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]

[Felix]

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:[/quote]

Matthew 9:9 being in the 3rd-person could easily and likely reflect the humility of the author. This accounts for why the author of Matthew doesn't identify himself, regardless of who he is. We see the same thing in Gospel of John, where the author identifies himself as a disciple of Jesus, to establish that he is an eye witness, but any name or other reference to himself is in the 3rd-person.

But, let's assume that Matthew didn't write it. So what? The book is still written in the style of an eye witnesses, or at least the source document was written by someone posing as an eye witness. It's still an eye witness account.

Tradition is oral history. Tradition can also be first-hand written history, where the earliest writings have lost (which is normal for ancient history). To dismiss tradition as non-evidence is dishonest or incompetent. The most that can be said is that it's not as strong as a first-hand written account. But, on the other hand, we do have first-hand accounts as well as lots of tradition, even by non-Christians, which universally points to the existence of Jesus.

Atheism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

[Flail]

Unless there exists some verifiable evidence that the anonymous author of "Matthew' was indeed a first hand observer of the events of which he writes, all we have is a nebulous 'claim' that the events have been 'eye-witnessed', which is quite another thing than an actual and reliable eye witness report. Further, what evidence or information do we have to cause us to trust the accuracy and veracity of this claimed eye witness report rendered long after the fact?

[Goat]

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:

Matthew 9:9 being in the 3rd-person could easily and likely reflect the humility of the author. This accounts for why the author of Matthew doesn't identify himself, regardless of who he is. We see the same thing in Gospel of John, where the author identifies himself as a disciple of Jesus, to establish that he is an eye witness, but any name or other reference to himself is in the 3rd-person.

But, let's assume that Matthew didn't write it. So what? The book is still written in the style of an eye witnesses, or at least the source document was written by someone posing as an eye witness. It's still an eye witness account.

Tradition is oral history. Tradition can also be first-hand written history, where the earliest writings have lost (which is normal for ancient history). To dismiss tradition as non-evidence is dishonest or incompetent. The most that can be said is that it's not as strong as a first-hand written account. But, on the other hand, we do have first-hand accounts as well as lots of tradition, even by non-Christians, which universally points to the existence of Jesus.

Atheism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

Well.. no.. this is wrong from square one.

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew can not be shown to be Matthew, nor was it written as an 'eye witness' account. To say so is inherently disingeneous.

Pointing this out has nothing to do with atheism at all. That is a diversion of focus on the fact claims can not be shown to be true.

As for oral traditions, well, stories change over time. Heck, I can see how my father's stories about what he did when he was younger change over time, and he was one person.. they got bigger over the years. Do that over a couple of generations, over several people, and darn , it would be tough to tell the truth for story.

[dgruber]

Unless there exists some verifiable evidence that the anonymous author of "Matthew' was indeed a first hand observer of the events of which he writes, all we have is a nebulous 'claim' that the events have been 'eye-witnessed', which is quite another thing than an actual and reliable eye witness report. Further, what evidence or information do we have to cause us to trust the accuracy and veracity of this claimed eye witness report rendered long after the fact?

You know this is an interesting statement (and an accurate one I might add) for a couple of reasons.

1. How do we verify whether or not "Matthew" was indeed a first hand observer? All we have currently are the words in the book and the general stance of historians/scholars today. How could we ever actually know if he was or he wasn't? I'm not aware of enough concrete evidence to sway me either way. So does that mean we divert to the stance of we don't know enough for sure so lets default to "he probably wasn't an observer"?

2. I have seen this in other threads before but I think its at least worth mentioning that the detailed scrutiny that the Gospels have received over the past...well "forever"....seems to exceed greatly that of other ancient historical works. By ancient I mean any documents written soon after or around the time the Bible was first taken down. Under the same level of scrutiny as the Bible, would other works throughout human history hold up consistently better?

As for oral traditions, well, stories change over time. Heck, I can see how my father's stories about what he did when he was younger change over time, and he was one person.. they got bigger over the years. Do that over a couple of generations, over several people, and darn , it would be tough to tell the truth for story.

They do indeed and often times "the fish does get larger" after each telling of the catch. I would likely agree that some of that is expected and probably happened, but it would be unreasonable to imply thats all the story is, a big fish tale, myth, etc.

