Jesus Never Existed

[FallentoReason]

The Gospels portray him as someone that was often walking around in public performing miracles. One would think that contemporary historians would take note of what was going on and comment on Jesus in their work. There's not a single contemporary historian mentioning Jesus though.

The closest it gets is a few paragraphs from the Testimonium Flavinium by Josephus which reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]

It is rather strange that Josephus, an observant Jew, would write things such as 'He was the Christ'. Because of this, historians suspect that a Christian got a hold of his work a few centuries later and added in these lines.

I don't think Jesus ever existed. I can only find him in the NT which is rather strange considering he was the Son of God walking amongst men. I would have thought that he was worth mentioning.

Does anyone have any evidence for his existence?[/quote]

[dgruber]

A couple of things to address:

The title of this thread is a claim in and of itself along with the OP. There were a few general statements in the OP stating

"There's not a single contemporary historian mentioning Jesus though."

If one is going to title a thread in such a way as to be a claim then more backup needs to be presented, in addition to the quote mentioned above, to show its accuracy.

Just because this OP states that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus does not and would not PROVE the non existence of this man.

I find that at the very least Jesus more likely existed than did not. The gospels and associated biblical writings depict fairly detailed accounts of his death and birth. Remember I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus or any miracles he may or may not have performed or him being the son of God. I don't think it is a stretch to say that a man, likely named Jesus, was the basis for the narratives that the Bible portrays.

Do you advocate that all the stories were completely made up?

[orthodox skeptic]

I refer to the work of Brad Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at UNC (Jesus Misquoted) who identifies Jesus as a Rabbi, an ardent Judaic tradionalist with no intenions other than to keep Jews faithful. My own views of him are somewhat uncomplimentary. I see him as an evangelist who would have made Fallwell look like a used car salesman. A charismatic character capable of charming birds from the trees; an astute judge of character demonstrated by his accurate gauging of men. He surrounded himself with the most gullible and made them into apostles who became blinded by his rhetoric; feeding his ego. Unfortunately, Jesus reached that point where he fell victim to his own hype and the adulation of his choir. I refer here to the numerous indications in Matthew where he starts predicting the end of the world and his own return.
I do belive he was a human being who lived a brief life and left behind a legacy of total confusion!

The Gospels portray him as someone that was often walking around in public performing miracles. One would think that contemporary historians would take note of what was going on and comment on Jesus in their work. There's not a single contemporary historian mentioning Jesus though.

The closest it gets is a few paragraphs from the Testimonium Flavinium by Josephus which reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]

It is rather strange that Josephus, an observant Jew, would write things such as 'He was the Christ'. Because of this, historians suspect that a Christian got a hold of his work a few centuries later and added in these lines.

I don't think Jesus ever existed. I can only find him in the NT which is rather strange considering he was the Son of God walking amongst men. I would have thought that he was worth mentioning.

Does anyone have any evidence for his existence?

I take it you don't exist. I have not read about you in the paper.

Does my existence affect you eternally?[/quote]

[ThatGirlAgain]

I refer to the work of Brad Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at UNC (Jesus Misquoted) who identifies Jesus as a Rabbi, an ardent Judaic tradionalist with no intenions other than to keep Jews faithful. My own views of him are somewhat uncomplimentary. I see him as an evangelist who would have made Fallwell look like a used car salesman. A charismatic character capable of charming birds from the trees; an astute judge of character demonstrated by his accurate gauging of men. He surrounded himself with the most gullible and made them into apostles who became blinded by his rhetoric; feeding his ego. Unfortunately, Jesus reached that point where he fell victim to his own hype and the adulation of his choir. I refer here to the numerous indications in Matthew where he starts predicting the end of the world and his own return.

I do believe he was a human being who lived a brief life and left behind a legacy of total confusion!

I see Jesus somewhat differently. This was an era full of messiah wannabes. Many of them were looking to throw out the Romans by military action. When that was attempted, in the First and Second Jewish revolts, the results were predictably disastrous.

