did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

Do you ever get sick of spreading that propaganda? You are aware that there are two references in Josephus to Jesus, the smaller one being widely accepted.

The longer one, scholars are agree, contains interpolations to an account that already spoke of Jesus. You try to dismiss Josephus, but your argument is lacking any actual research.

To sum up, we can dismiss the longer account of Jesus in Josephus, but we would still be left with a nearly undisputed account of Jesus in Josephus anyway.

Yes, widely accepted by believers that grasp at anything and everything. The interpolations are biblicaly inspired any way you look at them. There are too many problems with both references regardless of what believers are willing to accept. Even if the references were authentic in any way, they come too late and too little to prove anything.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, widely accepted by believers that grasp at anything and everything. The interpolations are biblicaly inspired any way you look at them. There are too many problems with both references regardless of what believers are willing to accept. Even if the references were authentic in any way, they come too late and too little to prove anything.

Please provide some evidence to support your claim. Because the fact is, atheist, agnostic, and yes, Christian scholars nearly all agree that the short reference is authentic, and the longer one did in fact contain something about Jesus. This is not just believers. So your point is moot. Maybe you want to finally provide some evidence though.

 

[dogsgod]

So you are just choosing to ignore that over 200 years of critical research into the life of Jesus? Great, that explains a lot.

Two hundred years and you refer to Josephus interpolations to support your fairy tale? Two hundred years and what have you got? Gospels validating gospels, religious texts validating religious text when they are not conflicting each other. Wow, sounds like a wasted two hundred years.

 

[MW0082]

Two hundred years and you refer to Josephus interpolations to support your fairy tale? Two hundred years and what have you got? Gospels validating gospels, religious texts validating religious text when they are not conflicting each other. Wow, sounds like a wasted two hundred years.

Agreed, it is the ones who question the already sketchy and misconstrewded religious propaganda that need to provide the evidence. Nothing thus far has been provided to prove without a doubt that Jesus did exist. Pretty much you're correct, wasted 200 years, and have too many brainwashed into believing such fallacies.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If he existed then then he was a nobody because it appears that what is written about him in the gospels are exaggerated stories. Strip away the esoteric claims and a he really isn't that important.

 

[logician]

If he existed then then he was a nobody because it appears that what is written about him in the gospels are exaggerated stories. Strip away the esoteric claims and a he really isn't that important.

Which is why, logically, the "BIBLICAL" jesus could not have existed, the gospels are full of miracles, complete fariy tales. ALso, nobody can point to anyone specific in history and say, yep, that was Jesus. They can only "surmise" the gospel tales were based upon some real living person, from second or third hand hearsay, which means absolutely nothing, and proves absolutely nothing.

 

[waitasec]

Which is why, logically, the "BIBLICAL" jesus could not have existed, the gospels are full of miracles, complete fariy tales. ALso, nobody can point to anyone specific in history and say, yep, that was Jesus. They can only "surmise" the gospel tales were based upon some real living person, from second or third hand hearsay, which means absolutely nothing, and proves absolutely nothing.

except for believers

 

[waitasec]

If you can debate what was on those links just admit to it. I don't want your excuses.

Here is another site: FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ - the first christians | PBS

And what about some books:
The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan is a good start. Or the smaller version, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Then there is L. Michael White's book called From Jesus to Christianity.

There is also the classic, The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

There is also The Birth of Christianity from John Dominic Crossan

The Historical Jesus: Five Views is a great comparison on the subject.

Or maybe you would like to watch a documentary on the subject. PBS has a great one called From Jesus to Christ.

thank you for that link...
in the very beginning though, this documentary says, there are absolutely no writings from jesus' day as a witness to his existence.

by existence i mean, the man god
maybe a rebellious man against the establishment of the roman empire
existed, but certainly there are no contemporary writings of his day to suggest the son of god existed...

very cool doc...

 

[Quagmire]

John the Baptist was killed early in the gospels but did not die until 36CE according to Josephus.

