did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

They are copies of copies, and copies were known to be altered for religious/political purposes.

Thankfully, though, textual criticism is a well-established discipline in the field of historical studies. More importantly, "...the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometiimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time betweeen the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief." from Metzger and Ehrman, p. 51.

What does this mean? It means that for the most part we have a very, very, very good idea what the original NT texts looked like. For the cases where there is some doubt, or we really aren't sure, any good criticial greek edition will let the reader know. Galatians 1.19 isn't one of these cases. On textual criticism in general and NT textual criticism in particular, see

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006

The problem with Jesus is historical arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are reliable histories

No, they aren't. For one thing, we don't need the gospels at all to show that Jesus is historical. We just need them to find out anything beyond that. But the real issue with the above is the word "assumption." Perhaps, given how little you have read, you may have gotten that impression, but it isn't accurate at all. What you call an "assumption" has been a debated issue in scholarship for well over a century. Yet those experts who are extremely skeptical of the reliability of the gospels (e.g. Bultmann) nonetheless believed we could do more than just establish historicity of Jesus. Why? Because for one they know enough about ancient genres to not propose idiot ideas about Mark creating a new genre that everyone misunderstood, like R. G. Price did. More importantly, it was realized that even if one takes the Bultmannian view that the early christians freely attributed sayings and teachings to Jesus and had no interest in any historical figure (a view long since realized to be untenable), it is clear that, unlike with the various cults of the ancient world, a single founder stood behind the movement, and all the literature looks back to one person.

The historical value of the gospels isn't assumed, any more than it is with any other text from the ancient world. In fact, they tend to be judged more critically. This is why we compare the gospels to other genres and find they match up with other historical works far better than with literary expressions of myth. This is why we look at the sociology of religion to see how movements, sects, cults, etc grow and are structured, and find that independtly of Jesus himself, the nature of the movement needs a single founder which, conveniently enough, all the texts give us.

Of course, it is easier to write off two centuries of scholarship if you say it is all built off of an incorrect assumption. So what if the statement is completely inaccurate?

Even if Paul stated "brother of Jesus" scholars would no doubt question the validity of that line because of everything else Paul and the other epistle writers state that contradicts such a notion.

I've already addressed this, and so has scholarship within the field of historical Jesus research. Only the mythic questers, who find that the best approach is to assume Jesus is a myth and then massage and distort the evidence to get there, have a problem with Paul's statement (and as Price notes, this is because it is devastating to the mythic hypothesis).

Mythers don't dismiss scholars because they supposedly have a Christian bias, mythers don't assume that the gospels are historical accounts of actual events, that's the difference.

"Mythers" assume the gospels aren't. Scholars have examined the issue from all sorts of angles for the past two centuries. They don't "assume" anything.

 

[Oberon]

we can give you that from a scholarly point of view the jesus myth is only biblical and not historical.

Funny. All the scholars disagree with your scholarly point of view because they know Jesus was historical.

this is only from a scholar's viewpoint, there are not the definitive end to all.

Right. What is definitive is the websites you visit.

You have all admitted that you treat this material like any other NON religious material.

No. Rather, historical studies of any religious text will treat it FROM a secular viewpoint. They don't ignore the fact that it is a religious text.

very little can be said about the historical jesus with certainty at best with a scholars view.

WHAT scholar's view?

there are however others that have reached a conclusion the gray area is knee deep and your looking at ankles

Price is at least working in this field. Most of the others who have reached this conclusion are amateurs who don't know any better. The few who are experts don't work in the field of ancient history.

Paul asserted that he received the gospel not from any person, but by a personal revelation of jesus

And then he contradicts himself and shows that the reason for the above statement was only to assert that he had authority too. He admits he spent two weeks learning from Peter. He specifically seperates his teaching on marriage from Jesus' which shows he isn't just getting this from revelations.

well he does state theres a "familial relationship" and we know hes not wrong

This is only indicative of the biased approach of the mythicists. Assume a myth, and then do what you can to explain away the evidence. This isn't something you can claim is a second or third hand account. Paul knew Jesus' brother. What's more, this same brother is identified as Jesus' brother by Josephus and Mark, written by people who were around while the brother was alive.

even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics


There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity

1) The authorship with respect to galatians is not in doubt.
2) I addressed textual criticism in my last post. It isn't a problem with respect to galatians 1.19

 

[dogsgod]

There's no issue to sidestep. The arguments for an historical Jesus that explains all the different Christianities that emerged in the first few centuries are weaker than weak. Just to name a few gnostic groups:

• Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
• Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
• Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
• Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
• Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
• Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

Obviously it was never clear what this Christ character consisted of.

