not actually follow that they also completely misrepresented his teachings as well. There is a fair bit of consistency in all the Gospels (including the ones not picked by Constantine) about Jesus' teachings, so maybe it's not so odd to regard the teachings as recorded in the gospel as reliable.

[Cuddles]

I don't take issue with much in your last post except for the above. If we accept that a lot of the stuff in the Gospels was inserted for the purpose of making Jesus look as if he fulfilled various OT prophecies it does not necessarily follow that other stuff written down in them about what Jesus said during his ministry is made up.

And neither does it follow that it isn't made up. The thing is, we have a book that says some things that seem to be supported by other sources to some extent and some things that are in direct contradiction with more reliable sources. This doesn't mean that all the bits we aren't sure of must be made up, but it means it is very silly to just assume that they aren't.


If we accept that Jesus was a preacher and that he preached to the people, and that some of those people belived him to be the son of God and started a religion based around his teachings, is it not reasonable to assume that the people he preached to actually listened to and took down what he said rather than just made stuff up and attributed it to him?

I definately don't agree with this. I think it is far more likely that people would make up whatever they wanted him to have said rather than faithfully record exactly what he did say. Just look at how much many modern religious people pick and choose which bits to believe and just plain make some things up. Why should we assume those who wrote and edited the bible were any different? I certainly can't prove that any particular bits were made up, but your assumption that people would record some bits more faithfully than others just isn't supported by even a brief look at human nature.

[Allo Allo]

but your assumption that people would record some bits more faithfully than others just isn't supported by even a brief look at human nature.

Not if you consider the old "oral tradition" which was to pass down stories "verbatim" from generation to generation.

[Cuddles]

Not if you consider the old "oral tradition" which was to pass down stories "verbatim" from generation to generation.

And how exactly do you know that they were "verbatim"? Because they said so? You can hardly count those stories as reliable. Maybe they really did pass them on with no errors at all, but without any written records to check we simply can't say one way or the other, and if there were written records then they wouldn't be oral anyway.

Incidentally, would these be the oral traditions of global floods and the making of the world from various gods toenail clippings? I'm not sure I'd count them as entirely factual sources even if it were proven that they had remained completely uncorrupted.

[Julia]

I've never been able to summon up much interest in the "historical" Jesus. Whoever he may have been he had no impact on the foundation and development of Christianity - we have the obnoxious Paul to thank (or curse) for that, and he didn't know the "historical" Jesus anyway!

[Allo Allo]

I've never been able to summon up much interest in the "historical" Jesus. Whoever he may have been he had no impact on the foundation and development of Christianity - we have the obnoxious Paul to thank (or curse) for that, and he didn't know the "historical" Jesus anyway! Well said! It should have been called Paulism or Paulianity!

[Zaira]

Like a lot of things……. It’s not so much about what they included, it’s more about what they left out. Whether by mistake or deliberately or by order of the catholic church. It is known that a lot of written material was hidden for whatever reason.

Curiosity killed the cat - Thank God I’m not a cat! My brain is full of this stuff!

[Jesus_Skeptic]

I think you should check out this sight if you haven't already heard of it: www.jesusneverexisted.com (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com) .

I've looked around for various arguments and evidences concerning the historicity claims of Jesus Christ. The best I have found so far can be found here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889

Hope that helps!;)

[Legaleagle]

I think you should check out this sight if you haven't already heard of it: www.jesusneverexisted.com (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com) .

I've looked around for various arguments and evidences concerning the historicity claims of Jesus Christ. The best I have found so far can be found here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889

Hope that helps!;)

Not much. I found the objectivity of those links to be... questionable.

The first one was pure rant. The second one was at least interesting, although the argument lacked authority (references might have been helpful) .

You might want to try reading some scholarly works on the subject instead of internet pamphlets. I think these will give you a more balanced overview of the subject. I can let you have a bibliography if you are interested.

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi,

I just wanted to throw fuel onto this debate and provide more scrumptuous food for thought.

As a confirmed christian who has had cause to question the existence of a God who can truly love us, I have never doubted that Jesus existed - by whatever name. After picking through my now dusty bible, and more recently after reading the excellent book 'The Templar Revelation' the one thing that stands out is that there were a very few men, and possibly women, who - petty politics of the day aside - brought some kind of hope to the people of those times. It may also be equally worthwile questioning the existence of every other character in the bible.

