Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Jesus: Did He Exist?
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 18 2004, 03:49 PM
To my surprise, I've found a few on this site that actually deny the existence of Jesus Christ! This, as you all probably know, is a very new form of belief.
Nonetheless, I'd like to take a look at the evidence - all of it. I'll begin (since I'm starting the thread) by posting just some of the historical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus Christ. Of course, much of this would have to include the Bible for historical support, but I won't use it on this particular post. Let's look at the evidence outside the Bible first. Although I believe the Bible is a very relevant form of historic accuracy (the Smithsonian Institute would agree), we'll keep it from this original post.
Oh, for those of you that doubt my assertion regarding the Smithsonian, I'll save you the trouble of agument by posting their statement regarding the Bible.
Smithsonian: "...much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used, as are other ancient documents in archeological works."
Also, National Geographic Society states in regards to the Bible: "...archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible" (note: more than thirty articles are listed).
Hi Brick,
Thanks for your assumption regarding my statement:
I said earlier...
QUOTE
Even secular historians, expert atheists, and scientists alike, believe Jesus existed! They just don't believe in what He said, or who He claimed to be - certain aspects of His life, but not His life entirely.
You replied...
QUOTE
Oh really!!!! I don't think I've ever come across any scolar from any school of thought who would make that claim. Oh, I guess you just made that up to make yourself sound authoritative.
No "making up" on my end. Please note the following modern day references to support my claim (just for starters):
Various scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories." - F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical criticism and exegesis at Manchester University.
Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field.
G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar.
The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.
Even the atheist H.G. Wells spoke of Jesus, "...one is obliged to say, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented."
Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed!
Here's what some famous Historians and Scholars conclude...
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that "there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence."
Meier notes that "what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed."
Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."
Sanders echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."
On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world."
Dunn provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:
"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.
The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!"
Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith.
Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:
"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
"...he argues mainly from silence."
"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."
"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."
None of these scholars, I emphasize, is a friend of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination!
No serious historian would doubt the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. On occasions some have tried but only by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Jesus.
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica
Besides the modern day examples, there are many, many more references and evidences that support my claim that Jesus Christ did exist. We'll look at them later, as this has become a quite lengthy post, and I've probably given enough to chew on for now.
Looking forward to discussion.
Jason
Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 18 2004, 03:57 PM
QUOTE
No serious historian would doubt the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. On occasions some have tried but only by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Jesus
Jay, sorry but you're pathetic.
You didn't show any evidence.
I don't care what this guy or that guy think. you can tell me some atheist guy said something, I dont care. I'm an atheist guy and I say "There were thousands and thousands of people called Jesus at that time. There were also thousands of crazies pretending all sort of thing. Jesus existed, even thousands of them. But the Jesus in the bible, that jesus never existed".
I don't give a **** about what the friend of the friend said. Get directly to the real thing. I'm eager to yet again attack this subject.
EDIT:
QUOTE
Smithsonian: "...much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used, as are other ancient documents in archeological works."
Also, National Geographic Society states in regards to the Bible: "...archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible" (note: more than thirty articles are listed).
Gilgamesh's Epic too. (a tale old enough to discredit the flood in Genesis)
So, is Gilgamesh's epic true? Nope. Was the movie "Independant Day" true because there's accuratly the city of New-York??
When people write story, they don't completely invent cities. Well, try to find Nazareth on a map if you can...
Posted by: moorezw Feb 18 2004, 04:03 PM
JayS8NT-
You left out some important bits from the Smithsonian statement:
QUOTE
The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible.
and...
QUOTE
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
Posted by: moorezw Feb 18 2004, 04:07 PM
JayS8NT-
Is the Jesus of the Gospels a historical figure? Most likely, no. Certainly, the Kingdom of Heaven movement was led by someone, and that person could very well have been named Jesus, but there is no conclusive evidence that one existed.
The only historical fact one can be sure of about Christianity is that it had its beginnings in Palestine in the first century C.E.
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 18 2004, 04:30 PM
For me it is not that important of some historical Jesusesque figure existed. I have no reason or evidence to deny that such a person existed. For me, what I cannot believe is such things like water-walking, many saints rising from their graves and being seen by many, food-multiplying, etc.
The key here is the principle of analogy.
Would you believe that someone named Thabiz in the Middle East who claimed to be a Muslim prophet walked on water, multiplied food, and when he died, an earthquake shook open many tombs and many dead Imams came out of their tomb and were seen by many? What if the account of these many Imams did not appear until after another account was already written? And what if another earthquake that was not recorded in the first account shook open Thabiz's tomb? Forget about predispositions to believe in the gospel, does it sound likely to be historical?
I wouldn't. So I can't believe that it happened like that 2,000 years ago either. Is it proof that it did not? No. But most Christians are honest enough to admit they cannot empirically prove Christianity. The next step is to ask oneself is it probable that such miracles occured. I've made many posts about this so I won't rehash them here.
my $0.02
-UV
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 18 2004, 04:32 PM
Hi Baby,
Thanks for the kind words! No offense taken.
You said,
QUOTE
"There were thousands and thousands of people called Jesus at that time. There were also thousands of crazies pretending all sort of thing. Jesus existed, even thousands of them. But the Jesus in the bible, that jesus never existed".
Here's the problem: Are you an expert in History? If not, are there experts in History that can attest to your statement, based on their expertise?
