Was Jesus real?

[LuisDantas]

for those who do not believe Jesus is real... what is your historical evidence?

I don't have any, but then again the burden of evidence falls squarely under the responsibility of those who claim that he did exist.

Why do you believe he did not exist?

Maybe he did. But I don't think the available evidence is very convincing. My best guess is that he was either a greatly emblished historical figure, similarly to Robin Hood, or (much more likely) an all-out fictional creation.

It seems difficult to me to explain how come he simply vanishes from almost thirty years; how little in the way of independent confirmation of his existence exists; and how unconvincing the gospels actually are.

It really looks like we were never expected to think of him as an actual, living person.

2000 years ago was not exactly a mythological or barbaric age, so the comments kinda shocked me.

Well, I don't know why. I don't even know why it would be important for Jesus to be a historically real person in the first place. It is so very clear that we have lost track of what he meant to teach, and that is a far more important matter IMO.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Message to LegionOnomaMoi: I would like to suggest that you contact Richard Carrier.

I did.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, I don't know why. I don't even know why it would be important for Jesus to be a historically real person in the first place.

I think the only reason the Christ myth became so successful was that it was attached to a supposedly real man. We have such a passion for (real-life) heroes. Combine that with our passion for life after death and for a Savior to assure us of our Heavenly rewards -- and the urge to embrace Jesus was just irresistable.

But I think we're drifting away from that now. Just as most Christians have overcome their need for an historical Adam and even an historical Moses, they can eventually come to see the Christ as equally mythological, I think. Not tomorrow, but perhaps the day after.

 

[Windwalker]

Fair enough, but impossible to debate.

It's like saying that the Holy Spirit convinces you that Jesus was historical. Fair enough, but nothing else to talk about, I think.

I wasn't thinking on that level. I was just going to add that within the teachings are wisdom sayings, and somebody with sufficient insight, not just someone creating fictions about a hero of faith, would have to have had. It requires someone of some advanced understanding to generate these. Though, I will say, most people don't see or understand those as they are. So, hence why I say, it is on a mystical level of a certain type of insight. I wasn't referring something like "feeling the presence of Christ", or anything like that in this point.

 

[outhouse]

But I think we're drifting away from that now. Just as most Christians have overcome their need for an historical Adam and even an historical Moses, they can eventually come to see the Christ as equally mythological, I think. Not tomorrow, but perhaps the day after.

This is exactly where mythicist fail

Adam and Moses were written about after hundreds and hundreds of years of mythology.

Jesus was written about with a few decades after his death, and all his followers believed him to be alive and died and war resurrected.

That is not the case with Adam or Moses

 

[outhouse]

B. It's all a fairly tale created for the sole purpose of creating a system of obedience and order and preventing free thought among the commoners in society.

.

Nonsense

Nothing about the gospels have anything to do with obedience.

The early followers using these documents were heavily persecuted by the Government, the Romans.


Now if you wanted to argue 300-400 years after the fact when it became a national religion you could try and present a case, but even then you would fail. Constantine only wanted a united church more so then public control.




You fail to realize there was a split in Judaism due to the infiltration of the Hellenistic cultures into Judaism founded in the Israelites national culture.


The NT in general only deal with the last week and death and resurrection of the man called Jesus, no mythicist has ever been able to overturn the simplicity of a martyred man at Passover that generated enough oral traditions that legends began to form after his death within a sect of Judaism that didn't want to be in Judaism.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wasn't thinking on that level. I was just going to add that within the teachings are wisdom sayings, and somebody with sufficient insight, not just someone creating fictions about a hero of faith, would have to have had. It requires someone of some advanced understanding to generate these.

A solid point but I disagree with it. In my opinion the best wisdom sayings are found in compilations, plucked from various minds. Think Bartlett's. Then try to think of any one person who is famous for wisdom sayings on an individual level. Mark Twain. Will Rogers. I think that Bartlett's is a richer source of such sayings than Twain or Rogers individually. Anyway, a compilation is at least as likely as an individual spiritual genius.