Other people of history have legendary stories attached to them is not evidence for an historical Jesus. None of these weak arguments add up to anything. Mythers simply don't believe those that claim to have knowledge of an historical Jesus and for good reason, there's little to nothing to go on, and wild speculation isn't evidence.

 

[Oberon]

There's no issue to sidestep. The arguments for an historical Jesus that explains all the different Christianities that emerged in the first few centuries are weaker than weak. Just to name a few gnostic groups:

• Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
• Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
• Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
• Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
• Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
• Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

Obviously it was never clear what this Christ character consisted of.

Other people of history have legendary stories attached to them is not evidence for an historical Jesus. None of these weak arguments add up to anything. Mythers simply don't believe those that claim to have knowledge of an historical Jesus and for good reason, there's little to nothing to go on, and wild speculation isn't evidence.

1) Most of the gnostic groups didn't care about Jesus as he was on earth
2) Your "divisions" are simply misleading/dishonest here. Issues like Arianism concenred extra-biblical material which have no real bearing on the historical person of Jesus.
3) There is no reason whatsoever why century long debates over the mythic aspects of Jesus (e.g. his divine nature) should have any relevance for historical study of the person, especially given the first century sources.

This "well people understood Jesus differently in the first several centuries, therefore there CAN'T be any single historical Jesus" is laughably absurd. For one thing, people understand modern LIVING historical figures in vastly different ways. The more important and relevant a historical figure is, the greater variety you will see in views about the person. This is only multiplied when it comes to historical figures with religious significance. Furthermore, it is relatively easy to broadly trace evolving conceptions about Jesus divine nature after the man died. It is impossible to explain these developments without the historical figure to begin with. Which is why so many mythicists rely on highly inaccurate lists of "dying and resurrecting gods."

 

[Oberon]

Mythers simply don't believe those that claim to have knowledge of an historical Jesus and for good reason,

For a clear reason, yes. Good? The reason is they don't know what they are talking about. There is a reason why the vast majority of "mythers" have to rely on inaccurate websites, and once you get to a level of expertise with ancient history, virtually all of the mythers disappear.

there's little to nothing to go on, and wild speculation isn't evidence.

I like this. Wild speculation isn't evidence. So for example, suspecting interpolation in Josephus's reference to James and Galatians based merely on the fact that it sometimes happened, despite there being no reason to assume it in either source. Wild speculation like that should be tossed out.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most of those works would say the gospels fall into the category/genre of ancient lives

Thanks. I was reaching back pretty far for that.

I was under the impression that the "gospel" was unique to the NT (and those who mimiced it).

It seems to me that in everything I've read, the scholar was quick to note important differences between whatever ancient genre (in our case the consensus being "lives") and the gospels. The differences can be taken up by someone else to classify a different genre altogether.

 

[Oberon]

The differences can be taken up by someone else to classify a different genre altogether.

That's true. For me, though, the question becomes are these differences less than those between the gospels and between other similar non-gospel works? In other words, if the gospels differ from each other as much as they do from lives, and if lives also differ from each other the way the gospels do from lives, than the ways in which the gospels are similar to each other and different from lives are a matter of subgenre. If, on the other hand, graeco-roman lives are qualitatively similar to each other and systematically different from the gospels, and the gospels are likewise similar to each other, than it is easier to argue that, despite the similarities between the gospels and lives the two belong to different genres.

For me, I think that what we call lives or ancient biographies was more of a loose framework to approach the life of a significant person in a literary manner. Because of this lives tended to differ in substantial ways, gospel or no, as authors took different approaches, different aspects of the biographed individual's life were made more salient, etc.

Also, the nature of the individual described in part creates the differences. The approach to documenting the life of a political individual will be quite different than in doing so for a religious leader (in the pre-critical era at least), even if the same techniques are used.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's true. For me, though, the question becomes are these differences less than those between the gospels and between other similar non-gospel works? In other words, if the gospels differ from each other as much as they do from lives, and if lives also differ from each other the way the gospels do from lives, than the ways in which the gospels are similar to each other and different from lives are a matter of subgenre. If, on the other hand, graeco-roman lives are qualitatively similar to each other and systematically different from the gospels, and the gospels are likewise similar to each other, than it is easier to argue that, despite the similarities between the gospels and lives the two belong to different genres.