I'm not a History expert either. However, these statements are made by people that are. They line up with my belief that Jesus Christ did in fact exist.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but generally, historians are respected as experts in that field of study. In other words, they have supposedly done the research for us. They know the evidence to support the claims they make. I'm simply providing these statements so solidify my claim.
By the way, when speaking of historical things, when searching for evidence, the findings of these Historians are respected as held as support (either way) to the given topic. Contrary to what you may believe, these opinions do bring a foundation of authority. Otherwise, there would be no reason to include them in our discussions. In fact, there would be no use for them at all.
Moorezw,
Yes, there is more to the Smithsonian statement. I completely understand their view of the Bible, and still uphold the fact that they see it as historically sound - more so than "many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories..."
I still find it to be a strong position of support to the authenticity of the Bible.
QUOTE
Is the Jesus of the Gospels a historical figure? Most likely, no. Certainly, the Kingdom of Heaven movement was led by someone, and that person could very well have been named Jesus, but there is no conclusive evidence that one existed.
The only historical fact one can be sure of about Christianity is that it had its beginnings in Palestine in the first century C.E.
Pretty bold statement, but right now it only can be considered as just that - a statement. Where's the evidence to support your statement? Please provide it, as we're looking for all of it!
So far it's just been opinions. Nothing of substance to refute what these professional Historians have concluded.
Did Jesus Christ exist, or not?
Thanks,
Jason
Oh, and Baby - Here's Nazareth, on the map:
http://www.ddtravel-acc.com/images/is_map.gif
You'll see the city about 1/4 of the way down.
Posted by: TruthWarrior Feb 18 2004, 04:52 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 08:32 PM)
Oh, and Baby - Here's Nazareth, on the map:
http://www.ddtravel-acc.com/images/is_map.gif
You'll see the city about 1/4 of the way down.
Yeh there it is today, but back when Jesus was supposed to exist it didn't. Nothing but caves and tombs. A graveyard at best. See "http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html"
Posted by: Starflier Feb 18 2004, 05:17 PM
I personally don't care if the biblical Jesus figure existed or not. I wouldn't follow his teachings for the most part anyway. As I said before, no lone celibate, childless male, god or not, in ancient history or even now could possibly be my authority about how to lead my personal life or what to believe.
Aside from that, as I posted to the other thread on this subject, the Piscean Age twained, united fishes symbol or glyph which the NT word or logo referred to was a dual or duo-gendered symbology. It stood for an egalitarian relationship or partnership by a couple or parents of the Aguarian Age humanitarian, humanist child or children. So a lone celibate or asexual
male would hardly be a likely candidate to bring forth such a
Piscean Age teaching by his unmarried, unpartnered, childless example.
For it was the bible's teachings that Jesus the mangod was a role model or example to follow. Even he said so many times
as "Come follow me" meaning imitate me, role model me.
But his role modeling wasn't for the procreation of our race nor was his obviously dysfunctional unholy family he represented. For that family had two fathers, an alleged heavenly invisible deitized father (Jehovah) & an earthly one (Joseph). One one mother though & a virgin at that.
And the biblical Jesus had no children or wife of his own to even carry on the family name as was the Jewish patriarchal
tradition at that time. So a very poor role model example he was. And certainly not one any potential mother or female could learn anything from. For he had absolutely no experience at all related to women, girls, never having been one himself & no family of his own, wife or girlfriend to whom he related.
So no, Jesus was no viable candidate for the Piscean Age all by his lonesome celibate childless self. For the sign of Pisces had two co-rulers, both Neptune & Jupiter. Not merely Jupiter as the godman Jesus represented in Greco-Roman myth or terms. Compare that to the Age of Aries with their ram idol (Aries the Ram) that preceded the Piscean Age. Or the Age of Taurus the Bull with the golden calf & all the sacred cow ideologies in India for instance.
These too were viable biblical ages represented in the OT. As was the Piscean "fishes" Age about the NT or should have been but wasn't is more like it. The NT was more about regressing back into the monotheistic lone male deity Age of Aries the Ram & Ra the Sun God of Egypt. Or Apollo the other Sun God of Roman extraction.
These are obviously solar deities the logo or word (message/meaning) of each solar or new Age. A sun was "Day" or "AGE" in longer cycle terms. Thus the idea of Jesus as son/sun of god. It's the continuance of the same old recycled myths ongoing & continuing even now into the New Age of Aquarius now dawning.
It may be more plausible though, that another nonbiblical Jesus, nephew of Joseph of Arymathea (sp?), & husband to Mary Magdalen & father of their mutual children, is likely a far better co-representative role model. As would have been his wife Mary, the other co-equal Piscean Age partner in bringing forth the relationship message or teachings ([B][Word/Logo] for the Age of Pisces "two as one" fish symbol.
There's much written about that elsewhere & on video tape as well that seems far more the way it was than anything the bible states on the subject or about the alleged lone male deitized Jesus persona.
Isn't it time for a major change & to wake up & smell the roses now blooming in this new age? We no longer need to worship the idols of past ages, imaginary or as statues or icons or as words in a book. We need to face the brave new world as a human family & create out own New Age teachings, messages & their meanings. The biblical Jesus & even the OT messages no longer apply in our time or our age.
So who cares if the biblical or historical Jesus existed? His teachings & message no longer apply to NOW. I say mush onward & let the dying bury the dead.
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 18 2004, 05:26 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 03:49 PM)
To my surprise, I've found a few on this site that actually deny the existence of Jesus Christ! This, as you all probably know, is a very new form of belief.
