Did Jesus exist?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Did Jesus exist?

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

From another thread:
and historical records and reality to prove he {Jesus} didn't exist.
For debate, please address any of the following.

Has it indeed been "proven" that Jesus did not exist?

Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?

And if not, would it have been necessary to invent him?, If so, why so?

Please make your case, for or against his existence.

And please, no subjective and sentimental "yes Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus" arguments.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

alwayson
Sage
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 6:02 pm

Post #2

Post by alwayson »

The top scholars have to lie to maintain Jesus existed.

Mark Goodacre invented a line of Paul in a radio debate with Richard Carrier:



Bart Ehrman has a long track record of lying about what Paul actually says:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

Paul's letters indicate that Cephas etc. only knew Jesus from DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

The Scriptures Paul is referring to here are:

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24 describes the death-resurrection cycle.

Gerd Lüdemann:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Post #3

Post by Mithrae »

alwayson wrote:Paul's letters indicate that Cephas etc. only knew Jesus from DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."
Neither the word 'dream' nor any reference to Paul being asleep are present in this passage (nor in any other of Paul's references to Jesus' birth, life, betrayal and death that I'm aware of).

And while it's widely accepted based on his letters that Paul believed he had some kind of spiritual revelation from Jesus, there is no indication whatsoever that the same was true of Cephas or the other apostles or Jesus' brother James: In fact Paul specifically distinguishes the appearance to him "as to one untimely born."
alwayson wrote:The Scriptures Paul is referring to here are:

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.
In those references to the priest Joshua/Jesus the son of Josedec (Zech. 6:11; cf. 1 Chronicles 6:14-15, Ezra 3:2 and Haggai 1:1):

> The word 'Satan' (Σατανᾶς, satanas - adversary) is not used, while the word which is used in the Septuagint's Zechariah (διάβολος, diabolos - accuser/slanderer) does not appear in any genuine Pauline epistle (ie; only in Ephesians and the Pastorals)
> There is no mention of Joshua 'confronting' the Accuser or even being aware of his accusations; on the contrary, it is God who rebukes the Accuser (3:2)
> There is no specific mention of Joshua being in heaven
> It is very explicitly stated that it is not Joshua nor any human being who ends all sin in one day, but God himself (3:9)
> In the Septuagint multiple crowns are made, and while [at least] one is given to Joshua there is no suggestion that he is a king; on the contrary, it seems largely symbolic ("the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it" in 6:14)
> The man who builds the house of the Lord is called "the Branch" or "the Shoot," not 'the Rising,' and it is not clear that this is Joshua; in fact the passage seems to refer to two individuals, and the allusion to Isaiah 11:1 suggests "the Branch" would be a descendant of David, and therefore probably Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and grandson of Judah's last king (see 1 Chronicles 3:17, Ezra 3:2, Haggai 1:1 and especially Zechariah 4:8-9)
  • One Septuagint translation - https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-t ... =41&page=3:
    Zechariah 4:8 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 9 The hands of Zorobabel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands shall finish it: and thou shalt know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to thee.

    Zechariah 6:9 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 10 Take the things of the captivity from the chief men, and from the useful men of it, and from them that have understood it; and thou shalt enter in that day into the house of Josias the son of Sophonias that came out of Babylon. 11 And thou shalt take silver and gold, and make crowns, and thou shalt put [them] upon the head of Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest; 12 and thou shalt say to him, Thus saith the Lord Almighty; Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall spring up from his stem, and build the house of the Lord. 13 And he shall receive power, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between [them] both. 14 And the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to the useful men of the captivity, and to them that have known it, and for the favour of the son of Sophonias, and for a psalm in the house of the Lord. 15 And they [that are] far from them shall come and build in the house of the Lord, and ye shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you: and [this] shall come to pass, if ye will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord your God.


    Another Septuagint translation - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... e-nets.pdf:
    Zechariah 4:8 And a word of the Lord came to me, saying, 9"The hands of Zorobabel laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. And you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you.

