Did Jesus exist?

[Vampiel]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

[joncash]

Hi Vampiel,

I don't really care to submit any conclusions, but I submit the following evidence to the debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

[Mithrae]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

Hi Vampiel. So far I've come across three broad theories of the Jesus-didn't-exist type. They probably overlap to some extent, and I can't really say that I'd give a fair explanation of them, but broadly I'd consider them as:

- The 'gnostic' theory. While Gnosticism is best-recognised as an early Christian 'heresy,' it's roots are pre-Christian and many of it's branches are non-Christian. Came across this one from a fellow on a forum I used to inhabit, who actually published his own book on the matter. Essentially, drawing heavily on docetic notions of Jesus' nature, the idea is that Jesus wasn't actually intended to be considered a flesh-and-blood human being in the first place. The Jewish/Palestine setting for this mythical figure is proposed because of the devastation in the Jewish revolt (67-70 CE); who's to claim who had lived and who hadn't after such an event?

- The 'saviour-god' syncretic theory. Features like a virgin birth, death and resurrection are common to many of the pagan deity-figures of the ancient world. Some versions of this theory suggest that an unremarkable Jewish sect founded, perhaps, by an unremarkable historical Jesus, were warped into a saviour-god cult (presumably by Paul). Others suggest that Jesus himself was invented from scratch as a saviour-god figure.

- The 'Jewish messianic/midrash' theory. Similarities are pointed out between gospel stories and those found in the Old Testament. The development of 1st-century Christian thought is considered, to some significant extent, a development or simply theft of existing Jewish thought, complete with a character 'Jesus' (the Lord is salvation) and his supposed descent from David etc. I've been discussing a topic along those broad lines with Catalyst (her most recent post is here, followed by part one of my response, and part two of my response is here).

A couple of recognised proponents of theories along the lines of the above which I've come across are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty.


In very general terms, three things are shared in common by all of these theories: Firstly, there is extreme scepticism and/or reinterpretation and/or skewed emphasis regarding the core Christian documents. For example, the gnostic theory puts a lot of emphasis on the writings of Paul, since Paul says a lot more about Jesus in spiritual and theological terms than in physical, earthly terms. The saviour-god theory puts a lot of emphasis the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, since virgin birth stories are a particularly non-Jewish element of early Christian beliefs. But gospel elements like Jesus' use of rather agrarian parables, emphases on uniquely Jewish issues and indeed use of Hebrew/Aramaic language is either ignored or brushed aside, as are Paul's references to Jesus' brothers, his human birth and descent and so on.

Secondly, there's extreme scepticism towards historical evidence concerning Jesus. Since Josephus' so-called 'testimonium Flavianum' was obviously Christian-altered, the idea of an uncorrupted original is not even considered (which I think is fair enough, to be honest). But then there's any number of people throwing out claims that the reference by Tacitus or Josephus' reference to the brother of Jesus have been tampered with, despite no evidence and the carefully neutral tone of the latter (and overtly hostile of the former). Arguments are made that if this fellow was going around with thousands of followers raising the dead every other day we'd surely have dozens of people writing about him; a decent argument against fundamentalism, but essentially useless once we realise that the gospels were embellished accounts. Care is made to avoid the point that unless they actually wrote a book or the like, there'd be little reason to even expect teachers or philosophers to leave significant historical evidence (eg. Hillel the Elder). But since Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and did indeed write more than a couple of details about his life, there's actually plenty of people who claim that even Paul didn't exist!

And thirdly, in contrast to the level of scepticism given evidence in favour of Jesus, I believe that those proposing these theories are insufficiently critical regarding the points made in their own favour. This is demonstrated simply by the fact that while they can agree that Jesus didn't exist, they can't agree on their reasons of how or why he appeared in the historical record. I believe all three theories above have some valid points to make about how the Jesus story and early Christianity developed; but they endorse and emphasise those nuggets of knowledge as though they were mountains of fact. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke may well have drawn from pagan mythology, to some extent, but that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born; especially since the earliest written story of Jesus (Mark) says nothing on the subject. From the pagan side likewise, the theories sift through a multitude of myths about Horus or Mithras or Tammuz or Adonis or Dionysus and emphasis just a select few which most closely resemble the stories of Jesus - and even then not-so-subtleties in how they're expressed make the comparison seem even closer, like the 'virgin birth' and 'resurrection' of Osiris/Horus.