As the saying goes, it you haven’t heard about it before, it new to you. I would not characterize this as a new form of disbelief. The only thing that’s new about it is the increased level of interest in a lot of the old evidence which suggests Jesus may not have existed (probably thanks to increased communications efficiency fostered by the internet). It's very possible that the Jesus character depicted in NT may just be an amalgamation of previously known god-men myths, and that current day Christianity was appropriated from the Gnostic Christians through Paul (and/or the early church fathers) and then evolved (ironically) into the hundreds and hundreds of sects we see today.
Supplemental –
http://www.worldzone.net/family/johnanders.../indexpg1.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html(same info from two places - take your pick)
The “Parable” at the top is good, but scroll down to at least “Is Jesus a Myth” and read through down to “Is Christianity Real” I have this at home – it was written in 1909.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
Suggested Book I: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/060960581X/002-8279411-9004001?v=glance
Here is a Christian review to save you time (http://www.tektonics.org/TF.JM_060960581X.html ).
I have this one as well, and I actually read the tectonics review before I bought it so I could understand the Christian bias before reading it.
Suggested Book II: http://www.cafeshops.com/disinfo.7895029
There is an outstanding article in this book on how even today, there is plenty of inaccurate news adopted and disseminated by the media where they have not done their due diligence, and disinformation is spread....
Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 18 2004, 06:19 PM
QUOTE (Starflier @ Feb 18 2004, 08:17 PM)
I personally don't care if the biblical Jesus figure existed or not.
Exactly!!!!!
I never understood the desire some Christians have to use history and science to prove anything about their faith. What difference does it make?
Even if you could PROVE to me to everything in the Bible is true, it would do nothing to prove to me that your god is worthy of my worship.
There must be some god organization we can all appeal to. I mean our god is obviously defective. Perhaps he is just an apprentice god or something.
Posted by: bob Feb 18 2004, 06:32 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 04:32 PM)
Here's the problem: Are you an expert in History? If not, are there experts in History that can attest to your statement, based on their expertise?
I'm not a History expert either. However, these statements are made by people that are. They line up with my belief that Jesus Christ did in fact exist.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but generally, historians are respected as experts in that field of study. In other words, they have supposedly done the research for us. They know the evidence to support the claims they make. I'm simply providing these statements so solidify my claim.
By the way, when speaking of historical things, when searching for evidence, the findings of these Historians are respected as held as support (either way) to the given topic. Contrary to what you may believe, these opinions do bring a foundation of authority. Otherwise, there would be no reason to include them in our discussions. In fact, there would be no use for them at all.
This is why I can't debate with you Jason. You claim that the history experts all agree that the biblical Jesus existed, yet you do not give the evidence that they use to come to that conclusion. All you have done is parrot their opinions. Yet when we voice our opinion, you point out that we are not experts. If the greatest, most powerful historian in all the land said that he believed that the biblical Jesus really lived, I would ask; on what do you base that statement? His opinion means nothing to me without some evidence to back it up.
Do I think the biblical Jesus existed?, I don't know. I have not been presented any contemporary testimony.
Here are the names Andy Flom tried to pass off as contemporary evidence;
Cornelius Tacitus
It doesn't matter what Tacitus writes. He wasn't even born until 20+ years after Jesus supposedly died. Tacitus is not a witness. He is simply writing what he has heard.
Lucian of Samosata
Born about 100 years after Jesus death. He doesn't count either. He was not a witness.
Suetonius
Born about 40 years after Jesus died. He doesn't count either. He was not a witness.
Thallus
No one knows when he lived. All they have are a few early christian writers quoting him. They don't even have any of his writings left.
Julius Africanus
Born about 130 years after Jesus died. He doesn't count either. He was not a witness.
Pliny
Born about 30 years after Jesus died. He doesn't count either. He was not a witness.
Maraben Serapion in a letter (which can be viewed in the British Museum) wrote about the Jews who executed "their wise king".
This was written sometime after 73 AD. No where in Sarapion's writings does he say he personally witnessed the event of Jesus' death. It was written 40+ years after the event. It means nothing.
Josephus
He was born in AD 37...4 years after your own date on your own website, for the death of Jesus. He did not see the event. He only heard about it. He was not a witness. He doesn't count.
And besides, there are only two accounts in his writings where Jesus is mentioned. The one has been considered (by christian and non christian scholars) as an addition by later copyists, not the writings of Josephus.
I give up already.
Posted by: moorezw Feb 18 2004, 07:36 PM
JayS8NT-
QUOTE
Where's the evidence to support your statement? Please provide it, as we're looking for all of it!
I'll provide proof that Jesus never existed as soon as you provide proof that Santa Clause doesn't exist.
The reason I don't believe that Jesus necessarily existed is because there is, at best, marginal evidence to that effect. Without conclusive evidence, the only logical conclusion is that he probably did not.
If you believe so strongly that Jesus did exist, please provide the evidence to support that. I'm not interested in testimonals, even from atheists.
Posted by: Guest Feb 18 2004, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (Starflier @ Feb 18 2004, 05:17 PM)
Aside from that, as I posted to the other thread on this subject, the Piscean Age twained, united fishes symbol or glyph which the NT word or logo referred to was a dual or duo-gendered symbology. It stood for an egalitarian relationship or partnership by a couple or parents of the Aguarian Age humanitarian, humanist child or children.
At times it is asked why people continue to return to this site. In my case, the main reason is the humor, such as the convoluted logic often presented by Christians to support their house of cards positions. But Starflier, you dismiss religion but believe in astrology? Good one!!!