    Zechariah 6:9 And a word of the Lord came to me saying: 10Take the things from the captivity - from the rulers and from its useful people and from those who are familiar with it - and you shall enter in that day into the house of Iosias son of Sophonias, who has come from Babylon. 11And you shall take silver and gold and make crowns and set them on the head of the great priest Iesous son of Iosedek, 12and you shall say to him: This is what the Lord Almighty says: Behold, a man, Shoot is his name, and he shall sprout from below him and shall build the house of the Lord. 13And it is he that shall receive virtue and shall sit and rule on his throne. And the priest shall be on his right, and peaceful counsel shall be between the two of them. 14And the crown shall be for those who endure and for its useful people and for those who are familiar with it. And it will become a credit for the son of Sophonias and music in the house of the Lord. 15 And those who are far off from them shall come and build in the house of the Lord, and you shall know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. And it will be if, listening, you shall listen to the voice of the Lord your God.
alwayson wrote:The top scholars have to lie to maintain Jesus existed.

Mark Goodacre invented a line of Paul in a radio debate with Richard Carrier:



Bart Ehrman has a long track record of lying about what Paul actually says:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516
In the midst of this commendable zeal to provide information, you or your sources appear to be accidentally propagating more than a couple of falsehoods yourselves. Several of them are very noteworthy but, if I had to pick one in particular, trying to twist "the Branch" into some kind of 'rising' from the depths metaphor seems an obvious yet especially strained effort to create some kind of connection with Christian beliefs. What was your source for that, if you don't mind my asking?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

Elijah John wrote: For debate, please address any of the following.

Has it indeed been "proven" that Jesus did not exist?

Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?

And if not, would it have been necessary to invent him?, If so, why so?
I personally see this as an extremely ambiguous question. The simple reason is because it is unclear of what is meant by "Jesus".

If by "Jesus" we are asking whether a person actually existed who did and said all of the things claimed by the New Testament Gospels. Then my answer is that this Gospel "Jesus" most likely never existed as a real historical human.

However, if by "Jesus" we are asking whether a person "named Jesus" might have lived and done some of the things that were later then grossly exaggerated upon in the Gospel rumors, then I suspect that some guy named Jesus who sparked these rumors may very well have existed.

In fact, I can easily accept that some "Real Person" actually did play a role in sparking the Gospel rumors.

This says absolutely nothing at all about the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors themselves other than to suggest that there may have been some truth to some of the claims. But that's no reason to suspect that the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors was a "real person" in terms of what the Gospels actually have to say about him.

~~~~~

Consider this in the following way. Both Elvis Presley and Micheal Jackson were real humans. Both were famous rock stars. They actually existed historically.

Does it then follow that every claim rumored about either of these persons represents the real person? I think not.

The same thing applies when asking whether "Jesus" existed as a "real person".

If you mean the "Jesus" described in the Gospel Rumors, then my answer is, no, that person most likely never existed.

But if you are asking whether the Gospel Rumors could have been grossly exaggerated rumors about a real person who might have actually lived. Then sure, I not only think that's possible, but I highly suspect that this was indeed the case.

~~~~~~

Finally, just to be complete, the Gospel Rumors include what I consider to be utterly absurd and outrageous claims, such as a God speaking from the clouds to announce that Jesus is his Son. I personally see extreme problems with this.

My first thought is that if there is a God who can simply speak to us directly anytime he so desires, in private via a burning bush, or publicly via a cloud, then this God could have just told us what he wants us to know directly. No need for Jesus at all.

So since these kinds of claims are included in the Gospel rumors of "Jesus" I see this as a serious red flag that exposes the Gospel rumors to be fraudulent.

I hope this additional objections to the Gospel rumors isn't seen as being "off-topic", because from my perspective it's directly related to whether I accept the "Gospel's Jesus" to be realistic.

I don't. So in that sense I am convinced that the "Gospel's Jesus" never existed.

But could there have been a real person named Jesus who argued against orthodox Judaism with the Jewish Chief priests and eventually ended up being crucified?

Sure, considering the barbaric nature of era in question that not only seems reasonable, but it's actually quite easy to believe.

And because of this, even if we had concrete undeniable historical evidence that a man named Jesus was indeed crucified at the request of angry priests I wouldn't find that to be evidence for the Gospel rumors at all. I would just see it as part of what sparked those rumors. That's all.

Same is true if there was historical evidence for confusion over what might have happened to the body after the crucifixion. Once again, I would just see that as part of what sparked the Gospel rumors. Certainly not evidence that they are true in every claim they make.