Ultimately, what we've got regarding Jesus is some information from a contemporary Jew (Paul), information on his brother's death from Josephus (who lived in Jerusalem at the time) and gospel stories which, while embellished, may include information from a disciple's interpreter (Mark) and even one of Jesus' own disciples (John) and overlap enough with each other and with Paul to suggest several elements of historical truth. Just how much is true and how much is not is very much a grey area of course; but I have yet to see any coherent and convincing theory to say that Jesus didn't exist at all!

[Flail]

I agree that the question of whether Jesus existed as a man is up in the air since we have very little evidence. If some were not so insistent that Jesus was God it really wouldn't be important if he existed or not, and we could then focus on the business of following in the good example of the teachings attributed to him, get over the necessity of worshipping him and get on with the ideal of helping others instead of judging them to hell.

IMO, one would have to be extremely and emotionally indoctrinated to believe that Jesus not only existed but that he was a supernatural being; I find zero reason to have such a belief and and nothing viable to base it upon.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

The virgin-born divine or semi-divine or whatever miracle worker who ascended into heaven? No. We can see that story growing over time and can therefore reject it without even considering the issue of whether the supernatural exists.

The idea in "The God Who Wasn't There" that Paul believed only in a mythical Jesus? Sorry, does not fly. Paul can be seen trying to connect himself to a Jesus figure that was already central to an existing movement. That movement was profoundly Jewish in character, a factor Paul was working hard to change against considerable resistance. Jewish movements of that era (or since) were not going to be borrowing elements from pagan traditions. The frequently offered idea of the cult of Mithras being adopted by Jews is especially unlikely, this being widespread among the hated Roman soldiers.

Paul could only connect himself to this Jesus via 'visions' since he never met the living Jesus as others he spoke with claimed to have done. But Paul emphasizes the requirement that Jesus physically died and was physically resurrected. This was the sign of the opening of the messianic age and the ‘proof’ that the apocalyptic promises of a universal resurrection for the purposes of judgment were not only true but about to be fulfilled. Not only did Paul believe in a physical historical Jesus but it is clear that the audiences of his epistles did also. And the fact of Paul campaigning so hard for gentile admission shows the essential Jewish character of the Jesus movement. And that in turn argues that the movement was rooted in the Jerusalem church, whose leadership claimed to have known Jesus. The idea of a physical historical Jesus was already solidly established before Paul came on the scene.

What has always struck me about the Christian scriptures is a number of suspicious evasion and omissions that suggest – to me anyway – that there is a real story hiding behind it all. For example, the idea of a Messiah getting killed instead of ushering in the messianic age would not be something likely to be invented, being at total odds with expectations. Paul (who as I have argued came on the scene later) goes to great lengths to justify this by dressing it up in references to Jewish Passover customs. Recall that Paul claims to have received the Eucharist formula from Jesus and passed it on. Like the Apostles did not have it? Were they not there?

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Resurrection stories always seemed rather suspicious. There are no eyewitnesses to the event itself. A made up story would have a bunch of people see it happen. Instead there is a tale of an empty tomb and numerous contradictory sightings after the fact. And in a number of those stories the risen Jesus is not recognized even by these who knew him well. What the stories all have in common is that the body was gone.

It strikes me as not unreasonable that there really was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who got in trouble with the authorities and was executed. The rest of it is a story that grew.

[brotherhoodofmen]

Vampiel wrote:

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

Hi Vampiel,


If you or anybody here is interested to know more about Jesus, a more complete story with all the exact dates and places of the important events in the earth life of Jesus is restated in “The Life and Teachings of Jesus� which can be found as Part IV of the Urantia Book. To me, it not only confirmed the fact of Jesus existence but it also clarified so many of the vagueness in the bible like his alleged virgin birth, many of his "miracles", his resurrection and also put into proper perspective his true gospel.

I am providing here a link to anyone who is interested: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book/Part_4



FOGBOM

[Goat]

Hi Vampiel,

I don't really care to submit any conclusions, but I submit the following evidence to the debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

And, as counter point, I will offer

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ml#tacitus

[JehovahsWitness]

they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, ....

And do you recall if they provided a reference to which words these might be?

... Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

# QUESTION Could the Biblical Jesus be a composite figure?

No, the logistics of creating a mythical figure and speaking about him in the region where he was supposed to be born to people that had simply to reply "this man never lived here and nobody in this town/region have ever heard of him" is a difficulty too large to realistically surmount.

It would be comparable to proclaiming HARRY POTTER to be a real figure living in Chelsea and that thousands of people from the region have seen him flying about on a magical boom. You would have to wait at LEAST a couple of hundred years (until everyone that could counterargue your claim was dead) or start saying such things far from the original area - then only if births, deaths and notible local events were never recorded.

The Jews kept scrupulous geneological records exposing the "fake birth" of a non-existent individual would have been very simple; and since the early Christians had many local enemies this would have been their first reflex. This would have resulted in a very strong tradition that no one individual did any of the things claimed by early Christians and the gospel writers. The Christians began publically spreading the account of Jesus WHILE HE WAS ALIVE and Christianity formed, based on his life, immediately after his death but Jewish writings never claim Jesus never existed. Wouldn't that have been the simplist thing to do if Jesus was simply a "composite figure"?

How reasonable is it to believe that the inhabitants of Bethlehem, Galilee, Judea and the Capital Jerusalem, failed to notice someone teaching thousands and performing spectacular miracles? And if all the people of the region hadn't been asleep for 3 and a half years, why did noone think to expose the Christian preachers at the time?

Furthermore, the difficulty of 4 different writers combining countless stories of OTHER individuals, to create a ficitional character of such force, such singular exceptionality he would be arguably the greatest and most influencial figure of all time, would require a brilliance more miraculous than any recorded in the bible. [If there is any doubt about this, ask 4 people in your street to write about the man they most admire and then try and see if one coherent profile can be created without extensive editing. Since extensive editing would have resulted in various written traditions hundreds of vastly different accounts this is historically improbable]

CONCLUSION Jesus was supposedly a very public and well known figure; it would have been impossible for his disciples to proclaim the events of his life in the region he (Jesus) lived and worked so close to the time of his death, without being exposed as frauds. The idea that the biblical Jesus be a composite figure is therefore completely implausible.


DEBUNKING THE MYTHICAL JESUS

"Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms" -- Michael Grant, Historian, An Historian's Review of the Gospels


#QUESTION: Could the gospel writers have fabricated the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

This is more than unlikely. There is overwhelming evidence that the gospels were completed and circulated by the end of the first century. And a wealth of evidence that christians existed and were a well known group at this time. This would mean that the gospels were in circulation during the lifetimes of those that would have been alive to witness the events. Obviously those that were alive at the time would have not hesitated to point out that the central figure of the writings did not exist.

To illustrate: The Jews kept meticulous records of births. Matthews claim that a certain Jesus of Nazareth was born could EASILY have been disproved as well as the slight problem of the inhabitants of Nazareth who no doubt would have pointed out to the christians that noone in the town recalls a certain carptenter of that name. The christians of the time were bitterly persecuted, how many people of the first and second century would have pointed out that there was no record of and not individuals living at the time that had ever met their "fabricated" leader if that had been the case. The suggestion that the gospel writers could have gotten away with such a scheme is ludicrous!

• Christianity became a phenonomen WITHIN THE LIFETIME of those that could have proven its details false. How did the early Christians get away with speaking about a certain "Jesus from Nazareth" when the people of Nazareth could have simply said, "we've only had one carpenter here and his Name was Bob!"
  
  The territory Jesus was said to have preached in was reletively small and no part of it was further than a few days walking distance, how could the early Christians have gotten away with saying Jesus traveled the length and breadth of the country IN a country where no one had ever heard or seen him?

#IF JESUS DIDN'T EXIST - WHO DID?

Obviously the christian movement got it's start somewhere. If the origins of the teachings and words of Jesus were not an individual they originated with a group of individuals that fabricated him and that within the space of less than one century. That four individuals collaborated to create the arguably the most influencial figure in human history and managed to convince individuals that had but to look at geneolgoical records and interview the people of the region to establish that that person never lived, is a greater miracle than any the gospels claim were performed. That the writers were themselves willing to die for someone that they knew full well had never existed is proposerous beyond belief.

This would be comparitive to sceptics in 2010 claiming Hitler was a fictional character invented in 1933 and attributing Nazism and the disappearance of 6 million Jews and Heinrich Himmler facing the gallows to a 70 year case of "chinese whisper".

