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.

[NervyGuy]

It’s not posturing to point out a statement is false and that an opponent has shifted the argument after the statement was shown false.

Sure it is. When you insist that you know what my statement means -- but that I, its actual author, don't know what it means -- that's posturing. (Some might call it brute arrogance, but I am trying to be polite about it.)

But maybe it was just ignorance about how language works. So let me try to help. Your error is your apparent belief that statements can be false all by themselves. But that isn't the case. A statement's truth often, perhaps always, depends on the speaker. That can be a disturbing realization for someone who hasn't thought deeply about language, but it's true. Let me show you with a simple little example:

If, in the middle of a debate, NervyGuy claims that the sun rose this morning, Goose should not jump up and down and declare and insist and insist again that "The statement is false! The statement is false! The sun does not rise. Instead, the earth rotates, changing its face toward the sun, making the sun only appear to be rising! Therefore NervyGuy must be some idiot, going around making false statements about the sun! But watch. Now that I have demonstrated that his statement was false, he will try to shift the argument. He will claim that he didn't mean what his statement clearly and necessarily means! He will claim that he knows good and well that the sun doesn't actually rise!"

No. If Goose is an honest debater, and aware of how language works, he shouldn't do that. Instead, he should consider Nervyguy's apparent intelligence and education and either conclude that Nervy is making a language shortcut ("the sun rises") or else ask Nervy if he really thinks that the sun literally rises in the sky.

But Goose shouldn't insist that Nervy has "made a false statement." That would be either insincere else ignorant debate. Perhaps even debate fueled by hostility.

That's how I see it. Let me know if you have questions about my analysis or disagree with it somehow.

You wrote the statement: “But Paul -- the most fervent follower of Jesus in the history of the world – says nothing about that physical life.� ...... This above argument was shown false. Then the argument changes in order to salvage the argument.

It's kinda cute -- how you allow the language to trick you like that -- but it really is interfering with our debate. That's why I'm having to step aside to try and help you with it.

You see, 'that physical life' means 'that physical life as described in the Christian gospels.'

Maybe it was my error, to assume a certain level of familiarity on your part with the issue under discussion, but I say again that your response did indeed look like posturing and certainly interfered with the flow of the actual debate. Most especially your continued insistence that my statement meant what you claim it means, rather than what I claim it means.

Anyway, don't feel silly about claiming that "it's been shown false" when it was, in fact, exactly true. People make mistakes, and I am a forgiving sort. Like that patch of dried ketchup on your nose, we won't speak of it again.

What gives you the idea Paul didn’t learn about Jesus from the boys in Jerusalem? Surely the topic of the life of Jesus came up when he visited Peter for two weeks.

Which supports my theory, of course. If they'd known anything about a physical Jesus, they would surely have told Paul all about it. He would have pumped them for every detail. Yet Paul never says a thing about that physical Jesus. Not a word. Since the Jerusalem guys didn't know anything about any historical Jesus, how could they have told Paul about him?

Paul says he received his Gospel not from man but a revelation of Jesus (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul then says after three years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter for fifteen days and also saw James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 2:18-19).

So you reckon that the boys in Jerusalem never told Paul anything about (the 30 CE) Jesus' preachings? But why not? Why would they not tell Paul what Jesus had told them? Why not share Jesus' gospel with Paul?

It's because they'd never known a physical Jesus, I think. Mark wouldn't create him for another 40-50 years, setting his Jesus character back into the Jerusalem of the early Christian church.

Paul didn't visit with the disciples of Jesus. He met with early church leaders. That's my best guess about it.

What do you mean “silence about a contemporary Jesus�?

I tried to discuss that with you, but you ignored my argument and went off claiming that I'd made a false statement, even though I hadn't.

It's why I stepped aside and began my condescension routine.

Remember when I talked about modern Protestant preachers and their sermons? Will you address that now? Why do ALL preachers load ALL their sermons with specific details about the life of the Gospel Jesus, yet Paul never mentions a single such detail in all his letters? He was a fanatic about Jesus. How can anyone, with a straight face, argue that he just never felt like mentioning his contemporary, Jesus Christ?

What’s this “whole bunch of other stuff�?

Tons of stuff. Ignorance of the tomb's location. Christian churches already in distant cities at the time of the supposed crucifixion, even though Jesus was apparently not noticed by secular folk. The Synoptic Gospels, clearly plagiarisms. All sorts of stuff.

The problem is that we -- you and I -- can't even get past Paul's silence regarding the historical Jesus. Heck, we can't even engage it. Too busy complaining about false statements like "The sun rose this morning."

