Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural " only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[OpenYourEyes]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

The Gospel of John is from a different source. ...
Q.

Well, present your argument for another source to G.John.

Q ?
Do you have any evidence for Q ?
Or just speculative conclusions of others that it may have existed ?


Kapyong

I already gave you a reference. Read up on the 'four source hypothesis' and it will clearly explain to you WHY the synoptic Gospels are believed to be mostly from one source while some minor portions are derived from a separate source, a hypothetical source commonly referred to as Q. John's Gospel is completely different in style and vocabulary compared to the synoptics. Please research before drawing a conclusion that "ALL of the Gospels come from Mark's Gospel".

Research!!

[historia]

Having set out some basic points in the posts above, let's take a look at two (of many) pieces of evidence with the purpose of comparing the mythicist and historical Jesus hypotheses to see which one better explains the data.

1. Did Paul believed Jesus was a human who lived on earth?

The mythicist hypothesis posits that the earliest Christians (including Paul) believed that Jesus was only a spirit being who was never an actual, historical figure. That belief would only develop later, the hypothesis contends, after the gospels. Based on this, we should not expect to find references to Jesus as a human being in the earliest Christian sources.

In contrast, the hypothesis that Jesus existed posits that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure. Therefore, we should expect to find references to him as such in the earliest sources.

So let's turn to the letters of Paul, our earliest surviving Christian source. All of Paul's genuine letters are dated by scholars to the 50s.

Here we clearly see that Paul believed that Jesus was a Jew who had come into the world to fulfill God's purpose as the messiah. He says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), and that "when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4).

He notes further that "the Jews killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets" (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15), and that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and was burried" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Carrier admits -- see On the History of Jesus (2014), pgs. 563-582 -- that Paul did, indeed, believe that Jesus was 'born', died, and buried (how could he not?). But he contends that Paul believed all these things took place in "outer space" (Carrier's unfortunate expression). Yet, Paul never actually says that himself, you have to read that into the text.

The more natural, straight-forward reading is preferable, I think: Paul believed Jesus was an historical figure.

Carrier further complains that Paul should have written more about Jesus had he been an actual historical figure (OHJ pgs. 514-528). But Paul didn't know the historical Jesus, having only converted to the movement after his death. And, at any rate, his letters are focused on narrow theological concerns written to Christians who are presumably already familiar with traditions about Jesus. He only mentions these facts about Jesus in passing, largely to illustrate other points.

It is my contention, then, the hypothesis that Jesus existed explains this particular data point better than the mythicist hypothesis.

[historia]

Continuing our analysis from above, comparing the mythicist and historical Jesus hypotheses to see which accounts for the available data better.

2. Did Paul know Jesus' brothers?

In recounting a visit to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion, Paul writes, "I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18). And later, "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5)

Paul often refers to Jesus simply as "the Lord" in his writings, such as: "God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power" (1 Cor. 6:14), and "To the married I give this command "- not I but the Lord "- that the wife should not separate from her husband" (1 Cor. 7:10). That is Paul's clear meaning here as well: these are Jesus' brothers.

Carrier argues (see OHJ pgs. 582-592) that Paul meant this metaphorically, as he describes all Christians as "brothers" and "sisters." But this can't be Paul's usage in these two passages, for a couple of reasons.

First, although Paul does indeed refer to believers in Jesus as "brothers" or "sisters", he never uses the phrase "brother(s) of the Lord" to refer to Christians generally. That only appears here in these two specific cases.

Second, Carrier's suggestion renders these passages nonsensical. Consider the passage from Galatians again: Paul says that, during his visit to Jerusalem, he "did not see any other apostle except James." But since James was a common Jewish name, and we know from other NT texts that there was at least one other James who was an apostle, Paul feels compelled here to tell us which James he met.

If "brother of the Lord" just means anyone who is a Christian, then Paul would, in effect, be saying he "didn't meet with any other apostle except James the Christian." But since, of course, all the apostles would be Christians, how could this possibly serve as a useful identifier? It makes no sense.

The same problem befalls the passage from 1 Corinthians. Here Paul is differentiating these "brothers of the Lord" from both himself and Cephas, which again makes no sense if this just means anyone who is a Christian, as both Paul and Cephas were also Christians.

As icing on the cake, Josephus also happens to mention James was the brother of Jesus. He writes: "[Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1), which, unlike the Testimonium Flavianum, is near universally accepted by scholars as authentic.

In summary:

Needless to say, had Paul met Jesus' brother James and knew of his other siblings, this would strongly disconfirm the mythicist hypothesis, effectively rendering it untenable. Much like with Paul's references to Jesus as a human being, mythicists try to argue these texts here don't really say what they obviously do: Paul knew Jesus' brothers. The straight-forward reading is, once again, preferable, I think.

This, coupled with the fact that even Josephus at the end of the century knew of James as the brother of Jesus Christ, helps to confirm the hypothesis that Jesus existed.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The question then becomes, "What do you mean by Jesus?" Who was Jesus? Am I supposed to know? And if I do know what you mean by "Jesus" then where did I get that information? Who is it that you are asking lived 2000 years ago? The "Jesus" described in the Gospels?

Took the words right out of my mouth. That's why I voted no in the last thread. Even though the OP of the last thread was from a non-theist, the way it was worded would have allowed for a supernatural magical Jesus to slip in via the back-door.
If I choose Yes on this poll, I'd have to back that up with evidence...and the only evidence I could point to would be Paul and/or the Gospels. Seeing as how I can be described as rabidly atheist...that's a no go area for me.
If I choose Likely...what do I mean? I don't even know.
Unlikely. Same here.
And no...same problem with Yes. I'd have to give evidence.