# Jesus is an amalgamation of several individuals combined by the gospel writers into on person and named Jesus.

Jesus didn't exist but other characters DID: In short "Jesus of Nazareth" was really *Philip of Rome* that travelled through northern Palestine, *Peter of Jerusalem* the rebel leader and philanthropist, and *Rabbi Shulaph of Judea* then the JESUS of Nazarath as depicted in the bible is, for all intents and purposes still a fictional character - thus we still end up with the improbabilities above.

[Grumpy Old Man]

It strikes me as not unreasonable that there really was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who got in trouble with the authorities and was executed. The rest of it is a story that grew.

This is pretty much what I've concluded too. For someone who didn't exist, there was an awful lot written about him by his followers. We also don't have the earliest stories about Jesus - the missing Q Gospel as scholars call it, and a book of sayings of Jesus. Mark is apparently based on this missing Q Gospel (according to some scholars), with Matthew and Luke being based on Mark (and Q). The older versions of Mark end with Jesus death, and do not include the short resurrection story. This part was added later by a scribe. This leads me to believe that Jesus did, at one point, exist and was probably an travelling apocalyptic preacher (his insistence that the Kingdom of God was imminent is echoed in all the Gospels) who was killed somehow.

I have my own theory that Jesus may well have been murdered by one of his own disciples - hence where the Judas story came from. According to Acts, the disciples pressed Jesus about restoring the Kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6). So it is plausible that this concern was real among Jesus' disciples and one of them may have murdered him after becoming disillusioned. The disciples perhaps tried to cover this up by saying he was killed by the Romans, or they may not have known who killed him at all and made up a Judas story.

That's my own theory anyway. I have a sister who lies a lot, but I've found that there's always a tiny element of truth in what she says. I treat all "tall stories" the same way and try and find the grain of truth in it.

As for the entry by Tacitus that someone above mention, it does seem credible and there should be no good reason to deny that Tacitus probably wrote that. There's another "Jesus" entry in the works of Josephus, but that one is pretty dodgy. There's enough "evidence" though, to believe that a man called Jesus once lived. I just don't believe what the Gospels say about him.

[ThatGirlAgain]

It strikes me as not unreasonable that there really was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who got in trouble with the authorities and was executed. The rest of it is a story that grew.

This is pretty much what I've concluded too. For someone who didn't exist, there was an awful lot written about him by his followers. We also don't have the earliest stories about Jesus - the missing Q Gospel as scholars call it, and a book of sayings of Jesus. Mark is apparently based on this missing Q Gospel (according to some scholars), with Matthew and Luke being based on Mark (and Q). The older versions of Mark end with Jesus death, and do not include the short resurrection story. This part was added later by a scribe. This leads me to believe that Jesus did, at one point, exist and was probably a travelling apocalyptic preacher (his insistence that the Kingdom of God was imminent is echoed in all the Gospels) who was killed somehow.

The missing Q document was hypothesized to explain why Matthew and Luke contain so much common material. To my knowledge no one has presented any evidence of reasoning that Q contained anything more than this common material. My personal belief is that Q never existed, that Luke was fully aware of Matthew’s Gospel and wrote his own to counter certain aspects of Matthew, incorporating much material from Matthew as he did so. But that is a long and complex argument that I despair of ever finding the time to present properly. When I win the lottery and do not have to work or go to school I will write it all down.

I have my own theory that Jesus may well have been murdered by one of his own disciples - hence where the Judas story came from. According to Acts, the disciples pressed Jesus about restoring the Kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6). So it is plausible that this concern was real among Jesus' disciples and one of them may have murdered him after becoming disillusioned. The disciples perhaps tried to cover this up by saying he was killed by the Romans, or they may not have known who killed him at all and made up a Judas story.

I would be interested in hearing more details on this if you are willing. I have my own theory about the mysterious ‘betrayal’ of Judas, which does not seem to make sense. Like, if they wanted to kill him why did they not trail him to where he slept (in the open!) at night. And why did they need an insider to pick him out. Thousands of people saw him every day, including a number of surely more than willing witnesses from that Temple brouhaha.

Again something I will write when I can.

BTW the ‘original’ (as far as we can tell) Mark does say that Jesus rose from the dead but the story chops off right there with no subsequent eyewitness testimony.

Mark 16 (NIV)

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?�
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,� he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’�
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.�
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.