And you condemn a man for not having fathered children? I saw a show on A&E which showed a man who fathered eight children by six different women, none of whom he had married or supported. This must be the ideal man for you.
Posted by: PriorWorrier Feb 18 2004, 08:00 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 03:49 PM)
Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed!
Jason,
I think you've confused hearsay with evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. There is no evidence of Jesus' life, period.
It only occurred to xtians a few decades after Jesus' death that it might be necessary to capture in writing some of the myths and legends that surrounded him. You can follow the increasingly exaggerated claims about his life just through the chronology of the four Gospels, in the order they were actually written instead of how they were rearranged in the NT. Bible scholars today don't believe that the authors of the Gospels or other NT books even met Jesus. The conflicting accounts of his life in those Gospels alone make the tales highly suspect. The writings attributed to Paul originated before the Gospels and show no awareness of many of the claims made in the Gospels.
The Church crafted their own image of Jesus and effectively suppressed any other (than orthodox) interpretations of who and what he was. It's convenient to the xtian faith that his life occurred during a moment of history when no confirmation of any of the events surrounding his life can be examined. Faith alone in hearsay upon hearsay has to suffice. That's all you really have to support any of your xtian beliefs. And it's the same brand of faith that fuels Muslims and others.
You might as well get back to trying to persuade us that a cuddly relationship with sweet Jesus is what proves xtianity to you. There's no real historical evidence that he existed, or if he did that he's not who the Muslims claimed him to be.
p.s. I think your avatar is Jesus in a rollercoaster getting ready to go down a 40 degree decline.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 18 2004, 08:14 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 06:49 PM)
>To my surprise, I've found a few on this site that actually >deny the existence of Jesus Christ! This, as you all probably >know, is a very new form of belief.
No it isn't. It's a 2,000 year old belief. THe gnostics, the ORIGINAL christians didn't believe in a historical jesus, christ was a spiritual metaphor of their higher self. Gnostics were very metaphorical and non-literal and not interested in condemning others, so since it's kindof hard to control a whole people with that kind of philosophy, constantine embraced the literalist form of christianity which was a later corruption, then of course gnostics were deemed heretics as bad as pagans and they were all killed in crusades etc. The rest is history.
The truth is...literal christianity is the heresy. but they won't teach you THAT in church because they ARE the heresy.
The bible is not a history but myth. mythological things happen. Donkeys and snakes talk, bushes catch fire but don't burn, men walk on water and turn water into wine, dead people are raised, etc. These are things that do not happen in our time and haven't happened ever. Now if I were to give you a holy text from another religion with all kinds of miracles in it (which you obviously wouldn't believe in because they aren't from your religion) then you would say: "that can't be counted as history because there is no proof any of that happened, and things like that just don't happen."
So i'm sorry. You will say i'm ruling out miracles a priori. YOu are damn right I am, because they have never happened. they go against the way we all know the world works. So no, a book of fables cannot contribute to historical record. Especially when that book of fables is filled with contradictions.
so yes, please lets move on to the nonbiblical evidence.
your quote from the smithsonian is just a mere assertion they made. I find it ludicrous to say a fable is historically accurate. Also...just for shits and giggles, are you aware that the exodus never happened, there is no record anywhere of moses or israelites being slaves in egypt or any exodus...not artifacts anywhere NEAR mt. sinai or the route out of egypt were EVER found. Also, in that charming tale we are expected to believe lots of supernatural hogwash. so no. I don't think so. It is cultural conditioning that causes ANYONE to say anything that ludicrous. And there are smart people who are christians. I seriously seriously seriously doubt that the smithsonian in any way is trying to get us to believe they believe donkey's talking and sea's parting is in anyway historical.
as for geography of the bible...yes the bible has some real places in it and it has been helpful, but that doesn't make the stories themselves true. If i write a fictional story set in new york city, it doesn't mean it's true just because new york city exists.
please please let's move away from the bible as proof.
serious scholars actually HAVE ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy are serious scholars who stated just that. They also cite many many references in their work of other serious scholars who say the same.
just because a lot of people think jesus existed historically doesn't mean he did. a lot of people used to think the earth was flat too. truth is not determined by popular vote. Now offer the proof. Also the reason that it's a very unpopular thing is because it's a sacred cow. most historians and archaeologists etc. in this field are at least nominally christian. For hundreds of years saying jesus didn't exist would have been heresy. Now that we are coming out from under that i'm sure you will be shocked to find many other scholars jumping on this bandwagon.
please lets not dig up the tired old "legend can't be created in that short of a period of time" Yes it can. Legend can be created over the weekend. Haven't you ever heard of an urban legend? they get started and over a weekend are all over the internet.
in addition, the jesus story isn't a legend, it's a myth, it started out as a myth, as a metaphorical mystery religion. but it didn't catch on with the jews, it caught on with the gentiles. Some more common people took the stories as literal not understanding they were myths. this was a very very very superstitious time. people believed practically anything you told them.
Jason, not once in this entire tired diatribe did you mention any evidence AT ALL. why are you stalling? All you mentioned was what a bunch of people THOUGHT hundreds of years after the fact. That's informative *sarcasm*
please give us the evidence you said was overflowing.
Posted by: Starflier Feb 18 2004, 08:39 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 18 2004, 07:46 PM)
At times it is asked why people continue to return to this site. In my case, the main reason is the humor, such as the convoluted logic often presented by Christians to support their house of cards positions. But Starflier, you dismiss religion but believe in astrology? Good one!!!