For me, I think that what we call lives or ancient biographies was more of a loose framework to approach the life of a significant person in a literary manner. Because of this lives tended to differ in substantial ways, gospel or no, as authors took different approaches, different aspects of the biographed individual's life were made more salient, etc.

Also, the nature of the individual described in part creates the differences. The approach to documenting the life of a political individual will be quite different than in doing so for a religious leader (in the pre-critical era at least), even if the same techniques are used.

I guess it's my philosophical mind - a small difference has major significance. That is, if it doesn't fit the definition, then no matter how close it is - it doesn't fit the definition and we have to search for something else.

Now when we're looking at "lives," I think that we have to demythologize the Gospels and focus on Jesus, and if this is the case, it's wrong. The Gospels need to be classified in a genre as a whole.

I don't think that in the majority of "lives" that the subject travels around working miracles, preaching (well, perhaps in the lives of the philosophers, and these all came after Christ), and are encased in theological rhetoric designed to unify a community. If these aspects are removed, the Gospels do look like "lives" but there isn't much left of them. This is why, as you know, scholars are now looking to epic and novel, but these genres leave out critical aspects of "lives."

 

[fallingblood]

they didnt invent jesus they invented a religion, this is fact. It needed a messiah one with only the best of magical powers for this messiah would do. walla watch me pull a magical messiah out of my hat. the jesus myth was needed in a bad way

The problem is that they didn't create a religion. By all accounts, Christianity started as just one more sect in Judaism. It was not a separate religion to begin with, just a movement within Judaism. So your position starts falling away right there.

As for Jesus having the best of magical powers; quite far from that. There were many faith healers walking around during that time. Jesus, in a couple of accounts, supposedly did do some spectacular things, like walking on water, but really, if someone did invent Jesus, they completely failed.

There were other candidates who could have been much better if they were simply creating a religion. Interesting enough, no one during that time doubted that Jesus existed. It wasn't until the 17th or 18th century that a couple of French philosophers proposed the idea. So it is very interesting that no one around that time suggested that Jesus was a mere invention even though they attacked him on nearly all other fronts.

To sum up, if a messiah was needed, Jesus, on all accounts failed. He was hardly unique, and flawed on many levels.

thats only a small portion for my disbelief. Scholars seem to be one track minded as a whole, yes based on evidence but only using one source of weak evidence [literature] to make your whole case. Fiction at that. None of you have, as in not one has said one word when i say fiction. You know that part is true.

One track minded? If you read the scholarship, there is hardly a one track mind on this subject. There are those who take everything in the Bible literal to nearly nothing literal. There are those who claim Jesus is God or the son of God, and those who deny that as a possibility. There are those who believed he was placed in a tomb, and was resurrected, and then there are those who believe he was dumped in some pit and eaten by dogs. I think that vast difference in the positions of scholars shows clearly that scholars are not one track minded.

As for your argument that scholars only use literature to show evidence that Jesus existed, that is a very weak argument. It isn't even logical. As for it being fiction; explain Paul as fiction. To state that the letters that Paul created were fiction is a very long stretch. More so, to state that Josephus, who independently attests to a historical Jesus, to be fiction, is laughable. As for the Gospels, they only fall under fiction if you ignore the genre they fall under and ignore the evidence that supports a different position.

Finally, in the case of reconstruction of the historical Jesus, much more than literature is used. Recently, archeology is becoming much more important. Jonathan L. Reed shows the pattern of how archeology has been used in historical Jesus research.

To sum up, there is no evidence that scholars are one track minded. And two, there is no evidence that all of the literature on Jesus is fictitious. Especially when considering that the first person who mentions Jesus, Paul, clearly was not writing fiction.

You need to have some actual evidence as well. scholars believe everything written down in fiction, decades old oral material copied and recopied from unknown authors and the ones that have a author are disputed heavily.

Have you done any research on oral transmission? First, you have to show that everything about Jesus is fiction. Paul, writing only around 20 years after the death of Jesus, clearly wasn't writing fiction. That fact alone crumbles your position.

