Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[fallingblood]

Rubbish, stop fantasizing, he was one of the first that the risen Christ appeared to. In fact, according to Paul, he appeared to James before all of the apostles. 1 Cor7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

Can we take that at face value though? Not at all. We can not assume that Jesus truly appeared to anyone after his death. The appearance of the risen Christ must be considered myth.

Also, depending on what source you read, the risen Christ appears to different individuals at different times. One can not use myth to support a point.

As with all ancient histories, one must sort the myth from the fact.

 

[dogsgod]

Can we take that at face value though? Not at all. We can not assume that Jesus truly appeared to anyone after his death. The appearance of the risen Christ must be considered myth.

Also, depending on what source you read, the risen Christ appears to different individuals at different times. One can not use myth to support a point.

As with all ancient histories, one must sort the myth from the fact.

The early Christian epistle writers are obsessed with a mythical Christ figure that was crucified in a spiritual realm, they had visions of a resurrected Christ figure. It is not known when or even if their Christ would have lived on earth. The gospel writers writing at the end of the first century place his crucifixion during the time of Pilate. if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. Richard Carrier

 

[Oberon]

The early Christian epistle writers are obsessed with a mythical Christ figure that was crucified in a spiritual realm, they had visions of a resurrected Christ figure. It is not known when or even if their Christ would have lived on earth.

This is completely false. Paul, more than once, explicitly states that Jesus was more than simply a spiritual figure. He talks about Jesus "according to the flesh." He cites Jesus' teaching on divorce explicitly (odd, if, like you, one assumes he only gets his knowledge of Jesus' teachings from revelations), he states that Jesus was crucified, which would not be likely to happen in Israel prior to Herod the Great's death, and he knew Jesus' brother.

Did Paul spend a vast majority of his letters referring to the risen Christ? Yes. But then, he didn't know the earthly Jesus, unlike other early followers of Jesus. However, Paul is very clear that Jesus lived and walked on earth.

The gospel writers writing at the end of the first century place

Again you get your dates wrong. Mark is c. 70 CE, hardly the "end of the first century."

if Alvar Ellegård is right

A linguist. There are countless scholars with relevant expertise, and yet you have to go to people in entirely different fields to find support.

 

[fallingblood]

The early Christian epistle writers are obsessed with a mythical Christ figure that was crucified in a spiritual realm, they had visions of a resurrected Christ figure. It is not known when or even if their Christ would have lived on earth. The gospel writers writing at the end of the first century place his crucifixion during the time of Pilate. if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. Richard Carrier

You have to look at the time period that the New Testament was written in. A dead person was not uncommon to appear to the living. Even in the story of Augustus, we see the dead appearing to the living. It was not considered impossible and was hardly unique.

Even today, we have this same phenomenon. People who are in mourning, in cases, claim to be able to feel or have seen the dearly departed. If you look into some undeveloped countries, such as part of India (especially earlier in this century), the belief that one could be visited by the dead was not uncommon. There were quite a few charlatans who actually played on this idea and gained a nice size of power.

Looking even in a modern country, such as the United States, we can see, especially in the late 1800's and early 1900's, charlatans using this same phenomenon to their advantage. Respected members of society, such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, believed deeply in the ideas of Spiritualism, which accepted the idea that dead were able to appear to humans, (such as Jesus had with his followers), and communicate to the living.

Even today, we still see this same belief being held. In less advanced areas, it is not considered unique or impossible for the dead to appear to the living. Most of my study has been dealt with countries in Asia (primarily India) (Ormond McGill has some great sources on this topic in regards to Asia), but it is clearly seen to still be a norm in some areas there.

We do not consider these modern day visions to be true, or to be of invented people. We know that it is a psychological phenomenon caused by grief. The same was true in the first century. Having visions of Jesus was not do to with a spiritual realm. There was nothing unique about people having Jesus appear to them. It was not considered impossible, because it was a common occurrence to have visions of the dead.

 

[dogsgod]

This is completely false. Paul, more than once, explicitly states that Jesus was more than simply a spiritual figure. He talks about Jesus "according to the flesh." He cites Jesus' teaching on divorce explicitly (odd, if, like you, one assumes he only gets his knowledge of Jesus' teachings from revelations), he states that Jesus was crucified, which would not be likely to happen in Israel prior to Herod the Great's death, and he knew Jesus' brother.

Did Paul spend a vast majority of his letters referring to the risen Christ? Yes. But then, he didn't know the earthly Jesus, unlike other early followers of Jesus. However, Paul is very clear that Jesus lived and walked on earth.

Again you get your dates wrong. Mark is c. 70 CE, hardly the "end of the first century."


A linguist. There are countless scholars with relevant expertise, and yet you have to go to people in entirely different fields to find support.

I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting spanked because you just keep coming back for more. You made all kinds of hilarious excuses because you can't keep track of a simple time line for the no more than two visits Paul made to Jerusalem, 3 according to Acts, I'm still chuckling over the fact that Paul as well as Acts has you all confused as to which James is alive and which one is dead. Now you want to know what it means for the Son of God to be a descendant of David according to the flesh. For that you will have to look into Paul's ancient scriptures to learn the requirements necessary for the people of Israel to recognize a true Son of God. Is that the historical Jesus you are looking for?

Paul sites the Lord's teaching on divorce and I already pointed out that it came from ancient scripture, the OT. There is not one single reference to a parable or verse from Q found in the entire writings of the epistles. Not one. There is not a single way to connect Q with the early Christian epistle writers. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[blackout]

When you talk about Jesus having really existed,
do you just mean some man
bearing a vague/general resemblance
to 'scriptural' accounts?

