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]

[FallentoReason]

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.

'Easily and likely' reflect the humility? I don't think you've ever tried to speak about yourself in 3rd person. Say you played some sort of team sport and you won the grand final. In all your humility would it make sense to share this to someone by speaking in 3rd person? It's illogical and not natural.

Where does the Gospel of John say he is a disciple? I don't think I've ever read that.

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.

So what? Then all you have left is hearsay. My evidence for X is that person P said it was so, but I never witnessed anything.

The book is not written in the style of an eye witness when the author never claims to be a disciple of Jesus. It is just hearsay.

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.

Why aren't you a Muslim then? If tradition counts for so much then the Qur'an should be something you would be interested in, as "Qur'an" literally means 'the recitation'. Islam is 100% oral tradition.

Clearly you dismiss this religion without a second thought, yet I wouldn't say you're dishonest or incompetent. This should make you realise that tradition doesn't count for anything. There must be evidence for why a tradition holds any truth.

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.

So you keep mentioning that there's secular evidence for Jesus. I would like to see it, or are you making more baseless assertions?

Atheism is an inherently disingenuous philosophy.

I just believe in one less god than you. Nothing more, nothing less.

[FallentoReason]

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"?

The weak corrolation between the Apostle Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew should sway you to a lack of belief that it was ever an eyewitness.

[historia]

Does anyone have any evidence for his existence?

The evidence we have for Jesus are the four canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and the works of other early Christian writers, most notably Paul.

[FallentoReason]

The evidence we have for Jesus are the four canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and the works of other early Christian writers, most notably Paul.

Paul never met Jesus. He merely claimed to have seen a spiritual Jesus on the road to Damascus.

The Gospel of Thomas is nothing more than sayings and teachings of Jesus. No witness accounts of any sort.

Ah, the canonical Gospels. Why do you think they were written by witnesses?

[historia]

Paul never met Jesus. He merely claimed to have seen a spiritual Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Yup. Paul also gives us some insights into the early Christian community, including the fact that one of it's most important leaders was Jesus' brothers, James. Kind of awkward that -- since apparently Jesus didn't exist.

The Gospel of Thomas is nothing more than sayings and teachings of Jesus.

The canonical gospels are mostly composed of Jesus sayings and teachings, too. Since, you know, he was a religious leader who went around saying and teaching things.

Ah, the canonical Gospels. Why do you think they were written by witnesses?

I don't recall saying they were. Rather, they are later works that incorporate earlier written accounts and oral traditions concerning Jesus.

[FallentoReason]

Yup. Paul also gives us some insights into the early Christian community, including the fact that one of it's most important leaders was Jesus' brothers, James. Kind of awkward that -- since apparently Jesus didn't exist.

You should already know how this isn't awkward in the least bit seeing as though further down you admitted that you don't believe the Apostles wrote anything. Let me get you started; what makes you think the 12 Apostles were real? It could have been plausible seeing as though they actually wrote stuff down, unlike Jesus who left nothing behind, but because you and I are in agreement that they in fact didn't write a thing, then that begs the question: why should we think they were actual people?

It's interesting how the early churches fought for power between their brothers in Christ. Saying that an 'original' Apostle was their founder adds more 'power' to them. But wait a minute.. What if we intentionally blur the line and say our founder was the brother OF Christ? That definitely is above the others! But to their disapointment, additions to teaching such as Mark 3:31-35 where Jesus ignores his own family kind of ruins the whole 'brother OF Jesus' thing.

I've only just gotten into researching this, but there's a lot of evidence that suggests the NT is a biproduct of political war amongst the differing versions of the cults which include religions such as Mithraism and Zoroastrianism that Christianity borrowed from.

The canonical gospels are mostly composed of Jesus sayings and teachings, too. Since, you know, he was a religious leader who went around saying and teaching things.

This is your response to what I said about the Gospel of Thomas. What do the canonical Gospels have to do with the GoT which has no narrative whatsoever?