And you condemn a man for not having fathered children? I saw a show on A&E which showed a man who fathered eight children by six different women, none of whom he had married or supported. This must be the ideal man for you.
I don't know who you are, mystery "guest" but it comes to mind that you're hiding your real identity for a reason.
I'm happy to see though that I've provided you with some laughter to release the toxins in your liver nonetheless. It's said that a good belly laugh is healing for that reason.
But really I'd like more explanation from you about your "religion" & "astrology" comments. For I'm not at all sure what you meant by it. Can you please be more specific so I can address your comments as to your real intention?
As for your misconceived convoluted notion that I condemned Jesus for having been a celibate, childless man, that's totally an erroneous assumption on your part. Apparently either I wasn't articulate enough on that point or else you completely misunderstood me.
But given that I also gave you another belly laugh there, I can surmise that indeed you need to release a lot of poisons & toxins in your system. So if I've accomplished somewhat of a healing for you on that score, then I can thoroughly enjoy the many pats on my back I'm am now giving myself.
What I was trying to get across about Jesus being an unmarried, childless, celibate man is that no such kind of man would be a good role model for the Piscean Age twin fishes symbology. I thought most exChristians here would totally understand the Pisces fishes logo as it's seen everywhere on bumper stickers even & in my KJV Bible & other texts, etc.
So the Piscean fishes is widely accepted as related to the biblical Jesus & the teachings/messages he brought forth for that Age of Pisces. This is nothing new. Though it may be to you.
My point was that Jesus as a childless, unmarried, asexual or celibate man does NOT represent the true meaning of the Pisces two-fishes symbology. Since it's the symbol of TWO fishes facing one another connected with a line between them as ONE UNIT of TWO.
The two connected Pisces fishes are more truthfully symbolized by a COUPLE in relationship, which the lone male Jesus was NOT all by himself. Any good astronomer worth their salt could tell you that. I've got several astronomy books that explain it as well. Must I drag them out & quote from them?
In other words this is not merely an astrology related issue, it's a scientific one as well since astronomy is a science. Most astronomers I've read or heard from are quite well versed on the meanings of the constellations, stars, sun, moon & the Ages they relate to. Apparently you're not. What can I say then?
I learned astronomy in high school & even a bit in grade school. Didn't your schools have astronomy or the mythology related to it in them? One doesn't need to consider religion to know these things. It's basic stuff taught in schools. I'm assuming you did go to school. Or am I assuming too much?
Jesus would have had to be at least married or in a relationship to fulfill the ideology & mythology of the two connected fishes for the Pisean Age the NT represents.
Get it? Got it? Good!
Now I'll await your comments about what you meant by your "religion/astrology" statement. Then I'll address that.
Posted by: Outsider Feb 18 2004, 08:48 PM
I got this from the site Jay posted in the "Mel Gibson's Movie"
http://www.historical-jesus.net/
QUOTE
...the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Outside the Gospels, no legitimate scholar will dispute that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s.
I did not want to quote to whole thing, but I left a link so you can read the context of the article. This caught my attention because it says that Mark was written in the 50s. I have never heard this and was wondering if anyone here has heard this. Most stuff I have read has stated that Mark was written as early as the 70s. This question may seem a bit of the OP, but the site used this as evidence for the historical Jesus.
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 18 2004, 10:22 PM
The NT created a special birth story, and Christians never wonder why would the Magi wish to venerate a new king of the Jews? Such a thing would have been meaningless to them; they were Persians. They were not even of the Roman Empire. However, if you presume divinity, and you presume that the Three Wise Men were revealed information from biblegod, perhaps it would make sense. This would mean biblegod gave a revelation to PAGANS, rather than to Jews or soon to be Christians. Why would he (biblegod) allow this interpretation to the Zoroastrian priesthood but not to the Jewish one, his alleged target audience???
So there I was, out running last week, and it was clear night. Looking up, Orion’s belt was right above me. I’d never noticed before that the three stars that comprise Orion’s belt make a line…as if they were headed for a particularly bright star out ahead of them. That notable star turns out to be Sirius, the most brilliant in all the heavens, which rises in the East in line with those three stars of Orion’s belt.
Three wise men coming from (somewhere)…and a star in the East.
How about that?
BTW - Good stuff on that post Zoe (get out of my head).
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 18 2004, 11:05 PM
QUOTE
I did not want to quote to whole thing, but I left a link so you can read the context of the article. This caught my attention because it says that Mark was written in the 50s. I have never heard this and was wondering if anyone here has heard this. Most stuff I have read has stated that Mark was written as early as the 70s. This question may seem a bit of the OP, but the site used this as evidence for the historical Jesus.