What we can discern of an historical Jesus is that he was preaching a different message entirely. In the tradition of the prophets, especially Amos the first prophet, Jesus was looking to return the Jews to true righteousness, thereby justifying Israel as worthy of salvation. The Lord would then take care of matters. This true righteousness, again as the prophets say, consists not of empty adherence to the letter of the law but in its spirit. Righteous action " moral living and charitable giving " was the key. (For a very good discussion of the idea of apocalypticism as one of the Biblical solutions to the problem of evil, see Bart (not Brad) Ehrmans Gods Problem.

The predictions of the end of the world in the Synoptic Gospels are clearly after the fact insertions. Jesus apparently promised that the Son of Man (a reference to the apocalyptic scenario in Daniel) would come soon to resurrect the dead, judging the good and the evil. In this way the wrongs of the ages would be righted. Paul believed this, so it would seem to be part of the original story. Pauls belief was that the resurrection of Jesus was the opening of the messianic age and that it would all come to a head very soon.

Mark wrote just after the destruction of Jerusalem. It has now been about 40 years and still no Son of Man. Instead of Pauls resurrection of Jesus as the opening of the messianic age, the sign would instead be the destruction of Jerusalem. Mark worked in some neat references to Daniel to have it make sense. Matthew and Luke follow suit with this idea, although they start sneaking in some hedge language here and there. So the prediction put in the mouth of Jesus by Mark was not something we can reasonably say Jesus ever uttered.

For that matter, did the historical Jesus ever think of himself as the Son of Man? Paul never uses the phrase with respect to Jesus. The Gospels use it a lot. But when Jesus talks about the future coming of the judge, he never says I am coming back. He always says the Son of Man in the third person. The reference to Daniel would have been a natural after Jerusalem was destroyed. Was this identification of Jesus with the Son of Man a retrofit?

I am of the opinion that there was probably an historical Jesus (but not for any reasons I have given here). But he was neither the supernatural agent of the Gospels nor the TV type evangelist you portrayed.

[Goat]

Regarding Josephus calling Jesus the Christ. It could be that Josephus just accepted the title, like when a Protestant calls the Pope the Pope, and then explained the Christian belief regarding Jesus. It could be, contrary to what we've been told, that Josephus himself became a Christian.

Or, it could be a forgery. Do you have any evidence that 'well, if then or maybe's, this passage existed before it was quoted in the 4th century?

Trying to use 'if then or maybe's' on something that is likely a forgery does not increase crediblity.

[Felix]

The purpose of history isn't to remind ourselves of what doesn't exist. It's not like every century we need to remind our historians to write down that dragons don't exist just so that future generations know. History returns positive evidence that someone in fact did exist. This could be in the form of people agreeing with said person OR disagreeing, because that would still tell us that this person did exist but people had differing views about said person.

The New Testament is written by eye witnesses and early investigators into the existence of Jesus. Every tradition is that Jesus existed, even traditions held by the opponents of Christianity. That is positive evidence that Jesus existed. Luke an investigator. Paul an eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Peter an eyewitnesses of Jesus before and after the Resurrection. Author of the Gospel of John a disciple of Jesus.

At some point, it becomes asinine to insist that the absence of a rebuttal is meaningless, and you're far past that point. During the first century explosion of Christianity in a hostile environment, the absence of early record of anyone claiming the movement is based on a man who didn't exist, is evidence that Jesus existed.

Your dragon analogy is incompetent. There aren't people giving up their lives to convince others they've seen dragons. There aren't people claiming that specific hostile authorities authorities and the general public has seen dragons. If there were such claims, these authorities and members of the general public would point out that they haven't seen dragons.

Atheism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

Key word here being tradition. The authorships of the Gospels can't actually be verified.

Your effort to cast doubt on the reliability of the positive evidence is an act of desperation. Nearly everything we know about ancient history is from tradition and from documents written by unverified authors, of which we don't have any copies dating back to the times of those events. Apologists for Christianity have correctly pointed out that evidence for the historicity of Jesus is actually far stronger than our evidence for most anything else we believe about ancient history.