Also, are you aware that the vast majority of writings that we know of from that time are copies of copies. Even the works of Shakespeare are copies of copies. It may be worth looking into textual criticism a little. It would greatly help you in this case.

FACT little is know about historical jesus other then you think you have a jew that was killed for ticking the establishement off. Beyond that your dreaming and then its a matter of interpetation.

Actually, we can know, for fairly certain, quite a bit about Jesus. Here are a couple of things we can know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Jesus was from Nazareth
• Jesus had brothers and sisters
• Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate
• Jesus was a Jew
• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
• He had some close followers, most likely 12

Those are the items that are known beyond a reasonable doubt. If we take a broader look, we can also find things about Jesus that would pass probably as true beyond a reasonable doubt.

FACT we know biblical jesus is fiction, where do you draw the line and start to believe that the new religion needed a mesiah with all the trimmings for people to follow. not just any messiah this one had to be more sensational then the rest so people would follow and believe in gods kingdom

Why did they need a new religion? That is the question you need to answer. The fact is again, Jesus was not more sensational than all of the rest. As a messiah, he failed once he was killed. And he died a very shameful death that was considered cursed. The fact is, Jesus was flawed. If someone was creating him, they surely had no imagination.

Have you done any research on any of the other supposed messiahs? There were much better candidates than Jesus. You are basing your idea on the an assumption that Jesus was some how unique. He wasn't.

Plain and simple, the reason there is dought is because of the lack of reliable evidence for the non myth camp. yes by fiction of second,third and forth hand material some passed down for decades orally.

We have first hand accounts from Paul which is clearly not fiction. So your position falls through the floor simply by that. More so, you have clear lack of understanding of oral culture. Oberon provided the evidence that supported the idea that oral culture can be fairly accurate. Finally, you've never shown that the Gospels are fiction. Instead, Oberon and A_E have discussed how they fit, not exactly but close, in with the genre of lives.

Really, there is more than enough reliable evidence. What we don't have, as I've already asked, is a reason why some Jews would create a failed messiah who was so flawed and actually laughable as a messiah.

biblical jesus is a myth, where do you draw the line to historical jesus with certainty???

In the same place you draw the line with Augustus or Alexander the Great.

 

[fallingblood]

There's no issue to sidestep. The arguments for an historical Jesus that explains all the different Christianities that emerged in the first few centuries are weaker than weak. Just to name a few gnostic groups:

Then why do you continue to sidestep it? And why won't you give a reason as to why some Jews would create a failed messiah, which is so flawed, and actually laughable as a messiah?

• Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
• Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
• Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
• Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
• Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
• Catholicism – Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God

Obviously it was never clear what this Christ character consisted of.

Besides maybe Marcionism, there hardly is a big difference. They are referring to a physical Jesus. He may be considered divine to a point, such as Augustus was considered divine, but that hardly matters. If we take your argument, we can assume that Augustus also didn't exist as it wasn't clear who he was:

• Some beleived he was literally the son of a god
• Some believed that he was a god
• Some believed he was fully human
• Some believed he was divinly inspired

Other people of history have legendary stories attached to them is not evidence for an historical Jesus. None of these weak arguments add up to anything. Mythers simply don't believe those that claim to have knowledge of an historical Jesus and for good reason, there's little to nothing to go on, and wild speculation isn't evidence.

Of course it is not evidence that Jesus was historical. What it does show is that one can not simply dismiss Jesus because he has some legendary stories attached to him.

 

[logician]

I don't know what point you are making by Robert M. Price being a Christian and at the same time not seeing Jesus Christ as historical. I don't see a problem with that, neither did Paul, Peter, James, et al we read of in the epistles. The literal Jesus can't possibly be historical because He defies the laws of physics, but many many truly do believe God's Son came down to earth and sacrificed himself in order to save us all, or at least all that believe.

From a reading of these texts there is nothing obvious about there being an historical Jesus, at least not one from Galilee that can be connected with the Christ cult of Jerusalem that we read of in the epistles. There is nothing that suggests one Jesus is the founder of all this Christianity and no one has shown there to be.

Theses folks can't seem to get this thru their heads, they're trying to palm off a historical Jesus on us that by definition cannot bear any relationship to the man-god character portrayed in the gospels. Like talking to a wall.:thud:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Theses folks can't seem to get this thru their heads, they're trying to palm off a historical Jesus on us that by definition cannot bear any relationship to the man-god character portrayed in the gospels. Like talking to a wall.:thud:

Yes. That's the point.