It may also be worth questioning the existence of Mohammed, or any other character of whom the only knowledge we have is ancient written material of an often dubious nature and which has sometimes been conveniently adapted to serve some cause or other.

I am no scholar, but I have read other books about Jesus. Here's a very interesting website regarding the possible tomb of Jesus' family. It is well worth a look for anyone interested:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

This question springs to mind - please view the evidence on the site above before commenting - if Jesus did not exist, it seems fair to assume that his 'family' were similar inventions. Is it a staggering coincidence, that 1 in 600 chance, that the names found in this tomb are (barring one possible exception) the same as those said to be the family of Jesus?

[Zaira]

Tim,

Wow! I read some of that and quite honestly it makes me regret asking the question. So much contraversy.

I am one of those who can accept that he existed but did not die on the cross but may have been near death when he was taken down from it and regained consciousness three days later, recovered and went to India.

I read a book written by a man who went to Cambridge university and then went on to beome a priest but changed his mind because, from all his studies, he could not accept that Jesus died on the cross. He wrote how Jesus was almost dead when the two Mary’s went with a soldier to request his body and because the soldier confirmed that he was dead and some holiday was coming up it was agreed that they could take him down off the cross.

With all the 'psychic' type controversy going on around here I would just like to say... Today he may have been thought to be psychic. And we all know what the view of psychics is around here. Opens up a whole other kettle of fish. Not something I want to get into anymore.

I can't remember the author of that book. Trying to Google it. If anyone can help, the title was something about Jesus going to India.

[Tin Lizzie]

Can't find any books, but did find a documentary review:

JESUS IN INDIA, the new feature documentary from Paul Davids Productions, Inc., is in the final stages of post-production. Running at about 100 minutes, the motion picture was filmed over about two months all over India, at holy sites of Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism, from the great Hindu Temple at Madurai in the south to the Hemis Buddhist Monastery in the Himalayas at Ladakh. Major religious scholars, including Professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton University and the “Pope” of Hinduism, the Shankaracharya (speaking from the location of the 2500 year old Jagannath Temple at Puri, India) weigh in on the question of “Where was Jesus during the Missing Years?” None of the four canonical Gospels accounts for Jesus’ whereabouts from age twelve to thirty, with the Gospel of Luke only declaring that during those years “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” For centuries, traditions in India have claimed that Jesus joined a trade caravan that traveled the Silk Road and spent part of His life in India during those years with both Hindus and Buddhists. The film promises many surprises that will be considered and debated by Christians as well as those of all major religions. The visually beautiful film has an unforgettable music score by Brian Thomas Lambert, who composed the score for THE SCI-FI BOYS. Distribution information to be announced.

This sounds feasible enough.....

As for him dying on the cross....hard to say!?

My main point was directed at the evidence for his actual existence.

[Cuddles]

It may also be worth questioning the existence of Mohammed, or any other character of whom the only knowledge we have is ancient written material of an often dubious nature and which has sometimes been conveniently adapted to serve some cause or other.

It's worth questioning the existence, or at least the actual facts, of any historical figure, religiou or otherwise. In Mohammed's case, I beleive there is a lot more evidence to suggest that he was real, especially since he was so much more recent than Jesus.


This question springs to mind - please view the evidence on the site above before commenting - if Jesus did not exist, it seems fair to assume that his 'family' were similar inventions. Is it a staggering coincidence, that 1 in 600 chance, that the names found in this tomb are (barring one possible exception) the same as those said to be the family of Jesus?

This has been rather conclusively debunked. I don't have any links handy at the moment, but I'll try to dig some up later. Basically, some silly director wanted to make a documentary, and this seemed like a good way to make it sell.

[Cuddles]

OK, there's a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75661) that discusses it. Unfortunately there's a fair bit of philosophical waffle to wade through, but there is sensible discussion as well.

Especially interesting is this article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894508893&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), where the professor who actually made the discovery and studied the area says it is a load of crap:

But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense."

There are also various questions raised about the statistics used in the documentary, which seem to be almost entirely fictional, and even bigger questions about some of the assumptions made. For example, the biggest argument is that the chance of these names appearing together is very small, so there is a good chance that they are the same group as mentioned in other places, like the bible. However, aside from the questionable statistics, there are two major problems.