I'll choose the fifth option. Plausible. It's plausible that a man named Jesus (not necessarily the Jesus spoken about by Paul and the Gospel authors) "live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed"

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

historia - you didn't even bother to READ my post 27 did you ?

Nor my post about the Spiritual Jesus either ?

You're just going to post the same tired ol' excuses that hardly anyone but hyperbelievers falls for these days.

Anyway,
I think by now that readers and lurkers have figured out that the evidence for the alleged Jesus is weak as dish-water.

All the hyperbelievers can do is repeat those old tales and legends and beliefs, over and over.


Kapyong

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by historia]

Yes, I think Jesus of Nazareth existed, because that hypothesis best explains the available data.

I have a disagreement here. Why did you add the words 'of Nazareth' when answering the question of
"Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed? "
It's one thing to say "Yes, Jesus lived 2,000 years ago..." but now you've added two words that weren't in the question. Of Nazareth. Where are those words coming from?
Perhaps it's my knee-jerk desire for accuracy kicking in here...

[Kapyong]

Gday rikuoamero and all

I have a disagreement here. Why did you add the words 'of Nazareth' when answering the question of
"Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed? "
It's one thing to say "Yes, Jesus lived 2,000 years ago..." but now you've added two words that weren't in the question. Of Nazareth. Where are those words coming from?
Perhaps it's my knee-jerk desire for accuracy kicking in here...

Good point

That's quite an interesting topic, actually.

The early Gospel MSS had a confusing combination of
*) Nazorean
*) Nazarene
*) (Nazirite)

G.Mark started with 'Jesus Nazarene' - -

G.Matthew explicitly notes an unknown prophecy when he connects Nazorean with Nazareth in Matt. 2:23.

Both G.Matthew and G.John place Jesus 'from Nazareth' .

There was also the known similar term Nazirite which crept in here and there.

Summary :

The connection between Jesus and Nazareth is clear as mud.
(Like everything else about the historical Jesus.)

Note: Word endings change oddly in Greek.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all

For those interested in Prof Ehrman's view, here is a copy of Chapter 3 from Did Jesus Exist ? on 'The Gospels as Historical Sources' .

Also, you can read here some excerpts from Dr Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus, which cover topics such as :

Carrier's two theories of Jesus that he compares (historical vs mythical)

Background elements to Christian origins.
On early Christianity as a mystery religion.
On Acts being historical fiction.
On the Ascension of Isaiah.
On Messianism and four Jesus Christs.
On Hebrews 8:1-5.
On the Logos or son-of-God.
On Jesus being 'born of woman'.
On Osiris.
On Pliny and Tacitus.
On the Sperm of David.
On Paul's phrase 'brother of the Lord'.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday historia and all

Needless to say, had Paul met Jesus' brother James and knew of his other siblings, this would strongly disconfirm the mythicist hypothesis, effectively rendering it untenable.

Needles to say, the hyperbelievers get it wrong again.

Paul does NOT say he met Jesus' brother James.
YOU say that.

Paul referred to the 'the Brother of the Lord' like a TITLE.

Paul does NOT defer to James in any way, which he WOULD have if he was really Jesus' brother.

Paul does NOT say he got any information from James about Jesus, which he WOULD have.

On the contrary - Paul insists he an 'apostle' who 'has seen the Lord' just like them. Seen in a VISION, just like all of them. Visions of Jesus Christ - the beginning of the cult.

Paul goes to Jerusalem and doesn't give the slightest hint that the crucifixion happened there.

Paul uses the word 'brother' (and sister) many times, and it is nearly always metaphorical :

1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 9:5 "the brothers of the Lord", followed by "sister wife".
Sister wife is clearly NOT literal, why would the "brothers" be?

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.

Heb 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,
I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.

(Not all really by Paul, but continue the theme.)

This, coupled with the fact that even Josephus at the end of the century knew of James as the brother of Jesus Christ

It's a FACT to hyperbelievers, damn the evidence ! full speed ahead !


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday historia and all

Much like with Paul's references to Jesus as a human being,

There in a nutshell is one of the hyperbelievers greatest errors (among many good choices )

Apparently every mention of a 'man', in an ancient religious work, MUST refer to a literal historical man.

So when Paul says Jesus was a 'man', and he was 'born of woman' - that can ONLY mean a literal, physical, historical man, right ?

Because we all know, there are NO OTHER sorts of men and women mentioned in ancient religious books, right ?

Like Cain and Abel, born of a woman called Eve.
Must be historical to hyperbelievers.

Or how about Heracles (Hercules) - born of a woman called Alcmene - of course his father was a God, but that's what they say about Jesus too, eh ?
Historical to hyperbelievers.

Or how about the woman called Pandora (she had a famous Jar, now they call it a Box) who was married to Epimetheus, brother of Prometheus.
Historical to hyperbelievers.

What about this woman, straight out of the bible :
1 Sam. 28:7 "When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. 7Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor." 8Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.""
Historical to hyperbelievers.


But my real favourite is another woman who gives birth in the New Testament :

Rev 12 : 1 And then a great wonder appeared in heaven: There was a woman who was clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet. She had a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out with pain because she was about to give birth.

3 Then another wonder appeared in heaven: There was a giant red dragon there. The dragon had seven heads with a crown on each head. It also had ten horns. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and threw them down to the earth. It stood in front of the woman who was ready to give birth to the baby. It wanted to eat the womans baby as soon as it was born.

5 The woman gave birth to a son, who would rule all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was taken up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman ran away into the desert to a place that God had prepared for her. There she would be taken care of for 1260 days.

I guess that woman is historical too, eh ?


Kapyong