This dating schema comes from an interesting book called "Redating the New Testament" by James A.T. Robinson, a liberal anglican NT scholar writing circ 1975 IIRC. It's an interesting read. He basically makes a decent case that none of the NT was written after 70 CE, since none of them refer to the temple's destruction as a past event, and the prophecies regarding the temple's destruction are all inaccurate. In other words, he bases his dating schema on the unfulfilled prophecies of Jesus, and in the process proves that either (a) the gospels are unreliable history because they paint Jesus as a false prophet, or (
Jesus was a false prophet - in either case, Robinson unintentionally destroyed the basis of Christianity by pursuing his case for early dating. Several of his arguments I found to be compelling, but on the topics of John, Revelation, the Pastorals, and Luke/Acts, I found his reasoning unconvincing for a number of reasons. The book is worth a read though, as conservative scholars generally cite it as THE only valid dating schema while completely ignoring what that schema does to their theology. Liberal and secular scholars have generally ignored it for reasons of weak argumentation (his argument from unfulfilled prophecy trumps all other arguments to the point where he casually dismisses Luke/Acts' clear dependence on Josephus [in the form of near-verbatim quoting that mixes up the order of events, indicating that Luke's author probably heard Josephus read aloud or read it previously but did not have a copy in front of him, putting Luke/Acts firmly in 96CE], for example), and because liberal Christian scholars recognize that accepting a pre-70 CE dating for the gospels means that they are admitting that Christ was a false prophet. There have also been archaeological discoveries since R-DtNT was written (i.e. round burial stones were not used until well after the destruction of the temple, and then only by the gentry) that point to interpolations (at least) if not whole-cloth authorship coming after 70CE which throw doubt on Robinson's hypothesis.Jay:
On the subject of the historicity of Jesus, there are a few issues to contend with. First, you are correct in your assertion that ahistoricity is not a popular scholarly opinion. You are incorrect in your assessment of what that means. A great many historians and biblical scholars believe that Jesus MAY have existed (Robert Price, Burton Mack, et.al.), but that his true life is hopelessly lost to us and that we have no way of being sure that he existed at all.
But mythicism is not new, nor is the case for it as far-fetched and thin as you apparently believe. Celus, the stoic opponent to Christianity, attacked the historicity and truth of the faith in the 2nd century. Justin Martyr, in defending against similar attacks from others, stated ""When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21]
Note: he did not defend a historical Jesus. He simply said "My myths are no different from your myths." Of course, one of the reasons for this is that the ancient mind did not have the same categories, and something happening in a spiritual plane was just as real as the material plane (Aristotle deals extensively with this, as does Plato from a different angle in his parable of the cave).
Notable scholars and churchmen have espoused a myth-man or mythic history (in which a guy "might" have existed, but he is now so bound up in myth we can't tell who he is) Christ include: Robert Taylor (17th c Anglican priest), Gerald Massey (19th c egyptologist), Joseph Wheellas (19th c historian - I know I have the name spelled wrong), Joseph McCabe (20th c Jesuit historian and inquisitor), Albert Schweitzer (partial mythicist - believed the quest for a historical Jesus was futile because the details of his life were lost to us), several popes in the middle ages, and many, many more (this does not include contemporary scholars). This is not a new idea, nor is it as unrespectable as contemporary scholarship would have one believe. It became politically incorrect to espouse mythicism during the 20s - one of the fallouts of the fundamentalist movement gaining power in the U.S. after the Scopes trial.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is NO extra-biblical evidence - except for the Gospel of Thomas - that testifies to a historical Jesus. And Thomas' dating is hopelessly muddy and contraversial, no one knows whether it was written in the mid first or early second century, and opinions vary wildly. The other apocryphal gospels have the same problem. The history of the period has been so thoroughly bowdlerized and redacted by Eusibius and his successors (self-admitted frauds, liars, and forgers) that we will likely never know what really happened.
I personally think it's likely that there was a guy at the back of it all, for one reason and one reason only. The Testimonium Flavium in Josephus (the forgery that attests to the Gospel Jesus) appears in 3 different forms from 3 different branches of Christianity, but they all appear in the same place. This suggests to me that there was a reference to a real guy there, and that it was unflattering or directly called into doubt the veracity of the gospel accounts, so the Xian scribes were compelled to change it, each in a different fashion.
As for FF Bruce, the guy was a good historian, but he was very hopelessly compromised by his bias. His assertion that we know more about Christ than Caesar is ludicrous, and most respectable theologians wince at the statement. Julius wrote histories, we have busts and coins of his image from the time he lived, we have archaeological evidence of battles he fought, we have contemporary inscriptions on temples dedicated to him less than a year after his death. Jesus wrote nothing, did nothing, and said nothing that was notable enough for anyone to record until at least 25 years later (by the most conservative estimate). The earliest person to bear testimony to him (Paul) mentions only that he had a mother, was decended of David, and was killed (and this is ignoring textual problems in 1 Cor. which are highly disputed in textual criticism circles). No ministry. No miracles. No physical resurrection appearances (although there are visions attested to).
Bruce was wrong, and overreaching.
Hopefully, this gives you something more to go on besides arguing from authority. The glory of this kind of research is that anyone can be wrong. Growing up in academia I know something about it that you don't: Professors lie to protect their positions. There are many, many, many professors who believe one thing, but make their public position on contraversial matters a few degrees more conservative than they really are. In the case of Christian institutions, many profs sign doctrinal statements that they can only agree with by the most elaborate rationalizations because they need the position to feed their families. This is an aspect that gets lost in much debate on contraversial issues, and is one of the reasons that you cannot argue via meaningless appeals to authority.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Starflier Feb 18 2004, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Feb 18 2004, 10:22 PM)
So there I was, out running last week, and it was clear night. Looking up, Orion’s belt was right above me. I’d never noticed before that the three stars that comprise Orion’s belt make a line…as if they were headed for a particularly bright star out ahead of them. That notable star turns out to be Sirius, the most brilliant in all the heavens, which rises in the East in line with those three stars of Orion’s belt.
Three wise men coming from …and a star in the East.
How about that?
BTW - Good stuff on that post Zoe (get out of my head).
How about that indeed! Wonderful!!
As an aside...relative to the constellation Orion, the three stars in Orion's belt & Sirius... Those three stars were in total alignment over the 3 pyramids on the Giza plateau. As if the pyramids were purposefully built there to align exactly with those stars in the heavens directly over them.