[Goat]

The purpose of history isn't to remind ourselves of what doesn't exist. It's not like every century we need to remind our historians to write down that dragons don't exist just so that future generations know. History returns positive evidence that someone in fact did exist. This could be in the form of people agreeing with said person OR disagreeing, because that would still tell us that this person did exist but people had differing views about said person.

The New Testament is written by eye witnesses and early investigators into the existence of Jesus. Every tradition is that Jesus existed, even traditions held by the opponents of Christianity. That is positive evidence that Jesus existed. Luke an investigator. Paul an eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Peter an eyewitnesses of Jesus before and after the Resurrection. Author of the Gospel of John a disciple of Jesus.

That particular opinion is not shared by the majority of Christian Biblical scholars. Indeed, the earliest New Testament writings were by Paul, who admitted he was not an eye witness.

And, according to one early Church Father, the Gospel of John was written by a gnostic priest.

url=http://earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

[FallentoReason]

A couple of things to address:

The title of this thread is a claim in and of itself along with the OP. There were a few general statements in the OP stating

"There's not a single contemporary historian mentioning Jesus though."

If one is going to title a thread in such a way as to be a claim then more backup needs to be presented, in addition to the quote mentioned above, to show its accuracy.

Just because this OP states that there are no contemporary historians that mention Jesus does not and would not PROVE the non existence of this man.

How do I go about showing that there's no contemporary sources? I can't bring you a handful of nothing. History works in reverse. My claim is 'there was no Jesus' and if you think there was a contemporary historian that said something, then bring the evidence forth, but I can't show you that no contemporary historian mentioned him, there's just a big gaping hole that speaks for itself.

I find that at the very least Jesus more likely existed than did not. The gospels and associated biblical writings depict fairly detailed accounts of his death and birth. Remember I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus or any miracles he may or may not have performed or him being the son of God. I don't think it is a stretch to say that a man, likely named Jesus, was the basis for the narratives that the Bible portrays.

His birth isn't even recorded. Mark was the first Gospel written and it's lacking a birth story.

Do you advocate that all the stories were completely made up?

I have only just begun to understand the meaning behind these manuscripts being written, but I don't want to share just yet because I'm not well read up on it at the moment. Answering your question though, yes I think they were made up... but with a reason which as I said am not so read up on just yet.

[FallentoReason]

The New Testament is written by eye witnesses and early investigators into the existence of Jesus.

What have you got to show for it? I've already given you several examples and I'll share one with you again:

Matthew 9:9. He speaks of 'Matthew' getting asked by Jesus to follow Jesus. Third person. Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. So where did the name come from? You already know:

Every tradition is that Jesus existed, even traditions held by the opponents of Christianity. That is positive evidence that Jesus existed.

Church tradition says the Gospels were written by the Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which in turn is supposed to make the Gospels eyewitness accounts. Please show me how you know this. Try and find within the manuscripts where the authors name themselves. They don't.

Paul an eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

No, you're stretching the truth. He witnessed a spiritual Jesus. He never met the man.

Author of the Gospel of John a disciple of Jesus.

Like in Matthew, John speaks in 3rd person at the end of the manuscript. Not chapter 21 which was an addition by yet another author (hint: read the end of chapter 21 and you'll see what I mean) but at the end of chapter 20.

At some point, it becomes asinine to insist that the absence of a rebuttal is meaningless, and you're far past that point. During the first century explosion of Christianity in a hostile environment, the absence of early record of anyone claiming the movement is based on a man who didn't exist, is evidence that Jesus existed.

Ok, now ask yourself, why aren't there any records saying how this foolish man went against the authorities? Josephus is a prime example of someone that would have definitely recorded such a thing, because he was a Jewish historian and Jesus' 'rebellion' was seen as being against the Jews.