If we go by Josephus, John could have been executed anytime between 34 and 36 AD. All we really know is that it happened after Herod's brother Phillip died (AD 34) and before Herod's war with Aretas, which broke out in AD 36.

Since Pilate's tenure as prefect ended in AD 36 (some sources say AD 37), this would be the latest date for the crucifixion if Jesus was actually crucified during Pilate's office.

This would also coincide with Caiaphas' term as high priest, which is also something we have independent testimony for.

There's no reason to discount the gospel account based on the late date for John's death; the traditionally accepted date for the crucifixion, AD 30, is just that: tradition, and has no logical basis.

Therefore, it's possible that Jesus' ministry, as the gospels say, began at the time of John's death. It would still leave us at least 2 years leeway between John's execution and the crucifixion.

Herod was a real king, Galilee was a real place, but the time and setting of a story does not make it real.

Who's saying it does? All I'm trying to show you here is that the gospel writers got the details of the setting right, ie., that you can't disregard the stories based on inconsistencies between what the gospels say about the time, place, and events and what independent historical accounts tells us.

So far there is nothing to suggest an historical figure behind the myth,

Except for everything that Oberon, Fallingblood, and a few other non-Christians have been trying to get you to look at for the last 3 years.

it's just a belief, an unsubstantiated assumption.

No, it isn't. It's a strong probability accepted by non-Christian historians, scholars, and anyone else who's managed to look into the matter with any kind of an open mind.

Jesus may have been an historical figure but there is nothing to support the assumption, so no real reason to accept the notion as true.

In order to intelligently assess what information there is you would only have to accept the possibility, which I don't believe you've done yet.

 

[dogsgod]

If we go by Josephus, John could have been executed anytime between 34 and 36 AD. All we really know is that it happened after Herod's brother Phillip died (AD 34) and before Herod's war with Aretas, which broke out in AD 36.

Since Pilate's tenure as prefect ended in AD 36 (some sources say AD 37), this would be the latest date for the crucifixion if Jesus was actually crucified during Pilate's office.

This would also coincide with Caiaphas' term as high priest, which is also something we have independent testimony for.

There's no reason to discount the gospel account based on the late date for John's death; the traditionally accepted date for the crucifixion, AD 30, is just that: tradition, and has no logical basis.

Therefore, it's possible that Jesus' ministry, as the gospels say, began at the time of John's death. It would still leave us at least 2 years leeway between John's execution and the crucifixion.



Who's saying it does? All I'm trying to show you here is that the gospel writers got the details of the setting right, ie., that you can't disregard the stories based on inconsistencies between what the gospels say about the time, place, and events and what independent historical accounts tells us.



Except for everything that Oberon, Fallingblood, and a few other non-Christians have been trying to get you to look at for the last 3 years.



No, it isn't. It's a strong probability accepted by non-Christian historians, scholars, and anyone else who's managed to look into the matter with any kind of an open mind.



In order to intelligently assess what information there is you would only have to accept the possibility, which I don't believe you've done yet.

I'm not discounting the gospel account based on the late date for John's death. I'm not discounting the gospels on any single point and since you bring it up, why should the gospels be viewed as historical accounts of actual events in the first place? We should be led to believe they are historical by the questions they answer rather than placing the cart before the horse by setting out to prove that they are historical. Placing the gospels into an historical place and time serves no other purpose than to raise more questions than answers. Oberon and fallingblood pass on the same old tired beliefs that have no basis in fact in their lame attempts to answer the many questions an historical view provides. They rely mainly on old church pseudo-histories and pure speculation to avoid the elephant in the room. The Jesus Christ of the gospels is impossible and most likely an invention of an existing church rather than that of a single person that brought us the church. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.Did Jesus Christ Really Live?

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not discounting the gospel account based on the late date for John's death. I'm not discounting the gospels on any single point and since you bring it up, why should the gospels be viewed as historical accounts of actual events in the first place?

Because we have corroborating accounts FOR SOME OF THE EVENTS AND PEOPLE MENTIONED from other sources.