There exists a shaft in the Great Pyarmid that, when the star Sirius, was heliacal (at a certain angle) rising, it's beam shone through that shaft. This had great spiritual meaning to the ancient Egyptians.
However, due to the constellations' precession, the alignment today no longer exists. But it is shown on astronomical software that dates back that far.
Also in the Great Pyramid there exists a geometric angle built into it. That angle is called "The Angle of Course" & also "The Christ Angle". It forms a direct line pointing from the Great Giza Pyramid straight toward Bethlehem & then onward to the top of the Dead Sea.
A geographical picture of that angle is on p. 18 of "The Great Pyarmid Decoded" by philospher, psychologist, prophet, astrologer, Egyptologist, pyramidologist, Peter Lemesurier.
The Great Pyramid also contains a "Messianc Triangle" architectural geometric configuration & various others that Lemesurier relates to many & sundry ancient religious myths & figures up to & including the bibical Jesus aka "Joshua the Nazarene". He explains all the religious myths & meanings based on the structure & timelines recorded in the architecture of the pyramid's passages, rooms, wall & angles.
He of course, brings both astronomy & astrology into the mix as they are as necessary as the religious myths & figures are.
It is a totally fascinating read.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 18 2004, 11:26 PM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Feb 19 2004, 01:22 AM)
The NT created a special birth story, and Christians never wonder why would the Magi wish to venerate a new king of the Jews? Such a thing would have been meaningless to them; they were Persians. They were not even of the Roman Empire. However, if you presume divinity, and you presume that the Three Wise Men were revealed information from biblegod, perhaps it would make sense. This would mean biblegod gave a revelation to PAGANS, rather than to Jews or soon to be Christians. Why would he (biblegod) allow this interpretation to the Zoroastrian priesthood but not to the Jewish one, his alleged target audience???
So there I was, out running last week, and it was clear night. Looking up, Orion’s belt was right above me. I’d never noticed before that the three stars that comprise Orion’s belt make a line…as if they were headed for a particularly bright star out ahead of them. That notable star turns out to be Sirius, the most brilliant in all the heavens, which rises in the East in line with those three stars of Orion’s belt.
Three wise men coming from (somewhere)…and a star in the East.
How about that?
BTW - Good stuff on that post Zoe (get out of my head).
hehe. sorry
btw...i really like the orion's belt and sirius connection you made with the nativity. Considering that There is a theory that the 12 disciples were symbolic of the 12 zodiac symbols, and Jesus was the "SUN" dying for 3 days as does the sun at the winter solstice. I just find all the symbolism fascinating. Do you have any references to the orion thing? i'd like to read further if it's available.
Posted by: bob Feb 19 2004, 04:24 AM
QUOTE (PriorWorrier @ Feb 18 2004, 08:00 PM)
p.s. I think your avatar is Jesus in a rollercoaster getting ready to go down a 40 degree decline.
cool
Posted by: moorezw Feb 19 2004, 05:04 AM
QUOTE (Outsider @ Feb 18 2004, 11:48 PM)
This caught my attention because it says that Mark was written in the 50s. I have never heard this and was wondering if anyone here has heard this. Most stuff I have read has stated that Mark was written as early as the 70s. This question may seem a bit of the OP, but the site used this as evidence for the historical Jesus.
Outsider-
The basis for their early dating is their assertion that Paul was alive when Acts was written, so that places a ceiling of 64 C.E. on the writing of the gospels.
While it is true that Paul's execution is not recorded in Acts, an equally likely reason is that the author of that work intentionally left out his death, for any number of reasons.
Posted by: ericf Feb 19 2004, 05:52 AM
Although there are thousands of reasons not to believe in the existence of Jesus... I am not going to cover them. What I do want to mention is the really cool connection to Mithra.
In short, Mithra became a popular god when our planet precessed (think of the north pole like the flip-flopping top of a spinning top) out of one constelation and into a new one. His followers saw this as a sign that he had killed the God of the past and would bring about a new age. This fits really well because a couple of thousand years later the stars are moving again and they need to find the next king of the gods. If the three wise men were Mithric priests (and there is reason to suspect they were) they would have gone looking for this newly born God.
This alone could have been the impetus for the Jews (or a small sect of them) believing their Messiah had finally come. This core group took the teachings about Mithra -- he and Jesus did all sorts of the SAME stuff -- and spread it about. It was a pretty radical biblical shift for most Jews so it caught on with the gentiles more.
I really wish I could find the book and/or links where I was reading this. Good stuff. I did read up on the Mithric beliefs and they are pretty similar to our Christ-myths of modern day.
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 19 2004, 06:36 AM
QUOTE (ericf @ Feb 19 2004, 05:52 AM)
Although there are thousands of reasons not to believe in the existence of Jesus... I am not going to cover them. What I do want to mention is the really cool connection to Mithra.
In short, Mithra became a popular god when our planet precessed (think of the north pole like the flip-flopping top of a spinning top) out of one constelation and into a new one. His followers saw this as a sign that he had killed the God of the past and would bring about a new age. This fits really well because a couple of thousand years later the stars are moving again and they need to find the next king of the gods. If the three wise men were Mithric priests (and there is reason to suspect they were) they would have gone looking for this newly born God.
This alone could have been the impetus for the Jews (or a small sect of them) believing their Messiah had finally come. This core group took the teachings about Mithra -- he and Jesus did all sorts of the SAME stuff -- and spread it about. It was a pretty radical biblical shift for most Jews so it caught on with the gentiles more.