Though, I will say, most people don't see or understand those as they are. So, hence why I say, it is on a mystical level of a certain type of insight.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning, but not long ago I went and actually read some of the sayings from the Gospel of Thomas. Weird stuff, at least to my ear. I couldn't even understand many of them, much less draw any spiritual insight from them. They just seemed weird, like something a gypsy fortune-teller might say.

I was pretty surprised by it. Maybe it was the translation into modern English, but I'm thinking not. I'm thinking people are entralled by mystical language and so tend to create mystical sayings.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Adam and Moses were written about after hundreds and hundreds of years of mythology.

Jesus was written about with a few decades after his death, and all his followers believed him to be alive and died and war resurrected.

That is not the case with Adam or Moses

Heroes can be created in much less time than you seem to think. Believers -- especially early believers -- tend to be fanatics. I could make up a godman right now, claim that he lived 50 years ago, and have thousands of followers in no time, each one of them fiercely insisting that the godman actually lived in the time and place as I describe for him.

People are still going off to join cults and live in communes, you know. Imagine how passionately they did so 2,000 years ago.

Christianity just happened to be one which took hold in a big way.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hello all,

I am new to these forums, but I have already noticed a disturbing trend amongst many who believe that Jesus was not real. Now, I am Hindu and my knowledge of Christianity is limited, yet I have learned even in my college history classes that in the first and second centuries, there were more than 500 gospels describing the life and teachings of Jesus! Only the most accurate were used for the Bible, but my point is... there is no direct evidence that Jesus existed, no gravestones or books by him or something (at least I don't think there is), but a man who accomplished as much as Jesus caused a massive rippling effects and so much literary works concerning his life and teachings in such a short, precise timespan that there is no way it can be discarded or considered false. That is why, for those who do not believe Jesus is real... what is your historical evidence? Why do you believe he did not exist? 2000 years ago was not exactly a mythological or barbaric age, so the comments kinda shocked me.

Why does it matter to you, as a non-Christian?

 

[Windwalker]

A solid point but I disagree with it. In my opinion the best wisdom sayings are found in compilations, plucked from various minds. Think Bartlett's. Then try to think of any one person who is famous for wisdom sayings on an individual level. Mark Twain. Will Rogers. I think that Bartlett's is a richer source of such sayings than Twain or Rogers individually. Anyway, a compilation is at least as likely as an individual spiritual genius.

I don't discount that other wisdom teachings found their way attributed to Jesus. I don't think I'd say however that a collection of wisdom sayings attributed to him were just arbitrary quotes, but follow a specific underlying direction, a specific mind or vision. There is more to the Jesus teachings than simple maxims and whatnot. If anything, they would reflect a very specific school of thought, which is odd a wisdom community would just collect itself around no source in particular.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning, but not long ago I went and actually read some of the sayings from the Gospel of Thomas. Weird stuff, at least to my ear. I couldn't even understand many of them, much less draw any spiritual insight from them. They just seemed weird, like something a gypsy fortune-teller might say.

Some of it can be cryptic to be sure. Some of that due to translation. But the point of wisdom sayings is to point to something beyond themselves.

That others are challenging to penetrate rationally is the point. Think of them like Zen Koans.

I was pretty surprised by it. Maybe it was the translation into modern English, but I'm thinking not. I'm thinking people are entralled by mystical language and so tend to create mystical sayings.

Yeah, no. Yes, there are those that try to sound mystical, and make no sense. Very New Age'y quasi-spiritual lingo, and whatnot. And then there are those who actually have something there once it is penetrated. This is really just how it works. There is a point where a discerning soul can see though a crock of pseudo-wisdom language. In other words, a handful of dust is no diamond. It takes a certain enlightened soul to create it, and a discerning soul to see it. But I don't believe just trying to rationally penetrates something like this will reveal it, nor mean anything when they subsequently fail and say 'it's all crap'.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't discount that other wisdom teachings found their way attributed to Jesus. I don't think I'd say however that a collection of wisdom sayings attributed to him were just arbitrary quotes, but follow a specific underlying direction, a specific mind or vision.

OK, but to me it seems pretty clear that the sayings, their general direction, were borrowed from earlier religious thinking. I haven't studied it in detail, but I don't see a unique mind in Jesus. Instead, I see an individual created to house an older tradition and myth.