Your dragon analogy is incompetent. There aren't people giving up their lives to convince others they've seen dragons. There aren't people claiming that specific hostile authorities authorities and the general public has seen dragons. If there were such claims, these authorities and members of the general public would point out that they haven't seen dragons.

No, you've taken my example out of context. I was explaining that the role of history isn't to make a list of all the things that didn't exist. History by default returns a possible positive of something that did exist because that's the world we live in, the one that is concerned with real things.

I don't think there's any good explanation for the silence of historians of the time. The Christian movement was something to take note of, yet somehow the Son of Man himself doesn't get a single mention?

I wrote up a post on a different forum showing that Heracles/Hercules the Son of Zeus/Jupiter has more secular mentions that Jesus did. I might post that somewhere for you benefit.

Atheism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in any god. So pretty much the difference between you and me is that I believe in one less god than you.

Your effort to cast doubt on the reliability of the positive evidence is an act of desperation.

Desperation?! I used to be a born again Christian. Saved up my pennies to do missionary work as well.

As a Free Thinker I'm merely lead by reason. If I can't logically get from claim A to it's proof B, then I don't see any reason to believe that it is the truth, whatever it might be.

Apologists for Christianity have correctly pointed out that evidence for the historicity of Jesus is actually far stronger than our evidence for most anything else we believe about ancient history.

Quite the biased opinion. As I said, Hercules gets more mentions than the forgery known as Jesus. I'll post that up sometime.

[dgruber]

How do I go about showing that there's no contemporary sources? I can't bring you a handful of nothing. History works in reverse. My claim is 'there was no Jesus' and if you think there was a contemporary historian that said something, then bring the evidence forth, but I can't show you that no contemporary historian mentioned him, there's just a big gaping hole that speaks for itself.

I'm not arguing with you that you can't show nothing. I am simply stating that if you are going to make the above claim that "there was no Jesus", then you are going to have to show why that is valid considering the literature that we currently have that discusses him. If I came onto the forum and made a thread that said "Jesus Existed", then I would have the same burden to show/backup my statement. Catch my drift?

As you have eloquently stated, it is likely going to be very difficult to show that he DID NOT exist, but that's on you to show at this point.

His birth isn't even recorded. Mark was the first Gospel written and it's lacking a birth story.

Ok so lets run with this statement on its own. Are you saying that if his birth was not recorded then that means he wasn't born? Mark is generally accepted as the first gospel written I agree, but what does its lack of a birth story prove? Keep in mind we are talking about 2000+/- years ago where the documentation may not have been as good as it is today .

I have only just begun to understand the meaning behind these manuscripts being written, but I don't want to share just yet because I'm not well read up on it at the moment. Answering your question though, yes I think they were made up... but with a reason which as I said am not so read up on just yet.

If it were me, I would be careful not to start a thread with a claim if I didn't have some serious backup to support it. It's perfectly normal to ask for evidence that Jesus existed though and we can go into that more in depth if we need to.

[Flail]

The Gospels portray him as someone that was often walking around in public performing miracles. One would think that contemporary historians would take note of what was going on and comment on Jesus in their work. There's not a single contemporary historian mentioning Jesus though.

The closest it gets is a few paragraphs from the Testimonium Flavinium by Josephus which reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]

It is rather strange that Josephus, an observant Jew, would write things such as 'He was the Christ'. Because of this, historians suspect that a Christian got a hold of his work a few centuries later and added in these lines.

I don't think Jesus ever existed. I can only find him in the NT which is rather strange considering he was the Son of God walking amongst men. I would have thought that he was worth mentioning.

Does anyone have any evidence for his existence?

[/quote]

It is my view that Jesus or someone like him probably existed. Subsequent to his death his legend grew over the succeeding decades by word of mouth among adherents to eventually reach 'Biblical proportions'. Things were added; stories were embellished. When writings about his exploits finally surfaced long after, separating fact from fiction was by then impossible. That Jesus was God is both preposterous and non-falsefiable and so the legend remains unchanged to this day despite being devoid of proofs; a myth pure and simple.