[Goat]

Unless there exists some verifiable evidence that the anonymous author of "Matthew' was indeed a first hand observer of the events of which he writes, all we have is a nebulous 'claim' that the events have been 'eye-witnessed', which is quite another thing than an actual and reliable eye witness report. Further, what evidence or information do we have to cause us to trust the accuracy and veracity of this claimed eye witness report rendered long after the fact?

You know this is an interesting statement (and an accurate one I might add) for a couple of reasons.

1. How do we verify whether or not "Matthew" was indeed a first hand observer? All we have currently are the words in the book and the general stance of historians/scholars today. How could we ever actually know if he was or he wasn't? I'm not aware of enough concrete evidence to sway me either way. So does that mean we divert to the stance of we don't know enough for sure so lets default to "he probably wasn't an observer"?

2. I have seen this in other threads before but I think its at least worth mentioning that the detailed scrutiny that the Gospels have received over the past...well "forever"....seems to exceed greatly that of other ancient historical works. By ancient I mean any documents written soon after or around the time the Bible was first taken down. Under the same level of scrutiny as the Bible, would other works throughout human history hold up consistently better?

As for oral traditions, well, stories change over time. Heck, I can see how my father's stories about what he did when he was younger change over time, and he was one person.. they got bigger over the years. Do that over a couple of generations, over several people, and darn , it would be tough to tell the truth for story.

They do indeed and often times "the fish does get larger" after each telling of the catch. I would likely agree that some of that is expected and probably happened, but it would be unreasonable to imply thats all the story is, a big fish tale, myth, etc.

I personally don't know where to draw the line, and it appears to me, when it comes to the Christian religion, a lot of focus is placed on the more miraculous aspects of the stories.

I wonder how many Christians would 'follow Christ' if you remove Jesus' divinity, and merely made him a good teacher of morals?

[Felix]

Under the same level of scrutiny as the Bible, would other works throughout human history hold up consistently better?

Jesus stands up better than most any other ancient character. You can easily find people who doubt that Shakespeare wrote what's attributed to him. If he didn't' write it, maybe he didn't' exist? We don't have any original manuscripts of Shakespeare, in the first place. to even know what he really said, even if he did write what's popularly attributed to him.

You can FUD anything (spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).

They do indeed and often times "the fish does get larger" after each telling of the catch. I would likely agree that some of that is expected and probably happened, but it would be unreasonable to imply thats all the story is, a big fish tale, myth, etc.

Excellent point. But, we're not talking about a story passed down through generations. The Christian account was already well established by the middle of the first century, within the lifetime of the eye witnesses, including hostile eye witnesses.

The Jewish authorities turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be killed. Neither of these groups had any interest other than stopping Christianity. Yet, neither denied that this happened. On the contrary, it appears that they agree it happened.

Try to tell an exaggerated fish story in the presence of a rival who was there.

[McCulloch]

But, we're not talking about a story passed down through generations. The Christian account was already well established by the middle of the first century, within the lifetime of the eye witnesses, including hostile eye witnesses.

Paul's writings may have been well established by the middle of the first century, but they make almost no references to Jesus' own life story, teachings or miracles. The Gospels came later: according to scholars, first Mark (maybe about 70) with the fewest miracles, teachings and life story and lastly John (perhaps written near the end of the 1st century) with the most theology and stuff.

The Jewish authorities turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be killed.

We only have the Christians' word on this one. The Jewish and Roman histories of that period are silent about this alleged miracle worker, preacher to the multitudes and disruptor of the Temple.

Neither of these groups had any interest other than stopping Christianity.

Neither of these groups showed any interest in stopping Christianity in its first century.

Yet, neither denied that this happened. On the contrary, it appears that they agree it happened.

They are completely silent about this, therefore they agree that it happened? Really?

Try to tell an exaggerated fish story in the presence of a rival who was there.

That is probably why the stories of the resurrection and the miracles that were supposed to have happened in the first thirty years of the first century were written in the late first century, after a war that radically altered the social and cultural fabric of the people of that region.

[dgruber]

I personally don't know where to draw the line, and it appears to me, when it comes to the Christian religion, a lot of focus is placed on the more miraculous aspects of the stories.