The first is that the names aren't actually correct. For example, one of them is called "Mariamne e mara". This is assumed to be Mary Magdalene, but isn't actually especially close. The other names suffer similar, although less extreme, problems. This means that rather than having an exact match for the names, they are assuming the names are close enough to the biblical ones, which means that there is a wide variety of other names which could also have been considered, and the probability of some combination of those names being together is much higher.

The other problem is the presence of Mary Magdalene at all. This is assumed to be a family burial, with mother, son and wife and their son. Pretty much all of Christianity is adamant that Jesus was not married and did not have children. The argument that this is Jesus and Mary Magdalene is based on the assumption that Jesus actually was married with children. The whole idea of this being Jesus is based on the bible, but the bible itself says that this can't possibly be Jesus.

[Tin Lizzie]

It's worth questioning the existence, or at least the actual facts, of any historical figure, religiou or otherwise. In Mohammed's case, I beleive there is a lot more evidence to suggest that he was real, especially since he was so much more recent than Jesus.

So much more recent? I'm waiting for the evidence like an eager puppy :smiley: You are right about it being worth questioning things - this applies to everything

This has been rather conclusively debunked. I don't have any links handy at the moment, but I'll try to dig some up later. Basically, some silly director wanted to make a documentary, and this seemed like a good way to make it sell.

Well that tomb exists - fact - and the names on it seem very likely to be the same names as members of Jesus' family. Again, panting with eagerness in anticipation....:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Apologies once again for my naff quoting skills :-\

[Tin Lizzie]

OK, there's a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75661) that discusses it. Unfortunately there's a fair bit of philosophical waffle to wade through, but there is sensible discussion as well.

Especially interesting is this article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894508893&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), where the professor who actually made the discovery and studied the area says it is a load of crap:


There are also various questions raised about the statistics used in the documentary, which seem to be almost entirely fictional, and even bigger questions about some of the assumptions made. For example, the biggest argument is that the chance of these names appearing together is very small, so there is a good chance that they are the same group as mentioned in other places, like the bible. However, aside from the questionable statistics, there are two major problems.

The first is that the names aren't actually correct. For example, one of them is called "Mariamne e mara". This is assumed to be Mary Magdalene, but isn't actually especially close. The other names suffer similar, although less extreme, problems. This means that rather than having an exact match for the names, they are assuming the names are close enough to the biblical ones, which means that there is a wide variety of other names which could also have been considered, and the probability of some combination of those names being together is much higher.

The other problem is the presence of Mary Magdalene at all. This is assumed to be a family burial, with mother, son and wife and their son. Pretty much all of Christianity is adamant that Jesus was not married and did not have children. The argument that this is Jesus and Mary Magdalene is based on the assumption that Jesus actually was married with children. The whole idea of this being Jesus is based on the bible, but the bible itself says that this can't possibly be Jesus.

I must have been writing my last post as you posted this.

That's another very interesting outlook, but it is just that one mans' opinion.

In any case, I find it unlikely that, given the presence of 'sorcerers' (again, evidence is the key thing here) in that time, and given the similarity of some of Jesus' actions to those of other sorcerers, that he did not exist. Whatever the council of nicea did does not change this. By any chance have you read 'the Templar Revelation'?

[Matt]

Just quickly

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part1.htm

Addresses the Rational Responders' God who wasn't there documentary.

The early moselms were fastidious in the record keeping. We can be confident that the quran and hadith in their original arabic are word for word as they were written down centuries ago.. This cannot be said for the Bible.

Also there are numerous contemporary non Islamic sources recording Islam dating back to just a few years after the death of the prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam#7th_Century_non-Islamic_sources

The ealiest non christian source for Jesus is usually cited as Josephus Flavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus).

As for the tomb of Jesus, this clearly wasn't the tomb of the Jesus depicted by chirstian tradition. At least not by the dominant tradition that Jesus ascended leaving no corpse, never married Mary Magdeline, never had children. The evidence that this was jesus tomb is based upon a dubious reading of the names. Some have said that the Aramaic inscription say nothing of the sort. Mariamne is not Mary, the insciption on the "Jesus" tomb might be interpretted as saying Hanun not Yeshua. Even accepting those names as the filmakers would like you to their dubious statistical claim that the combination of names leaves a 1 in 600 chance of arriving at those names by coincidence is laughable for what wre apparently extraordinarily common names even amongst the small pool of names in use. It's not even the only tomb of the limited number examined to bear a "Jesus son of Jospeph"

[Tin Lizzie]

Just quickly

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part1.htm

Addresses the Rational Responders' God who wasn't there documentary.