Well you specifically argued, “But Jesus did not live at the same time as Paul. That's what I'm trying to argue with you."

Yep. I always try to take the side with the most evidence and best rational argumentation. It makes my debates easier. I can do my accounting at the same time as I write rebuttals to the other guy's messages. The Gospel Jesus was not a real historical person, at least as far as I can figure. He didn't live at the same time as the writer of the Paulines.

Oh boy. Enough with the condescending rhetoric already. Just make the arguments.

Anytime you'd like to stop telling me what my words mean, rather than listening as I explain what they mean... I'll be happy to drop the condescending rhetoric. It's fun, but I'd really rather discuss the actual issue here.

I’m hoping you will also remember that arguing an opponent’s statement is false is not being hostile.

Of course it is. When you insist that "The sun doesn't actually rise. And now Nervyguy is trying to deny that he made that obviously false statement!"... that's hostility.

Really it is.

Oh, and as a side note. There are atheists who get “hostile� with those who reject the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey come to mind.

Yeah. They're professional HJ-Game players. They make money at it. So they have a dog in the fight just like many Christians do. They get mad when anyone tries to make their main game piece dissolve away into non-historicity.

Not that I've ever read one of their books. I've just heard about them.

[Tart]

Well, thats fine but Jesus is the Truth... So... Ya...

This is what is called a thought-terminating cliche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-t ... lich%C3%A9

Religions teach the use of such phrases as part of the brainwashing they instill in their adherents.

It's the Truth though... Jesus saves...

[Tart]

[Replying to post 75 by RedEye]

RedEye...

What exactly would you suggest as an explanation for the evidences of Christianity?

How would you explain the existence of Christianity? Its origins, its beliefs?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 75 by RedEye]

RedEye...

What exactly would you suggest as an explanation for the evidences of Christianity?

How would you explain the existence of Christianity? Its origins, its beliefs?

The schizophrenic delusions of Jesus, Moses and Abraham coupled with the Roman propaganda machine.

Why? How would you explain it?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 75 by RedEye]

RedEye...

What exactly would you suggest as an explanation for the evidences of Christianity?

How would you explain the existence of Christianity? Its origins, its beliefs?

The schizophrenic delusions of Jesus, Moses and Abraham coupled with the Roman propaganda machine.

Why? How would you explain it?

Exactly how it is explained... The fulfillment of Jesus as the Messiah, and salvation of humanity...

I mean, if you dont even think Jesus existed... im looking for a good explanation of the evidence... A coherent explanation of its entirety. A comprehensive explanation that doesnt just raise doubt at any given piece of the evidence, saying anything at any given time... But an explanation that makes sense.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 83 by Tart]

I mean, if you dont even think Jesus existed... im looking for a good explanation of the evidence... A coherent explanation of its entirety. A comprehensive explanation that doesnt just raise doubt at any given piece of the evidence, saying anything at any given time... But an explanation that makes sense.

Wow ...

That's exactly what I'm looking for too ...!!!

Lemme know how you get on ....

[Jubal]

Some more thoughts on the argument that only a book about Judaean affairs would mention Jesus Christ :

None of the alleged books with evidence for Jesus Christ are histories of Judaea - Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius.

The one actual relevant history - Justus of Tiberias' History of Jewish Leaders in Galilee in late 1st century - did NOT mention JC, according to the review of reader Photius.

Several ancient writers apparently mention Christians, so they could easily have mentioned JC :

Epictetus mentioned 'the Galileans'.

Aelius Aristides the mid 2nd century Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations c.167 - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

None of those are histories of Judaea.

Jubal

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 85 by Jubal]

None of the alleged books with evidence for Jesus Christ are histories of Judaea - Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius.

Yes ...

Evidence of any sort for a human Jesus is thin at best.

Evidence of any sort for a god-sired, virgin-born, death-defeating Jesus looks to me to be zero.

The Jesus that people of faith want ...

May only exist inside their imaginations.

[NervyGuy]

What exactly would you suggest as an explanation for the evidences of Christianity?

How would you explain the existence of Christianity? Its origins, its beliefs?

The ancient world was full of crucified-and-resurrected-godman stories.

Some guy, maybe named Jesus, lived around 50-100 BCE or so and was a (Jewish) religious teacher.

Gradually a religion, an offshoot of Judaism, began to form around this Jesus character. It combined the godman stories with the Jewish messiah story.

By 30 CE, there were scattered churches, with the main one in Jerusalem.