Conclusion:

Did a historical mortal Jesus exist? Perhaps so.

Did the Son-of-God Gospel Jesus exist? I see no compelling reason to think so.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Post #5

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

From the OP:
Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?
Some skeptics deny even this. As, for example, the quote from another thread cited in the OP.
and historical records and reality to prove he {Jesus} didn't exist.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Post #6

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]
Has it indeed been "proven" that Jesus did not exist?
No. I don't see how it's possible to disprove a person's material existence. There are some cases that might enable us to get close, though. For example, Mickey Mouse can be shown to be a cartoon character created by Walt Disney. There are no flesh-and-blood Mickey Mouses to be found, and because Mickey Mouse is a cartoon character, I see no way he can have any existence beyond the drawing board, print, film, and the internet.

Is Jesus like Mickey Mouse in that he can have no material existence and never did? I'd say no, Jesus may have been a real, solid, flesh-and-blood guy. Even the Jesus of Christian faith is not impossible. We cannot rule out a dead Jew rising from a lonely tomb near Jerusalem to live again.
Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?
I'd say again that yes, Jesus may have been a guy who walked the earth. He could easily have been made up as well. All we have are documents that tell us that Jesus "came in the flesh." These documents might tell us the truth, or they could just as easily be packed full of lies. We'll never know for sure. All we can do is guess, and if we can impress enough people that we've got it right, then we might sell a lot of books and teach at prestigious universities.
And if not, would it have been necessary to invent him?, If so, why so?
I think some of the first Christians thought they needed to invent Jesus if they didn't have a real one. The Jews of that time and place needed hope that they could overcome Rome. Belief in a Messiah sent from God was just the ticket to placate Israel and prevent a disastrous uprising against the Romans. It didn't work, of course, and history tells us that the rebellion in 70 AD resulted in many dead Jews.
Please make your case, for or against his existence.
If we understand Jesus as a Jewish peasant crucified by the Romans in about 30 AD, then what we know about the history of Israel and Rome assures us there was a Jesus or maybe more than one. The Romans did crucify Jews that the Romans thought were troublemakers. One of these crucified may have inspired the New Testament. That guy would be Jesus. Why not? Sure, this Jesus might be boring, but Christianity has done a good job of dressing him up ever since.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Post #7

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Elijah John wrote: From another thread:Has it indeed been "proven" that Jesus did not exist?
No - I think it is near impossible to do that to the level of "proof". It will always come down to a balance of probabilities based on all the evidence and given all the evidence the more likely scenario I would say is that there was an historical person. Christopher Hitchens gives a neat argument for an historical person behind the myth. The argument runs thus: there is no evidence of a Roman census. This is something the Romans didn't do. The introduction of a census that meant Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem is a contrivance. There would be no need to invent a census to contrive that Jesus met with prophecy and was born in Bethlehem and the birth place of David unless there was a real person behind the myth that everyone knew was brought up in Nazareth and was otherwise associated with Nazareth. If there was no historical person behind the myth and it was all made up then just call him Jesus of Bethlehem. The contrived census is itself evidence of a real person behind the myth.

I also quite like this account from an archaeologists by the name of Aviram Oshri.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-jesus ... bethlehem/

Oshri questions whether it makes sense a heavily pregnant woman could even travel 175km by donkey to Bethlehem of Judea. It makes more sense she travelled to Bethlehem of Galilee which is just 7km from Nazareth.

And lets think about that census - the Romans were tough and ruthless but c'mon they knew how to run an empire and getting everyone to up sticks to go register maybe hundred of miles away from where they are making a living is going to mess up the economy and be one huge nuisance. Joseph turns up in Bethlehem to register for the census. They ask where is your wife. He says - she couldn't make the 175km trip by donkey because she's 9 months pregnant. Roman bureaucrat says fair enough.

The point is not whether this conjecture is true but it it seems plausible that someone who lived in and was brought up in Nazareth was born just 7km away and the tale we are told mangles some of the detail whilst layering the story to give Jesus greater heritage. OF course that doesn't make it true but whether Hitchens is right or Oshri or some blend of the two nudges me to think there was a real historical person here somewhere.