There is more to the Jesus teachings than simple maxims and whatnot. If anything, they would reflect a very specific school of thought, which is odd a wisdom community would just collect itself around no source in particular.

I'm sure that Christianity never really took off until the story of Jesus-as-real-person was first written.

This is really just how it works. There is a point where a discerning soul can see though a crock of pseudo-wisdom language. In other words, a handful of dust is no diamond. It takes a certain enlightened soul to create it, and a discerning soul to see it.

OK. To me, it sounds like you are back to the Holy Spirit claim. If anyone argues that they can see the truth while other can't, it seems the debate is done. Sometimes I'll counter that my Holy Spirit is smarter than yours is... but only when I'm really, really bored.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I don't really understand why some deny that Jesus existed. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence that He really did exist such as Josephus' mention of Him. Here is an article which talks about more evidence for His existence:

Four Reasons I Think Jesus Really Existed | Catholic Answers

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't really understand why some deny that Jesus existed. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence that He really did exist such as Josephus' mention of Him.

Are you familiar with the arguments that the Josephus quote is a fake?

Here is an article which talks about more evidence for His existence:

Are you familiar with the evidence and arguments against the historical Jesus?

If you really don't understand why some doubt that Jesus existed, I'll be glad to explain my reasoning. But you'll have to ask.

 

[Windwalker]

OK, but to me it seems pretty clear that the sayings, their general direction, were borrowed from earlier religious thinking. I haven't studied it in detail, but I don't see a unique mind in Jesus. Instead, I see an individual created to house an older tradition and myth.

Not like that. I think the problem is the myth of the "Master Story", as the theologian Walter Bauer coined it. That is a later creation of the church which imagined the origins of Christianity being that of this unique teacher descended from God with his teaching fully intact, taught it to his 12 disciples, left the scene to return to heaven and the 12 then taught their disciples who taught their's down to the bishops of Rome who claim them as teaching authorities in a line of apostolic succession from Jesus straight down to them.

Is Jesus teaching unique? Of course it is, just as I how teach something will have my person insights intertwined with it. Is it wholly unique to the world, all others we're in utter darkness until he came along? No. Of course not. Does this mean he 'ripped off', stole from, borrowed, rebranded, other's teachings? No. Not at all.

Ironically, just this morning I posted this in response to the question if Jesus went to India in those 'missing' 30 years from the narrative stories. Read this, and the subsequent post I made to it as how I see these things. I think it speaks to reality a bit better than the mythicist, copy-cat explanation. http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...13-jesus-disciple-go-india-3.html#post3397639

And here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/149813-jesus-disciple-go-india-4.html

I'm sure that Christianity never really took off until the story of Jesus-as-real-person was first written.

The narratives were a later creation. They were created to weave the teachings into a story about the teacher, because the movements were already quite popular. In other words, success of the teachings, lead to the historical perspective later on. It wasn't the historical perspective that got it going.

OK. To me, it sounds like you are back to the Holy Spirit claim. If anyone argues that they can see the truth while other can't, it seems the debate is done. Sometimes I'll counter that my Holy Spirit is smarter than yours is... but only when I'm really, really bored.

Well, what can I say? I'm not talking about feelings and such. But I will say this, that there is a difference between what your mind can penetrate, and what is exposed beyond reason. Trust me, I'm a highly intelligent, reasoning person. But there is a dimension to knowledge that the mind with all it's abilities cannot touch through reason. This is what the wisdom traditions and teachers always say, and I can personally attest to it.

I'll never forget my first time really sinking down into meditation and something new began to open to me. I commented to my partner in utter astonishment, "All my knowledge, all my reasoning, and analyzing and theorizing, models and theories, etc, cannot touch this! It's like opening from a two-dimensional world to a three-dimensional world. It's like having a 2nd brain put on top of my other brain."

