Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

Unquestionable evidence? I don't think there is such a thing, particularly on this subject. I agree that the name "Jesus" (and Joshua) were quite common in Palestine at the time in question. So? The issue is whether or not a particular Jesus, of Nazareth, existed. I've given you my evidence, which is not enough to "prove" the existence of the man in question but is sufficient to convince me and others that he probably existed. Why would Jews make up a crucified Messiah, when Deuteronomy clearly states that anyone who hangs from a tree is cursed and when the expectation was that the Messiah would be a liberating hero that would deliver Israel from the Romans? I'd say,: because there was such a person, and because he actually was crucified, leaving to his followers the task of explaining how and why this hapened. Ergo, the New Testament.

 

How could it be true without the gods? Since they play a major role in Homer's tale, it's hard to see. How for instance could Achilles have been invulnerable except in the ankle? The whole war is only supposed to have come about because the goddesses had to get Paris to arbitrate as to who got the golden apple.
It's mythology. The fact that archaeologists have excavated sites in Asia Minor that could fit the bill for Troy isn't conclusive evidence. A city existed, but that doesn't validate Homer.

If you say Troy existed but the stories Homer told are inventions or embellishments, then the same has to apply to Jesus. He may have existed, but the stories could be equally spurious.

I'm not saying JC existed or didn't exist, I said before that I don't know and I'd add that I don't think we can know for certain.

 

Some people seem to inspire all kinds of myths about themselves. i see that in this day and age.

 

We can't know for certain. Nothing is certain, not even that. Since Troy has been discovered, we know that it existed. But Homer's account of it is obviously questionable, because it includes lots of fantastic happenings. I think Hume gave good advice about miracles, which someone summarized as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Same with Jesus. Jewish man claims to be the Messiah, challenges the authorities, and gets crucified by the Romans. Nothing at all extraordinary about that. There was lots of that going on back then, as documented in Aslan's Zealot. Jewish man is born of a virgin, walks on water, turns water into wine, rises from the dead, and is the Son of God, etc. That's pretty extraordinary, so I think belief in that must rest on faith. Those who don't buy it might look at it as similar to Homer's stories about Troy.

 

The question of whether there was a historical jesus is an empirical question; that is, you cannot answer it by sitting at a computer and thinking about whether or not there was a historical jesus. You have to go and find evidence.

Fortunately, people have dedicated their lives to this quest. Unfortunately, they used poor methodologies and invariably succumbed to begging the question.

I recommend this book as a fantastic read on the subject, which quite convincingly argues that there never even was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth; he is a completely mythicized figured, a phenomenon which is not new or unique to christianity.



"In this unique book, sceptical Religious Studies scholar, Raphael Lataster, seeks to merge the accessibility of popular atheistic writings, with the rigorous scholarly research normally limited to academic journals and monographs. Avoiding the seemingly endless debates on the social impacts of religion, There Was No Jesus, There Is No God is only concerned with the evidence. The base content of this fully referenced tome of free-thought has been peer-reviewed by leading scholars in the fields of History, Philosophy, Biblical Studies and Studies in Religion. Part 1 reveals the spurious nature of the sources used to establish the truth of Christianity and the existence of Jesus, and the equally spurious methods employed by many Biblical scholars. A brief interlude then leaves no doubt that the existence of the Christ of Faith is virtually impossible, and concludes that even the existence of a stripped-down Historical Jesus is uncertain. Bayesian reasoning is shown to justify sceptical views on many topics, including the existence of God. Part 2 shifts the focus to the God of classical theism and monotheism, examining the evidence and arguments from scientific, historical, and philosophical perspectives. The inadequacy of the case for God is found to easily justify non-belief (atheism). Furthermore, considerations of alternative gods and conceptions of God, lead to game-changing concerns for Christians, Muslims and Jews."

As a note to frequently posting apologists on this forum, truth is not a popularity contest, nor are critiques on someone's rhetoric the same as critiques on their arguments. It doesn't matter if a position is held by only one person in the entire world, and that one person is rude, obnoxious, and has no interest in maintaining social niceties; if that person's argument cannot be defeated, then they are correct.

 

Oh, I love that, and in particular your last sentence....as I always knew that truth can stand alone. It does not need any back up, if it is the truth...it does not need affirmation from countless others.....

 

Oh, but surely the Buddha must have existed, since you like that religion?

"if that person's argument cannot be defeated, then they are correct". Incorrect. If that person's argument can't be defeated, then they are like lawyers and skilled at arguing. So all lawyers who successfully defend their murdering clients are "correct"? You have said the Tao exists but God doesn't, even though you act talk about the phenomenological experience of the Tao as if that's somehow different than the same phenomenological experience of God or Christ Consciousness. You simply stop arguing, however, so just because you can't admit defeat to your argument, doesn't mean that you are correct.

You can't prove whether Christ did or didn't exist, so just because you can't prove that he did exist, doesn't mean that your argument of him not existing is correct.

You really do spend a lot of time and energy on Religion and God for how Atheist you are. Almost as if you need the existence of both to define the existence of yourself.

