Did Christ really exist ?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The more conservative scholars.

Seeing how Mark makes reference to the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), and seeing how the other synoptic Gospels apparently use Mark as a source, it would seem that these "more conservative scholars" are unlikely to be correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just who Jesus was is a matter of belief. Josephus was a Jew, and so "the so called Christ" is to be expected.

According to the story, the Apostles were also Jews. The issue doesn't seem to be their prior religion; the issue seems to be that Josephus didn't see a compelling reason to believe that Jesus really was the Messiah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More conservative scholars who rely on the internal and external evidence without assumptions that the destruction of the temple prophecy means they were written post 70 AD.

Ah... I get it:

For Mark 13 to be a genuine prophecy, it has to have been written before the destruction of the Temple, so that's where the maximum of "40 years" came from... right?

They don't actually have, say, a manuscript - or even fragments - that can be reliably dated before 70 CE, do they?

 

[joelr]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

Of course it is? Look up how many people have been deeply affected by Lord Krishna.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

Carrier touches on these historical mentions and Bart Ehrman says the same:

18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.

19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”

Actually, he probably didn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.

20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”

No, he doesn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.11).

Bishop also deceptively quote-mines Van Voorst here, a dishonest apologetic tactic, for which Bishop should be ashamed. Bishop claims:
"Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32)."

Here is what Van Voorst actually said:
"Who is Chrestus? The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled."

21. “Serapion mentions Jesus”

That’s both disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.

22. “Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”

Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.

23. “Lucian mentions Jesus”

Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

and so on...

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The 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 at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

Anti-Christian writings were heretical, destroyed when found and were punishable by death. Any that may have existed up until 4AD were definitely going bye bye once Christianity became law in Rome. Then in 12AD comes the Roman Catholic Church. Can you imagine that they did not welcome heretical writings?

Also sourcing an encyclopedia is problematic. There is a field of PhD who write books on the historical view.

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

Actually doing what this quote suggests is an entire field. This is what theology is. Assume it's really god messages and interpret what it means. It's done in Islam, Hinduism and all religions. Doesn't mean they are real.

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

You cannot demonstrate that at all? What the gospels are written like are mythical narratives made up by highly educated writers using all mythical literary devices and are highly fictional accounts of a type of religion that was already popular in that area. Dying/rising demigods was already a common story. We also know most of the OT are either following Mesopotamian creation stories or from 5BC are Persian myths - apocalyptic ideas, messianic ideas, good vs evil, Satan vs God. So that really suggests these were just religious myths same as all other cultures had because sharing ideas among religions was and is very common. Religious syncretism.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

If all it takes is a story about a God saying "listen to me" for you to follow then cool. I think better evidence would be in order.

This is a PhD explaining what historians generally think nowdays:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death"

 

[YoursTrue]

We know from numerous historical original source documents that the Apostles existed, and started the churches. It seems to me that this would not have happened if Jesus were to be completely fictitious. Now, does that mean that the gospel accounts are accurate? No, we can't conclude that -- they were written decades later. But I think it is fair to say that a historical Jesus existed, and that we can perhaps pull him out of the soup of later editing in of Christian doctrine and Greek mythology, to get to know him a little bit as a nice Jewish man who taught Torah, engaged in debates on Jewish law as was the custom of the time, and who aspired to be the messiah but failed.

At a certain point, some Jews realized he was the Messiah (in other words, the Christ or mashiach they were awaiting). Meantime, are some still standing by Rabbi Schneerson's tomb, waiting for a resurrection?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it is? Look up how many people have been deeply affected by Lord Krishna.
...

You know, I was just thinking about that. (Isn't that remarkable?) And the covenant from God regarding the laws and the way the Israelites should live in detail was given only to the Israelites by means of Moses. Before, during, and after the making of that covenant there were other religious practices in the world, not just the Jews. It doesn't mean, however, that all religions were founded by God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At a certain point, some Jews realized he was the Messiah (in other words, the Christ or mashiach they were awaiting). Meantime, are some still standing by Rabbi Schneerson's tomb, waiting for a resurrection?

Yes, they are lovely Jews -- I love how they invite Jews to become more observant in a spirit of love without coming across as condemning or holier than thou. I love to attend Chabad for shabbat whenever I can. And the Rebbe is an inspiration to me. But in terms of the Rebbe being the Messiah, this is considered a heretical belief. No messiahs that don't fulfill the prophecies!!!!