It doesn't mean reason is no good, but it puts it into a perspective, it puts the mind into a perspective that cannot come any other way but by literally falling into that Ocean and allowing it to unfold into your awareness. Others who go there, will say the same thing. Those that never have, myself included prior to that, cannot see it without stepping through that door. This is what the wisdom traditions teach, and with good reason. So, certain understanding simply cannot be had without the right set of eyes, as I mention. It's not meant as a judgment of anyone, but just simply stating the reality of it speaking from my personal experience, and relaying the same others say.

To note, what I just spoke of is not the same thing as religious belief. This has nothing to do with faith or doctrines.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is Jesus teaching unique? Of course it is, just as I how teach something will have my person insights intertwined with it. Is it wholly unique to the world, all others we're in utter darkness until he came along? No. Of course not. Does this mean he 'ripped off', stole from, borrowed, rebranded, other's teachings? No. Not at all.

OK. But a fictional Jesus is just as capable of unique teachings as a physical Jesus. Perhaps moreso.

The narratives were a later creation. They were created to weave the teachings into a story about the teacher, because the movements were already quite popular. In other words, success of the teachings, lead to the historical perspective later on. It wasn't the historical perspective that got it going.

I disagree. If Jesus had not been seen as a physical man, I doubt Christianity would be any more familiar to us today than Zoroastrianism is.

Trust me, I'm a highly intelligent, reasoning person. But there is a dimension to knowledge that the mind with all it's abilities cannot touch through reason. This is what the wisdom traditions and teachers always say, and I can personally attest to it.

It's a fine claim, but I wouldn't know how to decide 1) exactly what it means or 2) whether to believe that you've accessed special knowledge or only deluded yourself into believing that you've accessed special knowledge.

And I'm really not sure what it might have to do with the (non)historical Jesus. Even if what you say is true, a fiction writer could have created Jesus' wisdom just as easily as Jesus could have come into existence to spread that wisdom.

I'll never forget my first time really sinking down into meditation and something new began to open to me. I commented to my partner in utter astonishment, "All my knowledge, all my reasoning, and analyzing and theorizing, models and theories, etc, cannot touch this! It's like opening from a two-dimensional world to a three-dimensional world. It's like having a 2nd brain put on top of my other brain."

Born-again Christians often claim a mystical experience, but I don't know what to do with their claims. All I can do is listen.

Actually, a close relative of mine can actually offer evidence that his born-again experience was real. He was turned from a self-destructive acidhead to a productive citizen by that mystical experience. Do you have any evidence that might convince me of your mystical experience, its reality?

It doesn't mean reason is no good, but it puts it into a perspective, it puts the mind into a perspective that cannot come any other way but by literally falling into that Ocean and allowing it to unfold into your awareness.

I would have to see some kind of evidence to make me believe that you have a special awareness. I doubt you can offer that, but I still don't mind you claiming it.

So, certain understanding simply cannot be had without the right set of eyes, as I mention. It's not meant as a judgment of anyone, but just simply stating the reality of it speaking from my personal experience, and relaying the same others say.

During my life I have found my Holy Spirit to be uniquely perceptive and to have led me to an extremely special understanding of life and other minds and this world in general. I don't know why I was chosen for this. Sometimes it hurts to be so alone in my special knowledge. But there it is. I must admit my nature.

So do you believe me -- that I have a special and even unique insight into truth?

If so, why do you believe me?

If not, why not?

 

[Windwalker]

OK. But a fictional Jesus is just as capable of unique teachings as a physical Jesus. Perhaps moreso.

This makes no sense. Somebody had to originate the teachings. They had to come from a human. If is was someone creating a fictitious character called Jesus to put the teachings into, then that person who's teaching they are he attributes to Jesus, is, in fact, that very Jesus. It's like that one person who said to me once that the Apostle Paul didn't exist. So I said, the same thing. Whoever that was who called himself Paul and wrote the letters, is who we know as Paul. Same thing here.

I disagree. If Jesus had not been seen as a physical man, I doubt Christianity would be any more familiar to us today than Zoroastrianism is.

Oh, I don't think so. If it's weren't for the organization of Rome sanctioning it as the state religion, it might be as obscure today as any other number of sects. I think the teachings were more important than the man.