We should be led to believe they are historical by the questions they answer rather than placing the cart before the horse by setting out to prove that they are historical.

Why exactly?

Placing the gospels into an historical place and time serves no other purpose than to raise more questions than answers.

Then what point were you trying to make by bringing this up?

John the Baptist was killed early in the gospels but did not die until 36CE according to Josephus.

You, since you seem to have forgotten, brought this up to demonstrate a discrepancy between the gospel time-line and a time-line based on Josephus. I showed you that there is no discrepancy.

If you didn't think that "placing the gospels into an historical place and time" served any purpose, what purpose could you have for trying to show that they couldn't be placed there?

Oberon and fallingblood pass on the same old tired beliefs that have no basis in fact in their lame attempts to answer the many questions an historical view provides.

It's as if you've never read any of their posts.

They rely mainly on old church pseudo-histories and pure speculation to avoid the elephant in the room.

The "elephant in the room" being what exactly?

The Jesus Christ of the gospels is impossible

We're not discussing the "Jesus christ of the Gospels", we're discussing the possibility of an historical figure that the "Jesus christ of the Gospels" could have been based on.

and most likely an invention of an existing church

quite possibly.

rather than that of a single person that brought us the church.

Not sure who you're referring to here. Who's claiming that the "Jesus christ of the Gospels" was the invention of "a single person that brought us the church".

Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.Did Jesus Christ Really Live?

Who and where, in all the discussions and debates we've all had in here about this topic, ever claimed that someone named "Jesus Christ" founded Christianity?

 

[dogsgod]

The oldest Christian writings that we have are the epistles and they tell us of a church already in existence. Later, much later, the first of the many gospels was invented by the church. This answers more questions than it raises. The time and place of the gospels was invented which explains why Paul is completely unaware of a Jesus from Nazareth, completely unaware that Jesus was a miracle worker as the gospels portray him, and unaware that he is a teacher. No one has to make excuses and speculate as for why Paul and the other epistle writers are unaware of this earthly Jesus because there is simply no need to. There is no reason to speculate as to why no contemporary wrote of this Jesus. There were no contemporaries of Jesus. There is no need to explain the odd behavior of Pilate which is in stark contrast to the Pilate that Philo, Pilate's contemporary, knew of and wrote about and all the impossible procedures that took place during the trial and crucifixion. There is no need to speculate. The writings speak for themselves and only believers in an earthy Christ have to make excuses because no one else has to.

 

[Quagmire]

The oldest Christian writings that we have are the epistles and they tell us of a church already in existence. Later, much later, the first of the many gospels was invented by the church. This answers more questions than it raises. The time and place of the gospels was invented which explains why Paul is completely unaware of a Jesus from Nazareth, completely unaware that Jesus was a miracle worker as the gospels portray him, and unaware that he is a teacher. No one has to make excuses and speculate as for why Paul and the other epistle writers are unaware of this earthly Jesus because there is simply no need to. There is no reason to speculate as to why no contemporary wrote of this Jesus. There were no contemporaries of Jesus. There is no need to explain the odd behavior of Pilate which is in stark contrast to the Pilate that Philo, Pilate's contemporary, knew of and wrote about and all the impossible procedures that took place during the trial and crucifixion. There is no need to speculate. The writings speak for themselves and only believers in an earthy Christ have to make excuses because no one else has to.

That's nice.

You're not going to answer any of my questions, are you.

 

[dogsgod]

Because we have corroborating accounts FOR SOME OF THE EVENTS AND PEOPLE MENTIONED from other sources.

Such as?

 

[Quagmire]

Such as?

(you're doing this on purpose, aren't you)

Ok, I'll play along: as I already showed you in post #129, The time-line for some of the events and people in the bible are corroberated by independent sources:

The ministry/execution of John the Baptist---The gospels and Josephus.

Caiaphas' stint as high priest---The gospels, Josephus, and the discovery of Caiaphas' grave in 1990.

Pontus Pilate---The Gospels, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Pilate Stone.

Herod's reign---The Gospels, Josephus, Philo.