Elijah John wrote:Did Jesus exist as a real, historical human being?
A man...yes likely...for the reason that it seems clear there was an early Christian sect and it is easier to posit that there was a charismatic leader that started the sect.The idea that were a religious leader of small committed group of followers and their families is not problematic.
Elijah John wrote:And if not, would it have been necessary to invent him?, If so, why so?
It would be necessary to embellish a more mundane tale especially if the sect faced serious sets backs like the execution of the leader that inspired them.

I tend to accept there was a real figure that taught by parables that healed the sick and performed some minor miracles. There are plenty of examples in the modern age of healers and miracle workers. Not saying they really are healing or working miracles but they find it easy enough to convince their core audience and maybe even convince themselves. If it is possible to get away with it in the modern age then I have no reason tho think an Iron age culture would be any more sophisticated. The rest is all exaggeration, interpolation, well meaning lies and possibly some deliberate fraud. An example of where the writers of the myth get carried away is the dead rising from their graves Matthew 27:52. If the Romans were such good record keepers then why no Roman records or stories about the dead in number rising from their graves. Ouch...this can easily be taken as an obvious lie. Surely the dead walking the streets would have dozens if not hundred of witnesses. How come the news did not spread like wild fire? Where are the writings and records of traders, historians, essayists, court documents across all cultures and religions from Africa to Europe to China. But nope. It just get a mention in one document with not a ripple anywhere else at the time. It clearly looks like an embellishment added later by the sect to inflate the importance of the narrative.

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Roman anad Jewish historical proof of Jesus' existence.

Post #8

Post by polonius »

Both a Roman historian and a Jewish historian of the time mention Jesus in their writing. See Tacitus and Josephus.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Roman anad Jewish historical proof of Jesus' existence.

Post #9

Post by Furrowed Brow »

polonius.advice wrote: Both a Roman historian and a Jewish historian of the time mention Jesus in their writing. See Tacitus and Josephus.
There are problems with both mentions but I'd say they are good evidence that the early Christian movement had grown and was well known by their time of writing. Beyond that I'd be cautious as to exactly what these mentions are evidence for.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Post #10

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 7 by Furrowed Brow]
Christopher Hitchens gives a neat argument for an historical person behind the myth. The argument runs thus: there is no evidence of a Roman census. This is something the Romans didn't do. The introduction of a census that meant Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem is a contrivance. There would be no need to invent a census to contrive that Jesus met with prophecy and was born in Bethlehem and the birth place of David unless there was a real person behind the myth that everyone knew was brought up in Nazareth and was otherwise associated with Nazareth.
I have also noticed some "contrivances" in the Gospels. For example, Matthew 21:5 has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on both a colt and an ass! Was that story contrived to have Jesus arrive in Jerusalem as the prophesied Messiah rather than some guy who really did arrive there but was unnoticed? Maybe. Matthew could just as easily have made up the entire story including Jesus himself, so I'm not too impressed with the contrivance argument for the historicity of Jesus.
If there was no historical person behind the myth and it was all made up then just call him Jesus of Bethlehem.
Mythicists might argue that "Jesus of Nazareth" was invented as a man born in Bethlehem but who grew up in Nazareth because both towns have mystical significance. Bethlehem is portrayed by Matthew as the birthplace of the Messiah supposedly prophesied in Micah 5:2. Matthew 2:23 also refers to an obscure prophecy: "He shall be called a Nazarene." So that's why Jesus may have been associated with both Bethlehem and Nazareth.
A man...yes likely...for the reason that it seems clear there was an early Christian sect and it is easier to posit that there was a charismatic leader that started the sect.
Religious sects do not need real people to base their gods on. Zeus and Thor are but two examples of gods made up by religious groups.
The idea that were a religious leader of small committed group of followers and their families is not problematic.
Yes, there may have been a real man whom Christians base their beliefs upon. Or maybe not. It's very possible either way.
An example of where the writers of the myth get carried away is the dead rising from their graves Matthew 27:52.
If Christians made this story up, then why believe anything they said including the "historical" Jesus? If we try to argue that we know there was a Jesus because the New Testament writers said so, then we argue that we know Jesus existed because some fanatical, dishonest people said so.

Sorry! I need to see better evidence than that.

Post Reply