It's a fine claim, but I wouldn't know how to decide 1) exactly what it means or 2) whether to believe that you've accessed special knowledge or only deluded yourself into believing that you've accessed special knowledge.

Think of it like this. If you've never had a love relationship with another person, you would have no knowledge of what that looks like to those who do. It's not until you actually do, that you gain that knowledge yourself. And no amount of reading about it, analyzing it, creating models of it, etc will impart the knowledge that can only come one way, which is to actually enter into that experience and participate in it.

Is this "special knowledge"? Yes, but not really. it's totally accessible to anyone who enters into it. It's not some "privileged knowledge".

And I'm really not sure what it might have to do with the (non)historical Jesus. Even if what you say is true, a fiction writer could have created Jesus' wisdom just as easily as Jesus could have come into existence to spread that wisdom.

Again, than that person is Jesus. It was his insights, that are not just some run of the mill thoughts.

Why is it so important that a person named Jesus didn't exist? Has anyone asked that questioned here yet?

Born-again Christians often claim a mystical experience, but I don't know what to do with their claims. All I can do is listen.

Well, I'm not exactly talking about mystical experience here in talking about entering into meditative states which allow our busy, chattering, over-analyzing mind to shut the hell up and allow perception to unfold in ways that it can't access while it's so busy staring at itself! Wisdom enters through such a state of mind, and this isn't even touching on transcendent states of consciousness, such a the subtle, causal, and nondual, which is a whole other level of awareness.

What born-again means to some people, is another question.

Actually, a close relative of mine can actually offer evidence that his born-again experience was real. He was turned from a self-destructive acidhead to a productive citizen by that mystical experience. Do you have any evidence that might convince me of your mystical experience, its reality?

Again, what I was referencing was not a 'born again' mystical experience. But I did have a couple transcendent experiences when I was 18 that forever changed my life to this day. I too was a mess self-medicating with drugs, and that opened the universe to me in a moment, in ways beyond any adequate description. I experience the mystical, in high subtle states of consciousness pretty much every time I mediate now, and the changes to my life are, well, stunning. Ask anyone who knows me personally, particularly my partner of 12 years.

These things have an effect on us in ways hard to put into words. Every aspect of my life is affected in enormously positive, and transforming ways. None of it has to do with "believing in" something. All of it has to do with direct experience. Think of it terms of exercise like an athlete. We have the ability in our bodies to to do certain things, but not if we just sit around and put crap into it.

I'm not trying to convert you to any sort of belief or system. I'm simply saying that there is a difference in states of mind and what they can see. You've heard the saying "We are what we eat"? It's like that, but more. Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best when he said, "What we are, that only can we see." We become something more, and then from that perspective we see more. Like being in a love relationship when you've previously never known one.

I would have to see some kind of evidence to make me believe that you have a special awareness. I doubt you can offer that, but I still don't mind you claiming it.

I have nothing to prove to you, no offense. All I can say, is there is a difference.

During my life I have found my Holy Spirit to be uniquely perceptive and to have led me to an extremely special understanding of life and other minds and this world in general. I don't know why I was chosen for this. Sometimes it hurts to be so alone in my special knowledge. But there it is. I must admit my nature.

So do you believe me -- that I have a special and even unique insight into truth?

If so, why do you believe me?

If not, why not?

Well, I'd have to hear what you have to say. I listen with more than just my ears.

 

[Ingledsva]

Who knows if he existed or not. However, even if he existed, that does not make any of the supernatural stuff true.

If he rose from the dead like Christians believe he did, that does make the supernatural stuff true, now doesn't it?

You have a story, nothing more, so no.

Nothing in the story has to be taken as Jesus is an actual God.

Other people in the Bible are called gods and messiahs and OBVIOUSLY they are not YHVH.

*

*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This makes no sense. Somebody had to originate the teachings. They had to come from a human. If is was someone creating a fictitious character called Jesus to put the teachings into, then that person who's teaching they are he attributes to Jesus, is, in fact, that very Jesus. It's like that one person who said to me once that the Apostle Paul didn't exist. So I said, the same thing. Whoever that was who called himself Paul and wrote the letters, is who we know as Paul. Same thing here.

