Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

[StuartJ]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

[Jubal]

Hiya

Seems that way.

I just read an new book by R.G. Price arguing exactly that -

"Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed"
by R. G. Price

His central argument is that the Gospel of Mark is a literary work, based on the Jewish scriptures. He cites many examples where Mark bases his Jesus stories on episodes in the Tanakh.

Arguing that Mark fully intended his audience to realise he was telling a story by his obvious use of previous scriptures.

E.g. Mark starts by introducing John the Baptist with a phrase (clothing of hair and leather belt) that clearly evokes Elijah. Elijah pops all often, including when Jesus is on the cross.

All of Mark is fiction - a story which essentially attempts to explain and respond to the disaster of the war c.70AD which destroyed the temple.

He further goes on to show that all the other Gospels (including John) depend on the G. of Mark, that all of the Jesus of Nazareth story depends on that one book.

He introduces an important point -
during the early century or two of Christianity, there were various Christian groups who did not believe Jesus came to earth in the flesh. Various Christian fathers wrote responses to this, arguing at length that Jesus DID really come to earth physically.

What did they base their argument on ?
The meaning of the scriptures.

What did they NOT base their arguments on ?
Actual historical evidence for Jesus.

All these early Christian fathers, desperate to prove that Jesus really existed - could not find ONE single person who ever met Jesus or could provide any historical evidence for him.

The obvious problem of Mary being completely missing from history eventually led to the story of the Assumption of Mary - that Mary's body too was lifted to heaven.

Christian fathers 'proved' Jesus existed by arguing that the prophecies of Jesus of the Tanakh were really proven true by the New Testament. This claim to truth in prophecy was the main claim to Christian truth, unlike other religions which had no proof.

Here's the kicker -
the Romans, especially the emperors, were fascinated by prophecies, and were attracted to these Christian claims of true prophecies. Christian Father Lactantius e.g. was a companion to Constantine, and his preaching of true Christian prophecies spurred Constantine to support it.

Price argues that later Christians did not realise the original Gospel was a literary fiction. He argues the Matthew realised it was fiction by the way he treated the allusions to the Tanakh, but that Luke had no idea it was fiction and went on to write Luke-Acts thinking it was history.

Soon, anyone who claimed Jesus did NOT come in the flesh was declared anathema and anti-Christ, their books burned, if not the author too. Not surprisingly, after a while there was no-one left who claimed so.

One of the best works on this topic in a while.

Jubal

[Jagella]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

Is there a question for debate?

I think that there was a "Jesus"; in fact, there was probably more than one. The Jews of first-century Israel were very displeased with the Roman occupation, of course, and the resulting turmoil among them resulted in many of them seeking a messiah to free them from the Romans. Since there was a demand for a messiah, many young Jewish men began preaching an apocalyptic end to the world with themselves in the role of Messiah. The Romans, realizing that this preaching could lead to rebellion, crushed these hoped-for messiahs by crucifying them.

This "tradition" became fertile soil for a new religion. By combining Jewish apocalyptic scripture with pagan-hero mythology, the Jesus of the New Testament was born. Although Jesus may have been a real man, he didn't need to be a real man. A Jesus created by the early Christians would have worked just fine in the role of Messiah and Son of God. Assuming that the early Christians had enough gumption, they would have been quite able to get many of the Jews and especially the Gentiles to believe in this Jesus complete with miracles.

[Jagella]

The obvious problem of Mary being completely missing from history eventually led to the story of the Assumption of Mary - that Mary's body too was lifted to heaven.

Yes. The story of the ascension of Jesus was likewise meant to "explain" his not being around. The evidence for the risen Jesus or any Jesus for that matter was whisked away by the Bible god. This act is inexplicable on the part of a god who wanted us to believe in Jesus, but this story as a fabrication on the part of the early Christians to explain away the absence of Jesus makes perfect sense.

[Divine Insight]

Was Jesus a Fictional Character ...?

The Jesus described in the Gospels most certainly was a fictional character.

Was there an actual person named Jesus who might have given rise to the exaggerated rumors of the Jesus described in the Gospels? I think that's highly probable.

In fact, if it could be historically proven beyond any reasonable doubt that some guy named Jesus (or whatever) did indeed argue against the Jewish Chief Priests, and was ultimately crucified for his apostasy, and then questions arose about the whereabouts of the body.