By 50 CE, Paul was writing letters about how he had once persecuted the Jesus followers but now was a fervent follower himself, since Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. He was condemning those with a different theology than his own, as religious people still routinely do to this day.

Around 70-80 CE, a guy wrote a short (Passion) play, setting the Jesus character in 30 CE Jerusalem. (We call this later-refined play the Gospel of Mark.)

Soon everyone was trying to improve on gMark, some of them even plagiarizing large chunks of it (gMatthew and gLuke) as they revised the story, creating their own gospels, folding in a lot of famous sayings (the Q gospel) and other material. Hundreds of Jesus gospels have been written since then, maybe thousands. People are still writing them today, but the "canon" has been long closed.

Meanwhile, people desperate for life-after-death and a real-world hero were believing the story to be historical, rather than fiction. Some denied that Jesus had come in the flesh (see 2 John 1:7: I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.) But those doubters were shouted down.

Take it from there.

All of this is, of course, just my best guess based on what evidence I've seen. Until we build a time machine, we can only guess at it.

[Goose]

1. Philo – granted.

That's it ?
When it goes against you - you give the minimum of a single word ?

What more was I supposed to say here? I granted that Philo does not mention Jesus even though he reports in detail on the affairs of first century Judea. I gave you that one.

Philo is strong evidence against a historical Jesus.

Okay let’s keep in mind that you hold that Philo represents “strong evidence against a historical Jesus.� We’ll come back to that momentarily.

[Philo] wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history. Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul, he visited Jerusalem and had family there, he developed the concept of the Logos and the Holy Spirit, he was considered a Christian by some later Christians, he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues, including critical commentary on Pilate.

Firstly, we don’t know exactly when Philo visited Jerusalem or how many times. If he only went once and went before Jesus was ever on the scene in Jerusalem then we have no reason to expect Philo to even know about Jesus let alone report on him.

Secondly, although we might expect Philo to mention Jesus if he knew of him it’s worth noting Philo also doesn’t mention Christianity at all. The work that we might reasonably expect Philo to mention Jesus is his Embassy to Gaius. This is the very work in which Philo reports on the activities of Pontius Pilate. If Philo was going to mention Jesus this would have been the place to do it. But I think there is a reason to not expect Philo to mention Jesus in his Embassy and very little reason to expect him to. Consider the context of the Embassy. It was Philo’s attempt to petition the Emperor for the rights of Jews in Alexandria. Why would we expect Philo to bring into the conversation a Jew who was executed by Rome for treason in Jerusalem? How would that have helped Philo’s case by bringing into the conversation a trouble making Jew and his cult of Jewish-Christian followers who were a class hated for their abominations according to Tacitus? It would seem, then, Philo may have realized mentioning Jesus would be counterproductive to his cause and simply chose to “not go there� so to speak.

Lastly, let’s come back to your assertion above that “Philo is strong evidence against a historical Jesus.� And you argue he is strong evidence by virtue of Philo writing books about religion, being a contemporary with Jesus, visiting Jerusalem, having family there, etc. But of course Paul meets all the same criteria perhaps even more so since Paul actually lived around Jerusalem whereas Philo lived in Alexandria. So if Philo is strong evidence against a historical Jesus then Paul is strong evidence for a historical Jesus since he meets all the same criteria if not more so. You don’t get it both ways here.

2. Justus of Tiberius – none of his works have survived so we don’t know what he may or may not have said about Jesus. The argument relies upon the commentary of Photius in the 8th century.

Nope.
We DO know what he said because we have a review of his works, as you noted. If "we don't know what he did or didn't say" - then what is "the argument" ?

You are over stating your case here. You do not know what Justus said because you do not have his writing. You are depending entirely upon the summary of a writer hundreds of years after the fact. All you can argue is that according to Photius writing in the 8th century Justus does not mention Jesus.

3. Plutarch – did not write about first century Judean affairs. In fact, Plutarch doesn’t even mention Christianity at all, let alone it’s founder Jesus, in his writings. I guess Christianity didn‘t exist in the first century either.

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120. Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus, Plutarch wrote on oracles (prophesies), Plutarch wrote on moral, spiritual and religious issues.

He didn’t write on the affairs of first century Judea so we don’t even have an initial high level contextual reason to expect him to mention Jesus let alone a specific one. Name the work and location in that work Plutarch should have mentioned Jesus and tell me why.

[Plutarch] could easily have mentioned Jesus. He didn't.

He could have easily mentioned Christianity, Paul the apostle, Pilate, Herod, or Gamaliel too. But he didn’t.