The time-line and some of the details presented in the Gospels for events involving all of the above are corroborated by the independent sources I listed.

And, since you'll most likely forget or pretend to, remember your original question was this:

, why should the gospels be viewed as historical accounts of actual events in the first place?

 

[dogsgod]

(you're doing this on purpose, aren't you)

Ok, I'll play along: as I already showed you in post #129, The time-line for some of the events and people in the bible are corroberated by independent sources:

The ministry/execution of John the Baptist---The gospels and Josephus.

Caiaphas' stint as high priest---The gospels, Josephus, and the discovery of Caiaphas' grave in 1990.

Pontus Pilate---The Gospels, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Pilate Stone.

Herod's reign---The Gospels, Josephus, Philo.


The time-line and some of the details presented in the Gospels for events involving all of the above are corroborated by the independent sources I listed.

And, since you'll most likely forget or pretend to, remember your original question was this:

Are you serious? Many fictions are placed in real places among real people. Have you ever read any of Sherlock Holmes or King Arthur?

 

[Quagmire]

Are you serious? Many fictions are placed in real places among real people. Have you ever read of Sherlock Holmes or King Author?

*sigh* You asked:

, why should the gospels be viewed as historical accounts of actual events in the first place?

I answered.

Am I saying that since the gospel narratives are set in an accurate historical setting that everything they say about Jesus and his ministry is true?

No, of course not. Why would I? I'm not a Christian (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are), I don't believe most of what the gospels say, and I have zero emotional investment in whether or not Jesus, or the person he's base on, ever existed. My interest is strictly academic.

You already knew all that.

Why do you play these games man?

 

[dogsgod]

*sigh* You asked:


[/i]
I answered.

Am I saying that since the gospel narratives are set in an accurate historical setting that everything they say about Jesus and his ministry is true?

No, of course not. Why would I? I'm not a Christian (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are), I don't believe most of what the gospels say, and I have zero emotional investment in whether or not Jesus, or the person he's base on, ever existed. My interest is strictly academic.

You already knew all that.

Why do you play these games man?

I'm not playing games. I simply don't believe that there are any attempts on any gospel writer's part to relay history. It appears that they invent history by portraying Pilate as he is not and by putting words in the mouth of John the Baptist in order to bolster the importance of Jesus. King Herod was a real king but he did not have children slaughtered because an atsrologer told him that a future king was born among ordinary people that will one day grow up and challenge the throne. That story was made up in order to set the plot, and so it goes. Real people, real places, but complete fiction.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not playing games. I simply don't believe that there are any attempts on any gospel writer's part to relay history.

Doesn't matter if that was their intention, they wound up doing it anyway.

It appears that they invent history by portraying Pilate as he is not and by putting words in the mouth of John the Baptist in order to bolster the importance of Jesus.

Well duh. The whole purpose for writing the Gospels was to promote Christianity and portray Jesus as the promised Messiah. All ancient historians (to say nothing of modern ones) colored their accounts in accordance with their own agendas (Josephus tried to present Vespasian as the Messiah), and the Gospel writers weren't historians (not intentionally anyway) they were evangelists and propagandists.

King Herod was a real king but he did not have children slaughtered because an atsrologer told him that a future king was born among ordinary people that will one day grow up and challenge the throne. That story was made up in order to set the plot, and so it goes.

That's right. And George Washington most likely never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a silver dollar across the Potomac.

Daniel Boone probably didn't kill a grizzly bear with his bare hands.

Davey Crockett probably couldn't really make a raccoon fall dead out of a tree by smiling at it.

All historical figures are surrounded in legends, myths, and folklore.

To point to all the plot holes in the gospels and try to claim that their existence disproves the existence of an historical Jesus is just as ridiculous.

 

[dogsgod]

Who and where, in all the discussions and debates we've all had in here about this topic, ever claimed that someone named "Jesus Christ" founded Christianity?

Sorry, my misunderstanding. I thought it was a common belief amongst Christians that Jesus Christ founded Christianity.