Um... you are aware that Jesus didn't write anything at all? If Jesus had written the gospels, I could perhaps understand your stance, but he didn't. It's as if we're arguing over the historicity of Sherlock Holmes and you are holding that Arthur Conan Doyle was, in fact, Sherlock Holmes... and so Holmes did exist historically.

To me, that doesn't seem like a sound position.

Think of it like this. If you've never had a love relationship with another person, you would have no knowledge of what that looks like to those who do. It's not until you actually do, that you gain that knowledge yourself. And no amount of reading about it, analyzing it, creating models of it, etc will impart the knowledge that can only come one way, which is to actually enter into that experience and participate in it.

Sure. Or think of it like this: You've never in your life seen pink elephants dancing in your driveway, so you have no knowledge of what that looks like to those who have seen the elephants. And no amount of analyzing it will impart the knowledge that the elephants are there. You must enter into the experience and participate in the elephant-watching.

See what I mean?

Why is it so important that a person named Jesus didn't exist? Has anyone asked that questioned here yet?

Some people enjoy trying to make sense of life. That includes debating historical truth. If it's not something you enjoy, I guess I wonder why you could come to a thread like this one.

Well, I'm not exactly talking about mystical experience here in talking about entering into meditative states which allow our busy, chattering, over-analyzing mind to shut the hell up and allow perception to unfold in ways that it can't access while it's so busy staring at itself! Wisdom enters through such a state of mind, and this isn't even touching on transcendent states of consciousness, such a the subtle, causal, and nondual, which is a whole other level of awareness.

OK. I don't mind at all if you think that way about it.

These things have an effect on us in ways hard to put into words. Every aspect of my life is affected in enormously positive, and transforming ways. None of it has to do with "believing in" something. All of it has to do with direct experience. Think of it terms of exercise like an athlete. We have the ability in our bodies to to do certain things, but not if we just sit around and put crap into it.

I'm happy that you're happy with your way.

I'm not trying to convert you to any sort of belief or system. I'm simply saying that there is a difference in states of mind and what they can see.

It's a fine opinion. You remind me a lot of my born-again relative. Every time I see him, he goes on and on about the transformative power of being born again.

It's a little offputting to me, to tell the truth. Way back in history, when he was a street-living acid-head, I was earnestly searching for God, just as I do to this day. But he never asks me for my God wisdom. Instead he goes on and on about how I need to find God as he has found God.

I smile and tell him that maybe in time I will find my way. It's all I can do with him.

Well, I'd have to hear what you have to say. I listen with more than just my ears.

Sure. I've been doing that with you since we first met.

 

[Ingledsva]

If only somebody had thought about that before! Oh wait. They did. In the 1830s. Right about the time the mythicist argument began.


It's the myth of mythology. A process that started a long time ago, with armchair anthropologists like Frazer or Bachofen, and continues today: the myths one hears about concerning Zeus, Attis, Bacchus, Mithras, Hercules, etc., are all lumped together into one big collection as if anybody in antiquity thought that received myth was religion. Mythology, as commonly understood, didn't exist in antiquity. It was created mostly in the past few centuries by cutting and pasting from ancient novels, plays, comedies, etc. The fact that many of the "myths" of Greek religion were never part of Greek religion but were stories made up to be understood as made-up stories (and comical at that) is well-known among historians of antiquity, but not those whose interest in ancient history stops at whether Jesus existed (and even then is not enough to motivate actual research).