High level Writers like this mention all sorts of persons, events, places, beliefs etc. that are not strictly limited to the specific subject. Your argument is not valid.

Actually your counter argument is invalid. It runs like this:

Lots of writers wrote about all sorts of stuff therefore they should have mentioned Jesus.

What kind of logic is that?

Consider this example from Pausanias, who wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century. (That is not a book about Judaean affairs is it ?)

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of thousand names are mentioned - a large number of minor figures from within and without Greece. He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown : "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

A minor unknown prophetess from Palestine !
Mentioned in a book called "Guide to Greece". This clearly shows your objection is not valid. Jesus could easily have been mentioned in this book, and many others - some much more relevant.

While in Delphi Pausanias mentions Sabbe, a long dead oracle, in a list of several female oracles. No reason to expect Jesus to appear in a list of women. But nice try.

Here’s the quote:

�Later than Demo there grew up among the Hebrews above Palestine a woman who gave oracles and was named Sabbe. They say that the father of Sabbe was Berosus, and her mother Erymanthe. But some call her a Babylonian Sibyl, others an Egyptian.� - Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.12

Notice there is some dispute over her origins. She may have been from Babylon or Egypt rather than Palestine.

And if we follow your logic Pausanias should have mentioned Gamaliel, Paul, Herod, and a whole number of other people.

4. Pliny the Elder – did not write about the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.70CE following on from Bassus (from 31 CE) Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions hundreds of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.) It is quite likely for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events - if they had happened.

Pliny wrote a Natural History of the natural world, not a history of people and events let alone a history covering the affairs of first century Judea. That he happens to mention various people is irrelevant. There are numerous people he doesn’t mention as well - Herod, Pilate, Gamiel, Paul, etc. Heck I don’t think Pliny even mentions his own nephew in the Natural History.

6. Seneca the Younger – did not write historical works let alone anything relating to the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome. He wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings. He wrote a large work On Superstition between 40 and 62 CE that covered all the sects and cults of Rome. In fact, early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they forged letters between him and Paul. How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising void in Seneca's writings ?

The work you are referring to here, On Superstition, is known to us though fragments recorded in Augustine’s City of God. The extant work has not come down to us. So you don’t know what it may or may not have said about Jesus. The fact that Christians may have forged correspondence between Seneca and Paul is irrelevant. As for Seneca’s other work he was a philosopher and play write. Nowhere does he report the affairs of first century Judea.

10. Juvenal – was a poet. Did not write about, you guessed it, the affairs of first century Judea.

Not a valid objection.
Lucian, another Roman poet DID mention Christians (as gullible fools), along with many other persons and events, like Juvenal, or e.g. Martial :

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century - a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
Stoic suffering of discomfort and death, virgin's blood, Roman funerary practices, the way accused men look in court, Roman soldiers mocking their leaders, anointing the body with oil, Molorchus the good shepherd, Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise, the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter etc.

Super. But Where do they report the affairs of first century Judea?

Another good example from a direct contemporary of the alleged Jesus Christ :
Gaius Petronius Arbiter or Titus Petronius wrote a large novel in Rome (a bawdy drama) the Satyricon c.60. Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including a crucifixion !

He mentioned a crucifixion! Did he also mention any crucifixions in first century Judea?

And a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen, a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision, gods such as Bacchus and Ceres, writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus, books such as the Iliad, Romans such as Cato and Pompey, people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus, female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers, baths, shipwrecks, meals...
This large work, covers many topics, including topics related to the Jesus e.g. a crucifixion, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly.

Fantastic! Now where does it mention any events happening in first century Judea?

We see you incorrectly dismissing any work that is not a history of Judea.

That’s a strawman. I’m not dismissing “any work that is not a history of Judea.� It doesn’t need to be a history of Judea per se. The initial criterion is that it is a work which reports on the affairs of first century Judea. It’s a reasonable initial criterion of expectation that gives you Philo. We might reasonably expect a source which reports on the affairs of first century Judea to mention a trouble making Jew crucified for treason or something to that effect. Roman poets, play writes, and philosophers writing to a Roman audience? Not so much.

What I see you doing is arguing some source should have mentioned Jesus because he mentions all sorts of other stuff. That’s not logical at all. There are all sorts of good reasons why a source may be silent on a topic.

For you to mount a compelling argument you need to tell us which written text Jesus should have been mentioned in, at what location in the text, and why. That’s why you get Philo because that can be been shown to an extent.