Do you think that a historian would argue that a man-God existed?

 

[logician]

The other point is, why do these folks even care about the existence of some person whose characteristics DON'T match those of the NT Jesus?

It is illogical.

 

[Oberon]

The other point is, why do these folks even care about the existence of some person whose characteristics DON'T match those of the NT Jesus?

Because someone doesn't have to be the son of god in order to be historicall important.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The other point is, why do these folks even care about the existence of some person whose characteristics DON'T match those of the NT Jesus?

It is illogical.

Again, do you think that a historian would care about this? The historian is interested in what is historically viable.

Again, do you think that a historian is interested in a god-man?

 

[fallingblood]

The other point is, why do these folks even care about the existence of some person whose characteristics DON'T match those of the NT Jesus?

It is illogical.

Don't match perfectly. That is the key. To a point, they do match. And that is besides the point. Jesus started a movement that would later be the basis of Christianity and thus a major part of the Western World. That in itself makes Jesus important.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus started a movement that would later be the basis of Christianity

another name for your movement IS religion, jesus started a religion. now your sidetracking.

its known that jews of the time all had healing powers/magic ect, but because jesus' power was so strong he scared the local government who killed him for it.

according to "historical jesus" they did not kill him because he was a failure, they killed him because he was a threat and very good at what he did.

FACT is you dont know how much was borrowed from the OT and previous myths to make this MYTH.

Biblical jesus is a myth

historical jesus is based on allot of quality un biased work in yours and many scholars opinions. When I say you have a one track mind im referring to the use of fiction literature as your only real source of evidence.

understanding that much of history is taken from copies of copies and fictional at that is accepted once its been picked through, for me, for this it is not enough

 

[fallingblood]

another name for your movement IS religion, jesus started a religion. now your sidetracking.

Wrong. The reformation was a movement that was not a new religion. That particular movement happened with in Catholicism and never did start a new religion. It started new denominations, but still under the umbrella of Christianity.

The same is true with the movement Jesus led. It was a Jewish movement. It was part of Judaism, and during the time of Jesus, never left the umbrella of Judaism. It wasn't until later that a new religion began to emerge and split away from Judaism. Again, as I have suggested early, L. Michael White has a very good book on the subject called From Jesus to Christianity. It would be worth your time.

To sum up, no sidestepping as the movement Jesus began was fully under Judaism. It was just one more sect of a very diverse religion, Judaism.

its known that jews of the time all had healing powers/magic ect, but because jesus' power was so strong he scared the local government who killed him for it.

How is that logical at all? There was no suggestion that Jesus was killed "because his power was so strong he scared the local government." He wasn't even killed by his local government. He was from Galilee and was executed in Judea by Pontius Pilate. And he wasn't killed because his power was so strong. He was killed because he was seen as a potential danger, in the same manner that John the Baptist was. He committed a crime in the eyes of Rome.

according to "historical jesus" they did not kill him because he was a failure, they killed him because he was a threat and very good at what he did.

You misunderstand. I stated that since he was killed, he was thus a failure as the Messiah. For the Romans though, he was a potential danger. His actions during Passover sealed his fate. As those actions could have started a potential revolt or riot. And from what we know of Pilate, he would have had no problem killing one more Jew.

FACT is you dont know how much was borrowed from the OT and previous myths to make this MYTH.

Fact, you don't know the meaning of fact.

historical jesus is based on allot of quality un biased work in yours and many scholars opinions. When I say you have a one track mind im referring to the use of fiction literature as your only real source of evidence.

Once again, you've provided no evidence that the Gospels are fiction. And then you are also ignoring the fact (fact being used in it's correct form here) that Paul was clearly not writing fiction, and still mentioned Jesus. So your stance here is baseless.

understanding that much of history is taken from copies of copies and fictional at that is accepted once its been picked through, for me, for this it is not enough

Your misunderstanding of history and Jesus research in general may be good enough for you. But for the vast majority of people, it simply isn't. And again, can you provide any logical reason why Jews would invent a failed messiah who had so many flaws?

 

[logician]

Because someone doesn't have to be the son of god in order to be historicall important.

ALso illogical, how can you be historically important, if you are not recorded historically?

 

[logician]

"Jesus started a movement that would later be the basis of Christianity "

This statement simply cannot be proven.