Sure. The fact that we have more evidence for Jesus than for just about anyone of antiquity is all a construct by that vast conspiracy of biblical scholars and classicists who repeat the same story about a historical Jesus for fear of being booted out of scholarship. However, the "quest" for this historical Jesus, at least according to the one (Schweitzer) who's responsible for calling it that, began with an attempt to undermine Christianity and by the time Schweitzer wrote his history of the quest in in 1906, we'd already heard most of the mythicist arguments, and Schweitzer covered their problems. In 1925, Maurice Goguel published Jésus de Nazareth: Mythe ou histoire? which again surveyed the mythicist position, only now included those like Drews and Couchould. In Metzger's bibliographic reference (Index to Periodical Literature on the Gospels), we can add other names, such as Dunkmann, Arkroyd, and Windisch. By now, pretty much every argument that continues to be regurgitated (due in particular to the internet) existed and was addressed repeatedly. After the 1920s, only a handful of scholars in any field questioned that Jesus existed, as we already had addressed this question and the arguments marshaled for it since around 1830. And mythicism was relegated to the amateurs who deliberately lied and misused what knowledge of the ancient world they had. Wells was an exception, as he was a scholar (albeit one of German studies), but he backed off of his position by Dunn's 1985 The Evidence for Jesus. Since that time, various works of varying quality have been produced with much the same goal: demonstrating the evidence we have and why no historians doubt that Jesus existed.

Then mythicism gained a new champion with Richard Carrier, the guy who flaunts his degree in ancient history yet has published almost nothing on the subject and the one major work he has published (his dissertation) is among the most speculative work I've ever seen. He also didn't bother to use his infamous "Bayes' Theorem" that he had already twice, in published works, advocated for any and all historical studies. Apparently, what he meant was that when he wanted to be able to dismiss historical studies, then they should have used Bayes'. But when he wanted his PhD in ancient history, it was ok to reject his own methods because he was no longer dealing with his blog fans but people who had actually studied history.

However, mythicism has and will continue, because just like creationism, conspiracy theories, and every subculture which rejects the authority of the specialists and relies on whatever information supports what it is they believed in the first place, mythicists care only about Jesus not being real and will continue to approach the subject from that viewpoint.

As has been pointed out - there are no documents about Jesus from his time.


Most of the Talmudic passages are about Ben Stada.

The Talmudic passages say the man was stoned by the Jewish courts - not killed by the Romans as the Bible says.

We also know there are multiple people with the same name being written about over time and from different areas.

These say the mother's husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah, a name known in other Talmudic literature. He was born after the "Jesus" of the Bible would have died. Pappos died in 134.

It also says this "Miriam megadla nashaia" was sneaking around and got pregnant by her lover Pandira.

*

A second one mentions a "Yeshu" who practiced magic and led the Israelites astray.

This "Yeshu" also had five followers - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. They were executed along with him.

It also mentions this event happend in the time of King John Hyrcanus. It is believed to have happened about 93 BCE, and he was dead by 91 BCE. These Rabbis were able to return by 80 BCE.

As you can see when you look closely at these passages - AS OTHERS HAVE SAID - they are OBVIOUSLY not about the Bible Jesus.

*
*

 

[steeltoes]

Do I have your permission to use your quotes from other threads? Because otherwise I can't quote you directly according to forum rules.

No, you do not have my permission because you have no credibility, posters like you are the reason for forum rules that prohibit the use of quotes from other threads. In the past you have quoted me completely out of context, finally you have been informed of the rules and now you are without your MO, too bad.

I know. You don't care about truth, history, accuracy, scholarship, knowledge, etc., if it interferes with your religious-like dogma. You know virtually nothing about ancient history, but are content to make religious-like claims regardless. Mythicist 2.0's are quite religiously devoted.

I don't care about your so called truth. Now you are reduced once again to casting aspersions at those that don't buy into your logical fallacies and baseless assumptions about what you think you can know about this Jesus.

Can you read? Yes. Can you read books? Yes. Have you read even a bare minimum of historical Jesus scholarship? No. I've known many fundamentalist Christians like you.

More name calling, you sound like a sociopath venting at those that don't believe what you believe to be the truth.

Then why is it that you can't reference any modern historical accounts that don't have to do with the historical Jesus directly, and have formed a scholarly opinion on a historical subject without reading historical scholarship? Why is it that your knowledge of historical Jesus studies is virtually nonexistent? You have written many, many posts on this this "fight" that you don't "have a dog in", but you readily rely on a few popular sites and books without any serious research to support what you wanted to believe in the first place. Just like fundamentalists do.

Ad hominems are all you got, it's all you have ever had. I've read enough to know when someone like you comes along and pretends to know what they can't know, and you can't know anything about an historical Jesus, you can only pretend to know.