 

The Man From Earth sums up my Jesus beliefs quite well

great little movie worth watching



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

 

I'm surprised you think so highly of Lataster's book. Despite his own promise to be "sober and scholarly", I found him quite biased and ponderously polemical--rehashing arguments made more effectively by other atheists, dismissing believing Christian scholars, and building his case mainly from quotations by other atheists, agnostics, fringe mythicists and a smattering of Jesus Seminar progressives. He sets evidentiary standards so high that few historical figures who weren't royalty could meet them.(p. 14) Most historians in the field are willing to settle for substantial evidence instead of courtroom proof. He relies heavily on the the argument from absence (p.42). Why didn't Philo of Alexandria, for example, mention Jesus? Well, Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who wasn't into mentioning anybody in contemporary Israel. Does this mean that the territory didn't exist or was unoccupied? That some Roman writers mentioned various people and things Lataster thinks are obscure but not Jesus is a silly argument, since they wrote about what they wanted to write about and weren't intending to cover everything. Jesus was an obscure preacher in a backwater region of a province in Palestine. Even today, with 24/7 news reporting, there are people and events that go unnoticed by FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. There are thousands of cult leaders and sidewalk preachers whom these media outlets ignore, unless they cause some kind of major disturbance. But if Jesus was walking on water, raising the dead, etc., wouldn't you think they'd notice? Probably, but I suspect that those "facts" about Jesus were developed after His death, as legends about Him grew. Like Richard Carrier, whom Lataster relies on heavily, Lataster attempts to use Bayesian methods to disprove Jesus and God, with similarly disastrous results. The outcomes are only as good as the numbers fed in, which in the case of both Carrier and Lataster are subjectively judged by obviously biased investigators. As they say in statistics, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). I agree that neither Jesus nor God can be proven. That being so, I think it still makes sense to place bets on reality on the basis of personal assessments of available evidence. When it comes to ancient history, that's often the best we can do.

 

I agree that belief has to be a matter of faith. And I think that's the same for all religions.

In fact if there were absolute certainty about the story of Jesus, it would perhaps mean that people would no longer have freedom to accept or reject it. Maybe God doesn't want people to know for certain, in the sense of some kind of objective and undeniable truth.

I read Aslan's book as I mentioned, and I've read a good deal of Christian writings over the years. But I still remain on the fence. I have far less of a problem with the idea that Christ exists on a purely spiritual level than with the historical Jesus. But it's possible He did exist as an historical person. For me, that wouldn't seem to be as important as the actual teachings that were given, especially those relating to love.

Edit: Just to add that even if the Jesus story didn't happen as recorded in the Gospels, that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that therefore God doesn't exist either.

 

Exactly the same here. I am willing to consider the second case but everything considered I can't say I find it plausible. But yes, it is clear that being able to acknowledging the second case is a matter of belief and faith.

I do think it is plausible there was a less ordinary Jesus in the sense that there may have been such a figure that actually had these disciples following him, but as I see it he would have been just as human as the rest of us. No miracles, no divine origin.

Same here, if we would have though it is wise to determine who's problem this really would be and what is making it so problematic.

 

Just a slight quibble. I do accept your distinction about Jesus the guy and Jesus the god. But I don't think Jesus of Nazareth was just an ordinary guy, you wouldn't stop to look at him if he was passing by. He had a sizeable following, suggesting a certain charisma. He attracted the attention of the Jewish and Roman authorities sufficiently to get himself nailed up. And he was sufficiently inspiring that his followers continued to follow his memory and propagate his message, quite successfully, after death. I've given you nine reasons why I think a historical Jesus existed. For more, see Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus exist? Some writers like Schweitzer and Lataster distinguish between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. I'd add a third Jesus to the mix: Jesus the Sage, which is the one I'm mainly interested in--the Jesus of Faith minus the miracles. He gave us the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the teachings about loving God and loving neighbor, etc. Did He exist? In history, I think there was a sage (and apocalyptic preacher) named Jesus of Nazareth who taught people to love their neighbors, although I agree with the Jesus Seminar that he didn't do or say most of the things attributed to him. But even as a largely legendary character, his teachings offer the meaning of life to those who follow Him. Same with the Buddha. Their historical existence is irrelevant.

BTW. The society "noted for its record keeping" did not keep tabs on every Tom, Dick Harry and Jesus who walked the hills of backwater protectorates like Nazareth and Galiee (which, ata the time, was under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas,not the Roman governor), or if they did those records have gone missing. Even in our own computerized society with its Social Security cards, lots of undocumented individuals are roaming about on our streets. Not even CNN or FOX are interested in every sidewalk preacher, even those who might have sizeable cult followings.

 

Don't forget the third case, which is the one I believe to be the most likely. That's the Jesus who had interesting ideas and outstanding speaking ability, who built a significant following for himself during his lifetime and said many of the things attributed to him in the Bible, but performed no miracles because he was just an ordinary man, who did not rise from the dead after execution.

 

A long haired bearded guy can lead a horse to water, but can't make it wear a bathing suit.

 

you keep going back to this eclipse thing, but I don't read anywhere in the NT about an eclipse lasting three hours, simply that there was darkness.
could have been cloud cover.
Luke mentions the darkness over all the Earth and THEN the sun being darkened at the ninth hour. Could be two different events with no time frame given for the sun being darkened.
In reading Luke, it appears the sun wasn't darkened until the ninth hour when it all hit the fan.

so it seems you are hanging a portion of your argument on things not actually recorded, or are making assumptions concerning the nature of the phenomena recorded.

 

Or it could have been a metaphor. Darkness and light are common religious metaphors, and the number three reoccurs frequently in the Bible: Jonah in the belly of the whale, Jesus in the tomb, etc. I don't take it literally.

 

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?" ~ David Hume