 

[Heyo]

That does not mean that any magic in the stories is not true.

That's right. Magic is a thing of belief. All scientists and rational people exclude magic categorically from their work. Almost all religions categorically include it in their work. And while the believers are unable to show even one case of magic, scientists and philosophers seem to be unable to sufficiently disprove the possibility of magic so conclusive that the believers are convinced.

 

[joelr]

You know, I was just thinking about that. (Isn't that remarkable?) And the covenant from God regarding the laws and the way the Israelites should live in detail was given only to the Israelites by means of Moses. Before, during, and after the making of that covenant there were other religious practices in the world, not just the Jews. It doesn't mean, however, that all religions were founded by God.

None were, they are all myths founded by men. Moses is considered a myth in scholarship but a story that was needed by those people, as explained by Carol Myers:

"We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history—George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.

The Moses of the Bible is larger than life. The Moses of the Bible is a diplomat negotiating with the pharaoh; he is a lawgiver bringing the Ten Commandments, the Covenant, down from Sinai. The Moses of the Bible is a military man leading the Israelites in battles. He's the one who organizes Israel's judiciary. He's also the prophet par excellence and a quasi-priestly figure involved in offering sacrifices and setting up the priestly complex, the tabernacle. There's virtually nothing in terms of national leadership that Moses doesn't do. And, of course, he's also a person, a family man.

Now, no one individual could possibly have done all that. So the tales are a kind of aggrandizement. He is also associated with miracles—the memorable story of being found in a basket in the Nile and being saved, miraculously, to grow up in the pharaoh's household. And he dies somewhere in the mountains of Moab. Only God knows where he's buried; God is said to have buried him. This is highly unusual and, again, accords him a special place.
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS
Of course the Israelite stories/religion would say their God gave them the rules and they were special and so on? And would put down competing nations.

 

[Brian2]

Seeing how Mark makes reference to the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), and seeing how the other synoptic Gospels apparently use Mark as a source, it would seem that these "more conservative scholars" are unlikely to be correct.

It sounds like you then would agree with the dating of the synoptic gospels after 70AD because you also assume that prophecy cannot happen. That would mean ignoring internal and external evidence for the sake of your assumption.

 

[Brian2]

According to the story, the Apostles were also Jews. The issue doesn't seem to be their prior religion; the issue seems to be that Josephus didn't see a compelling reason to believe that Jesus really was the Messiah.

Yes of course.

 

[Brian2]

Ah... I get it:

For Mark 13 to be a genuine prophecy, it has to have been written before the destruction of the Temple, so that's where the maximum of "40 years" came from... right?

They don't actually have, say, a manuscript - or even fragments - that can be reliably dated before 70 CE, do they?

No they don't have manuscripts or fragments that can be reliably dated to before 70AD.
They wanted to see when the gospel accounts were writtten, based on the internal and external evidence (without making any assumptions about prophecy one way or the other) and they came up with pre 70AD dates because of the evidence.
It was the more modern Higher Criticism scholars who put in the assumption that post 70AD was a must,,,,,,,,,,,,,they meaning they had to ignore the internal and external evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not interested in taking on advancing the mythicist position: I don't hold it, but neither do I not hold it.

OK.

 

[Brian2]

Of course it is? Look up how many people have been deeply affected by Lord Krishna.


Carrier touches on these historical mentions and Bart Ehrman says the same:

18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.

19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”

Actually, he probably didn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.

20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”

No, he doesn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.11).

Bishop also deceptively quote-mines Van Voorst here, a dishonest apologetic tactic, for which Bishop should be ashamed. Bishop claims:
"Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32)."

Here is what Van Voorst actually said:
"Who is Chrestus? The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled."

21. “Serapion mentions Jesus”

That’s both disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.

22. “Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”

Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.

23. “Lucian mentions Jesus”

Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.

and so on...


Anti-Christian writings were heretical, destroyed when found and were punishable by death. Any that may have existed up until 4AD were definitely going bye bye once Christianity became law in Rome. Then in 12AD comes the Roman Catholic Church. Can you imagine that they did not welcome heretical writings?

Also sourcing an encyclopedia is problematic. There is a field of PhD who write books on the historical view.




Actually doing what this quote suggests is an entire field. This is what theology is. Assume it's really god messages and interpret what it means. It's done in Islam, Hinduism and all religions. Doesn't mean they are real.