I really wish I could find the book and/or links where I was reading this. Good stuff. I did read up on the Mithric beliefs and they are pretty similar to our Christ-myths of modern day.
I thought Mithraism and Christianity links had been pretty much discounted by a number of people. Or, that there was not very much left about Mithras to really form a comparison.
-UV
Posted by: ericf Feb 19 2004, 06:55 AM
There is tons of info in Mithric beliefs. Most of the actual practice is unknown since they were a mystery cult but their beliefs and artifacts are well recognized. I don't know that is has been specifically discredited or not... I would doubt it mainly because there isn't a "physical" connection to deny but rather a philosophical one. We can deny that Gilgamesh and Noah are the same person (physical connection) but it is very hard to deny that their stories are somehow connected (philosophical connection).
It is the ideas I am interested in. I am not sure about the history itself but it is something to look into. The article I was reading on it was fairly new (had to be within the last two years) so who knows. Either way it is fun to look at.
Posted by: KJPee Feb 19 2004, 07:22 AM
It appears the issue is not that Jesus existed, but who he claimed to be. Isn't that what this is really all about? There were many other historical figures during that time, who have never had the the same amount of scrutiny regarding their existence that Jesus has had to endure. Evidence! You scream. Even if there were witnesses, they would somehow be discredited. The goal posts are forever moving. We still aren't quite sure who shot JFK. We're not really sure if OJ Simpson really is a murderer. I'm not sure what I had for breakfast.
Posted by: Guest Feb 19 2004, 08:26 AM
QUOTE (Starflier @ Feb 18 2004, 08:39 PM)
The two connected Pisces fishes are more truthfully symbolized by a COUPLE in relationship, which the lone male Jesus was NOT all by himself. Any good astronomer worth their salt could tell you that. I've got several astronomy books that explain it as well. Must I drag them out & quote from them?
In other words this is not merely an astrology related issue, it's a scientific one as well since astronomy is a science. Most astronomers I've read or heard from are quite well versed on the meanings of the constellations, stars, sun, moon & the Ages they relate to. Apparently you're not. What can I say then?
Jesus would have had to be at least married or in a relationship to fulfill the ideology & mythology of the two connected fishes for the Pisean Age the NT represents.
Get it? Got it? Good!
Starflier
I think you place too much emphasis on the meaning of the Pisces constellation as a codependent relationship between two individuals. I don't have my big book of astrology handy, but I feel that Pisces is more closely related to this web site description: "Surrender to the universe, to higher goals; ego sacrifice; compassion and empathy, selfless work; seeing the unity of all things; the ends of cycles, forming "seeds" for the next cycle of growth". It would seem to me that Jesus's teachings would fit in quite well with this meaning of the Piscean Age.
As for the inappropriateness of forced celibacy as a life style for church leaders, I'll give you that one. Just look at the mess in the priesthood of the Catholic Church. But I don't think Jesus said that all people should stop procreating and therefore the species should cease to exist.
As for the connection between astrology and astronomy, of course astronomers use the constellations as a convenient tool for mapping the location of objects on the celestial sphere. But thats it. Most would not say there is any validity to the claim that positions of the stars and planets are able to affect the fate of human beings. I may be mistaken but I get the impression that you believe there is something more to astrology. That's what I find humorous.
Posted by: ericf Feb 19 2004, 08:48 AM
QUOTE (KJPee @ Feb 19 2004, 07:22 AM)
It appears the issue is not that Jesus existed, but who he claimed to be. Isn't that what this is really all about? There were many other historical figures during that time, who have never had the the same amount of scrutiny regarding their existence that Jesus has had to endure. Evidence! You scream. Even if there were witnesses, they would somehow be discredited. The goal posts are forever moving. We still aren't quite sure who shot JFK. We're not really sure if OJ Simpson really is a murderer. I'm not sure what I had for breakfast.
There were lots of people... yes -- but none who have had the amount of evil done in their name as Christ. The claims made are incredible and require sufficent proof. The fact that every detail of his "life" contradicts actual history seems to indicate that he is an ideal figure used by a group to emotionally invest followers. If there were witnesses that would be a different story -- the fact is that every person who wrote about Jesus never met him, ever. We all know who shot JFK -- John Dillinger under orders from the LDD -- at least those of us who need to know and are in the position to know. Maybe OJ did it... I think he did but I am not a witness so I can't assert that he is a murderer and start a religion over it. As for what you had for breakfast... there is likely some evidence, possibly a witness, and if I was going to base a religion on it there are medical methods to determine with a fair degree of certainty what it was.
The fact of the matter is that most fundamentalists assert that his existence must be as described in the bible. It is heresy to say that he was an ideal -- pick a side of the fence and stay on it... no one likes splinters in their ass-crack.
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 19 2004, 09:14 AM
QUOTE (KJPee @ Feb 19 2004, 07:22 AM)
It appears the issue is not that Jesus existed, but who he claimed to be. Isn't that what this is really all about? There were many other historical figures during that time, who have never had the the same amount of scrutiny regarding their existence that Jesus has had to endure. Evidence! You scream. Even if there were witnesses, they would somehow be discredited. The goal posts are forever moving. We still aren't quite sure who shot JFK. We're not really sure if OJ Simpson really is a murderer. I'm not sure what I had for breakfast.
You're forgetting a very salient point here. None of the books of the NT were written by Jesus. An important distinction.
How do you know anything that was attributed to having been said by Jesus was not made up