I wonder how many Christians would 'follow Christ' if you remove Jesus' divinity, and merely made him a good teacher of morals?

I agree on both counts. When it comes to the Christian religion, from my experience, not only is the focus on the miraculous aspects, it is also rarely geared toward explanation of the truth of the events actually happening. It tends to focus more on doctrine and what the actions mean spiritually.

Hard to say. I'd venture to guess that if you remove divinity then the whole religion would have to be removed or reshaped (trinity and all that).

Jesus stands up better than most any other ancient character. You can easily find people who doubt that Shakespeare wrote what's attributed to him. If he didn't' write it, maybe he didn't' exist? We don't have any original manuscripts of Shakespeare, in the first place. to even know what he really said, even if he did write what's popularly attributed to him.

That depends on how you are evaluating Jesus. If you are evaluating him as a person, a man, and that's all, then I would agree he stands up pretty well. The problem is when you start bringing in miracles (which is a fairly broad word if you ask me), you start to run into discrepancies and you have to believe more on faith than on evidence. We have the words that were written about him in the Bible and the other associated writings that didn't make the Bible, but we don't have any other records that corroborate the miracles, divinity, etc. All that means to me is there is a gap in what we have. Some people jump through the stronger atheist hoop saying that means he must not have existed outside of a story and others jump through the christian hoop saying he did exist and perform all those miracles.

[Goat]

Under the same level of scrutiny as the Bible, would other works throughout human history hold up consistently better?

Jesus stands up better than most any other ancient character. You can easily find people who doubt that Shakespeare wrote what's attributed to him. If he didn't' write it, maybe he didn't' exist? We don't have any original manuscripts of Shakespeare, in the first place. to even know what he really said, even if he did write what's popularly attributed to him.

You can FUD anything (spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).

And, conversely, you can keep on making all sorts of unsupported claims, such as 'Jesus stands up better than most any other ancient character'. OF course, many ancient characters are fiction. Can you show that the biblical Jesus is not?
Do you have anything that is 'non-biblical' that is within 40 years the date of his claimed death?

They do indeed and often times "the fish does get larger" after each telling of the catch. I would likely agree that some of that is expected and probably happened, but it would be unreasonable to imply thats all the story is, a big fish tale, myth, etc.

Excellent point. But, we're not talking about a story passed down through generations. The Christian account was already well established by the middle of the first century, within the lifetime of the eye witnesses, including hostile eye witnesses.

Nor, are we talking about primary sources, or , every likely even secondary sources. We are talking a chain of people, and we don't NEED generations for big stories to happen. We just need one big story teller trying to top another one. That can happen in just a couple of years... no need for anything else to happen.

The Jewish authorities turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be killed. Neither of these groups had any interest other than stopping Christianity. Yet, neither denied that this happened. On the contrary, it appears that they agree it happened.

Well, that is the claim in the New Testament. However, the stories about the Trial of Jesus just don't add up to the Jewish law or Roman Law.. It fails credibility when it comes to understanding what is required for that trial, for the arrests, and for turning Jesus to Pilate to begin with. It would require a massive conspiracy of over 70 people pledged to uphold the law, who would also have to violate the high holy days.. something you just wouldn't get.

We do not have anybody's testimony that this happened, except Christians. Sorry, but we don't have the word of the 'rival'..

[FallentoReason]

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?

Yeah you're right. My apologies.

The other forum where I post is a lot more relaxed. I'm not saying that we can say whatever we want and people will take it in without any sort of evidence, but it's gotten me into the habit of fleshing out the arguments as the discussion progresses as opposed to letting out everything I know on the topic in the OP.

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.

The point I'm making is that there's no reason to think he ever existed. The literature that we have that you mentioned can be shown to be mere hearsay, as I have partly already done. This makes the corrolation of what it's saying about Jesus and the existence of Jesus less and less reliable.

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 .

No, strawman. In your post you claimed that much was known about his birth and death. Because Mark was written first and it has no birth narrative I'm not so sure where you get this idea that we actually know a thing about his birth.

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.

I've got some serious backup to support the lack of existence of Jesus. It's the same stuff that deconverted me in the first place.

I was saying that what I think of scripture and the reasons for these scriptures being written is what I've been looking into and what I don't have all the evidence for.