You cannot demonstrate that at all? What the gospels are written like are mythical narratives made up by highly educated writers using all mythical literary devices and are highly fictional accounts of a type of religion that was already popular in that area. Dying/rising demigods was already a common story. We also know most of the OT are either following Mesopotamian creation stories or from 5BC are Persian myths - apocalyptic ideas, messianic ideas, good vs evil, Satan vs God. So that really suggests these were just religious myths same as all other cultures had because sharing ideas among religions was and is very common. Religious syncretism.


If all it takes is a story about a God saying "listen to me" for you to follow then cool. I think better evidence would be in order.

This is a PhD explaining what historians generally think nowdays:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death"

The people who knew and were disciples of Jesus (and a couple of others) wrote about Him and you have to assume that was some sort of conspiracy of lies and even need third and fourth hand reports from historians just to show that Jesus existed. Or even if you think He existed I guess you want to ignore what those who knew Him said and find out what He was on about through others who disagree with the reports of those who knew Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It sounds like you then would agree with the dating of the synoptic gospels after 70AD because you also assume that prophecy cannot happen.

No, it means recognizing that the author likely put that passage in Mark 13 as evidence that Jesus is what the author was claiming.

Whether Jesus - if he actually existed - really said what's he's quoted as saying in Mark 13 is a separate issue... but even if the quote is genuine, it's not compelling until the prophecy is actually fulfilled.

That would mean ignoring internal and external evidence for the sake of your assumption.

What evidence?

Do you actually have a manuscript dated to before the destruction of the Temple?

 

[Brian2]

That's right. Magic is a thing of belief. All scientists and rational people exclude magic categorically from their work. Almost all religions categorically include it in their work. And while the believers are unable to show even one case of magic, scientists and philosophers seem to be unable to sufficiently disprove the possibility of magic so conclusive that the believers are convinced.

Probably all primitive people saw lightning as magic once. Then science found a mechanism. Hey Presto, no magic. These days other primitive people see miracles written in the Bible as magic. One day God may tell us the mechanism.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, they are lovely Jews -- I love how they invite Jews to become more observant in a spirit of love without coming across as condemning or holier than thou. I love to attend Chabad for shabbat whenever I can. And the Rebbe is an inspiration to me. But in terms of the Rebbe being the Messiah, this is considered a heretical belief. No messiahs that don't fulfill the prophecies!!!!

I think Jesus fulfilled more prophecies that you even recognise as Messianic. But of course it is not that He did not fulfil them, it is that you do not believe what the Gospels say He did let alone who Jesus said that He is.
If He rose from the dead, all would be forgiven. But that is a lie to a Jew, as it is to many others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Carrier touches on these historical mentions and Bart Ehrman says the same:

18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.

Would you please elaborate on this?

It's unclear whether you are claiming that Josephus did not refer to Jesus, or simply that he did not refer to Jesus twice. Furthermore, "he definitely used the Gospels as the source for the references that he almost certainly did not make" strikes me as a curious claim.

 

[Brian2]

Earlier you said "The gospels are dated to between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death, except for John's gospel which was written late in the century."

So which scholars dated them in which date range? after 70 AD or between 20-40 years after Jesus? They are two different dates you had given.

From this site below I got the following quote:
When Were the Gospels Written?

>>>Because of the lack of original texts, it has been very difficult to date the canonical gospels as to when they were written or even when they first emerge in the historical record, as these two dates may differ. The gospels have been dated variously from shortly after the crucifixion, traditionally placed around 30 ad/ce, to as late as a century and a half afterwards.[1] The currently accepted dates are as follows, from the earliest by conservative, believing scholars to the latest by liberal and sometimes secular scholars:

Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce

Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce

Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce

John: 65 to 100 ad/ce<<<

Since I know that the later dates (68 onwards) are based on the assumption that prophecy does not happen and so need to ignore much internal and external evidence for the early dating, I put that the synoptic gospels are dated between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death.
If I was an skeptic or liberal Christian I may have said that the gospels are dated from 70 to maybe 130 AD.

 

[Heyo]

Probably all primitive people saw lightning as magic once. Then science found a mechanism. Hey Presto, no magic. These days other primitive people see miracles written in the Bible as magic. One day God may tell us the mechanism.

I like it when magicians show how they deceived us. But I don't expect "miracle workers" to show us, it's their business model.