The early moselms were fastidious in the record keeping. We can be confident that the quran and hadith in their original arabic are word for word as they were written down centuries ago.. This cannot be said for the Bible.

I agree.

Also there are numerous contemporary non Islamic sources recording Islam dating back to just a few years after the death of the prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam#7th_Century_non-Islamic_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam#7th_Century_non-Islamic_sources)

The ealiest non christian source for Jesus is usually cited as Josephus Flavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus).

Thanks

As for the tomb of Jesus, this clearly wasn't the tomb of the Jesus depicted by chirstian tradition.

Which as we no, has been tampered with.

At least not by the dominant tradition that Jesus ascended leaving no corpse, never married Mary Magdeline, never had children. The evidence that this was jesus tomb is based upon a dubious reading of the names. Some have said that the Aramaic inscription say nothing of the sort. Mariamne is not Mary, the insciption on the "Jesus" tomb might be interpretted as saying Hanun not Yeshua. Even accepting those names as the filmakers would like you to their dubious statistical claim that the combination of names leaves a 1 in 600 chance of arriving at those names by coincidence is laughable for what wre apparently extraordinarily common names even amongst the small pool of names in use. It's not even the only tomb of the limited number examined to bear a "Jesus son of Jospeph"

True. There's a guy called Jesus who plays football for Brazil, I think.
Either way none of those rules out possibilities and either way it sheds no further light on the belief that Jesus didn't exist, which in an objective sense is unlikely.

[Cuddles]

That's another very interesting outlook, but it is just that one mans' opinion.

No it isn't. It is the opinion of pretty much everyone who is qualified to comment, and most of those who aren't as well. Are you suggesting a documentary director is better qualified to know what he is talking about than a professor who's entire job is studying things like this and who spent several years studying and publishing about this particular tomb?[/quote]

[Tin Lizzie]

No it isn't. It is the opinion of pretty much everyone who is qualified to comment, and most of those who aren't as well.


Where are everyone else's comments?


Are you suggesting a documentary director is better qualified to know what he is talking about than a professor who's entire job is studying things like this and who spent several years studying and publishing about this particular tomb?

Is he the only person in the world who does such things?

Have I at any point insisted that this is the tomb of Jesus and/or his family?

:smiley:

[Jesus_Skeptic]

msg 47

A bibliography would be great thank you!O0

[Legaleagle]

In my view, the best literature on this subject is writen by those who take a multi-disciplinary approach, examining the archeology, original documentarty evidence as well as the theological questions. The best of these around at the moment IMHO are Sanders and Crossan, anything by these two is likely to be pretty authoritative, but I can specifically recommend

E P Sanders: Jesus and Judaism
EP Sanders: The Historical Figure of Jesus
J D Crossan: Jesus a Revolutionary Biography

[fruitfly]

In my view, the best literature on this subject is writen by those who take a multi-disciplinary approach, examining the archeology, original documentarty evidence as well as the theological questions. The best of these around at the moment IMHO are Sanders and Crossan, anything by these two is likely to be pretty authoritative, but I can specifically recommend

E P Sanders: Jesus and Judaism
EP Sanders: The Historical Figure of Jesus
J D Crossan: Jesus a Revolutionary Biography

And certainly not the pseudo historical Templar Revelation recommended by Tin Lizzie. Utter claptrap!

[Julia]

I suppose we should be grateful for the fact that Tin Lizzie doesn't teach RE or history...::)

[Legaleagle]

And certainly not the pseudo historical Templar Revelation recommended by Tin Lizzie. Utter claptrap!

Awww, that was going to be next on my list.:'(

[Jesus_Skeptic]

Thanks for the reading list Eagle. I've read the reviews to those books on amazon. Readers appear to emphasize a common theme for the books you mentioned - the authors start off with the notion that Jesus existed - and focus is given mainly on the narrative of the NT rather than the background and circumstances surrounding its authorship. Given the spurious circumstances of that particular period in Roman history, the lack of miracles today, knowledge of earlier messiah gods and the dubious character of parties involved eg. Constantine and Eusebius - and the means to which they propagated this system of worship - the whole thing seems more like a conspiracy to me but that's just my opinion. I will however purchase those books for a better understanding of the authors views but I think a much more suitable reading list can be found here:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm

Based on the link above, you can assume that I take the Radical Critics approach to the Jesus' historicity claims of most scholars.^-^