I still wouldn't be the slightest bit prepared to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.

All this would mean to me is that some actual person did indeed spark the Gospel rumors.

That's all that would amount to.

~~~~

Just as some additional information: I'm thoroughly convinced that the God described in the Old Testament cannot be real. There are simply far too many self-contradictory claims made about that God. So I'm already convinced that the God of the Old Testament is a fictional God. So the idea that Jesus would be the virgin-born Son of that God doesn't make any sense anyway.

[Willum]

My fav is to look at the obvious.

The testimony of Lazarus, the man back from the dead, would be required reading in every school today were the story true.
Lazarus' life afterwards would be in biographies and more.

But there is no documentation about the road back.

Then there is the lack of carpentry by the world's most famous carpenter.

Were there a Jesus, there would be these things.

[Jagella]

The Jesus described in the Gospels most certainly was a fictional character.

Was there an actual person named Jesus who might have given rise to the exaggerated rumors of the Jesus described in the Gospels? I think that's highly probable.

If we think of Jesus on a continuum on one extreme being the actual Son of the Bible god and on the other extreme a complete fabrication, then I think the truth lies between these two extremes and closer to the complete fabrication. Although I think there are some historical problems positing a real man named Jesus who is the basis for the gospel Jesus, he could have been one of those preachers I describe above.

Anyway, nobody seems to have thought of a "hybrid theory" that mixes a historical Jesus with a mythical Jesus. "Jesus" may have started out as a fabrication, and later a real man was appointed by Christians to play this role. This theory might satisfy both the mythicists and the historicists.

[Tart]

Neither a jot nor a tittle of independently verifiable evidence is ever offered to demonstrate that there was a real-life character now known as Jesus the Christ.

We only have reports that people were following the Jesus cult.

And the cult propaganda itself.

Actually, your first sentence in the quote above is just flat out wrong...We dont only have sources from non-Christians (like historians, pagans, and others), but every source we have from antiquity tells us Jesus really existed. There isnt a single source that implies Jesus never existed... All the evidence is one sided in this debate... If you'd like id be happy to share sources from antiquity...

"... the beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France..."

"The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory


Is there any good reasons that we should disregard every source we have from ancient times and conclude Christ is a myth?

If so, can anyone give a reasonable explanation why everyone thought Jesus was real, who lived in, or close to, his time period (the first century onward)?

Do you guys think this is like the biggest conspiracy of all time, or something?


And if you wish, id be happy to share with you, what i think is the strongest evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

I was watching a vid recently where Christopher Hitchens thinks that the character of Jesus must have been based upon someone who did exist and did start a movement which did create some kind of a ripple effect. It seems reasonable to suppose this is the case, and that Rome eventually created Christianity out of that as a means of repressing and controlling the direction of the masses.

[Jagella]

your first sentence in the quote above is just flat out wrong...We dont only have sources from non-Christians (like historians, pagans, and others), but every source we have from antiquity tells us Jesus really existed. There isnt a single source that implies Jesus never existed... All the evidence is one sided in this debate... If you'd like id be happy to share sources from antiquity...

"... the beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France..."

Actually, the New Testament attests to some people at that time questioning the existence of Jesus. Consider 2 Peter 1:16:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So some people, probably Christians, were questioning "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" which in Greek is τὴν τοῦ Κυ�ίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ δ�ναμιν καὶ πα�ουσίαν. The Greek word translated "coming," πα�ουσίαν, in addition to "a coming"can mean "a presence." So the writer of 2 Peter needed to defend the reality of the very presence of Christ.

"The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines."

I really don't care if an idea is on "the fringe." What matters to me is whether it's true.

Is there any good reasons that we should disregard every source we have from ancient times and conclude Christ is a myth?

I wouldn't say we should disregard every source of information about Christ, of course, but I've never seen a source that isn't very questionable not the least of which are the canonical gospels.

If so, can anyone give a reasonable explanation why everyone thought Jesus was real, who lived in, or close to, his time period (the first century onward)?

Like I demonstrated above, there were doubters about the historicity of Jesus from the very inception of Christianity. Many who did believe in him then, like believers today, may have been simply credulous. After all, many people then believed Zeus was real. Was Zeus historical?