And who exactly saw and heard Jesus say these things, as you yourself have stated that the Gospels aren't from witnesses?

I don't recall saying they were. Rather, they are later works that incorporate earlier written accounts and oral traditions concerning Jesus.

Yep, so in other words it's mere hearsay. The 'recitation' or Qur'an does better than that. They quote Mohammad directly. But obviously their oral traditions don't count for anything right?

[Eternal]

Whilst I would agree that the Jesus in the gospels likely didn't exist, I do see the argument as a bit pointless, whether he existed or not, where is he now? He seems to help footballers score touchdowns and actors win awards frequently, but the starving children, kids born with cancer, rape victims etc. don't seem to get a look in.

That is not even mentioning the billions who lived and died without ever hearing of Jesus or christianity and through no fault of their own are burning in hell for eternity.

All this on top of the contradictions in his own words. Admittedly this could be down to the fact they were written by other people after being passed on orally, but if that is the case why believe most of it. We are talking about a time full of superstition and more deities than you could shake a stick at. If you take into account chinese whispers, people trying to influence the text to their own ends etc. then I see no reason to believe any of it (apart from a fear of my own mortality of course).

Before I am asked what contradictions, here you go.

John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."

John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

"Record" and "witness" in the above verses are the same Greek word (martyria).

Then of course there are these.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."

Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."

Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."

Or is it these.

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Or is it more likely they were written and adapted throughout history to suit the agenda of whoever had power at the time.

[99percentatheism]

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]

Why do all self-appointed "free" thinkers, act exactly the same way on everything?

It's kind of creepy.

The "Jesus never existed" goofiness?

Serioulsy? C'mon now.

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.

A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythologists are lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, is extremely erudite and worth reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, he reacts badly to those who demonstrate it. It is not my intention to study the minutiae of the argument but instead focus on three central points which are often brought up on discussion boards. These are the lack of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the silence of Paul. Finally I want to bring all these together to show how ideas similar to those that deny Jesus' existence can be used on practically any ancient historical figure.

[dgruber]

The weak corrolation between the Apostle Matthew and the Gospel of Matthew should sway you to a lack of belief that it was ever an eyewitness.

Please show your work. Confirm the extent of this "weak corrolation" so that its as clear as possible that the writer was not an observer. For the record I'm not disagreeing with you, but you are telling me here that you find it substantial enough and apparently I should too. And so it must follow that because he wasn't an eye witness therefore Jesus didn't exist?? That would be a jump in logic. Its hard to know much of anything from 2000 years ago except to take it from the few writings we have. Some people have done a lifetime's worth of research on the topic (not me) and to be honest they STILL have very little idea in my opinion what actually happened, because they are relying on what was written down so many years ago and what the "general thought" of the day is.

I wonder how many, if any on this forum are actually qualified to say with any real certainty or accuracy whether this man Jesus actually existed, and following that, what he actually did. Every single person on here is doing what they can, reading and listening to other people. Is any of it accurate? Some of it? All of it? There literally is no way to know until we get more information (which may or may not be coming).


Quick background so that you can see where I'm coming from on my discussion points:

I was raised christian but consider myself an agnostic theist. I don't like definitions personally because it lumps people into groups, but that's the closest way of describing it that I know.

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.

First of all you can wave your hand in the air all you want calling points strawmen, but it doesn't take away from the point. My point was, if Mark was written first and he does not have a birth narrative in his story, does that mean Jesus did not exist? Even if NO ONE wrote about his birth and all we could take from the writings was that he died on a cross, does it logically follow that he therefore did not exist? I think not. That again would be a jump in logic. The truth is there are stories about Jesus' birth, they just don't lie within Mark. The truth/accuracy of those stories is something that I can't claim to know, but it is what we have and until someone can sufficiently show that those tales are myth, legend, fable, etc., it will be very difficult to convince believers that there was no Jesus.

[Eternal]

99percentatheist.

I don't think it is goofiness. Quoting someone who shares your opinion is not proof.

How about showing the evidence that you base your belief in the existence of Jesus on?