Or do you mean the actual Jesus character
depicted in the new testament?
Miracles and all.

I exist yes. As me.
There might be a grave marker
and evidence that proves I existed
to historical standards.
However, if people worship me
as a goddess with naturally green hair,
"that" is not ACTUALLY me.
If they say I practiced 'evil magick',
or played country music...
that is not actually me they are speaking of.
(though maybe I DID play music IN the country,
or at least suburbia...
and initiate magick in "dark" rooms
with blue, green, red, orange, white, yellow, purple and BLACK candles)
"Subject">>> to interpretation.

Anyone can take a historical "figure"
and make them out to be a whole new character.
In which case, we are not REALLY
speaking of the same 'historical' PERSON/persona at all.

Just pinning attributes on a name.

 

[Oberon]

I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting spanked because you just keep coming back for more.

Funny. I can say the same. Particularly because, in addition to my own studies, I can actually cite many, many relevant experts.

You made all kinds of hilarious excuses because you can't keep track of a simple time line for the no more than two visits Paul made to Jerusalem

You can't provide any evidence he made only two. All you can do is cite the two visits he mentions in Galatians (and the intended visit in romans) and attempt to correlate these with Acts. You have no evidence whatsoever that Paul only made two visits.

I'm still chuckling over the fact that Paul as well as Acts has you all confused as to which James is alive and which one is dead.

The only reason you aren't "confused" is by ignoring both Paul and Acts. Acts at least clearly identifies different people named James. One dies at one point, and another is mentioned later.

Now you want to know what it means for the Son of God to be a descendant of David according to the flesh.

No I don't. What I want to know is, from your view, how you can explain by virtue of mythicist theory better than a historical acknowledgement of Jesus that:

1) Paul describing Jesus as "according to the flesh"
2) Paul, who you claim is only receiving revelations from Jesus through a spiritual Christ as opposed to a Jesus who actually lived and walked on earth, citing at one point Jesus' teaching on divorce, and then distinguishing it from his own. Why bother, if all of his knowledge of Jesus' teachings were "revealed"
3) Paul describes Jesus eating with his disciples and dying, i.e. human activities.
4) Paul states Jesus dies of crucifixion, a roman execution which would not have been implemented in Israelf until after Herod the Great.

For that you will have to look into Paul's ancient scriptures to learn the requirements necessary for the people of Israel to recognize a true Son of God. Is that the historical Jesus you are looking for?

I seriously doubt you have read, in hebrew or in translation, the scriptures Paul uses. The messiah/christ was not supposed to be the son of go; hence, Jesus as the son of God is not a readily accesible role for a Jew like Paul.

Paul sites the Lord's teaching on divorce and I already pointed out that it came from ancient scripture, the OT.

Wrong. You cited passages from the OT on divorce. But the OT makes very clear the divorce is common and acceptable. Paul, citing Jesus, says the opposite.

There is not one single reference to a parable or verse from Q found in the entire writings of the epistles.

Wrong. Just for starters, see the paper in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition edited by Henry Wansborough concerning Paul.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Paul was writing letters, not describing Jesus' ministry. It is small wander that the few references to Jesus' teachings (see above for citation) are not featured heavily in any way in Paul's writings.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, according to your history text, the angel of the Lord helped Peter escape from prison, Acts 12:7. Any relation to the brother of the Lord?

 

[roger_pearse]

You have to look at the time period that the New Testament was written in. A dead person was not uncommon to appear to the living. Even in the story of Augustus, we see the dead appearing to the living. It was not considered impossible and was hardly unique.

Even today, we have this same phenomenon. People who are in mourning, in cases, claim to be able to feel or have seen the dearly departed. If you look into some undeveloped countries, such as part of India (especially earlier in this century), the belief that one could be visited by the dead was not uncommon. There were quite a few charlatans who actually played on this idea and gained a nice size of power.

Looking even in a modern country, such as the United States, we can see, especially in the late 1800's and early 1900's, charlatans using this same phenomenon to their advantage. Respected members of society, such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, believed deeply in the ideas of Spiritualism, which accepted the idea that dead were able to appear to humans, (such as Jesus had with his followers), and communicate to the living.

Even today, we still see this same belief being held. In less advanced areas, it is not considered unique or impossible for the dead to appear to the living. Most of my study has been dealt with countries in Asia (primarily India) (Ormond McGill has some great sources on this topic in regards to Asia), but it is clearly seen to still be a norm in some areas there.

We do not consider these modern day visions to be true, or to be of invented people. We know that it is a psychological phenomenon caused by grief. The same was true in the first century. Having visions of Jesus was not do to with a spiritual realm. There was nothing unique about people having Jesus appear to them. It was not considered impossible, because it was a common occurrence to have visions of the dead.

It is, of course, the case that some people claim to see the dead, although I notice the description above is rather vague and unspecific, and filled with claims that are untestable or at least unreferenced. There's a bit too much general analogy in all this.

But surely general claims are of no value in evaluating a specific claim? That has to be assessed by means of evidence. If instead we merely brush the evidence aside and just appeal like this to the common beliefs of a period, then surely all we are doing is making an appeal to group prejudice? In short all this is petitio principi?

Incidentally I'd be most interested to see the list of examples of the dead coming back to life, supposedly like the resurrection of Jesus, from classical sources (I recognise that you may simply be repeating an idea you read somewhere, in which case of course that info will not be to hand).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

I exist yes. As me.
There might be a grave marker
and evidence that proves I existed
to historical standards.
However, if people worship me
as a goddess with naturally green hair,
"that" is not ACTUALLY me.

I believe that L. Ron Hubbard could advise you better. For tax purposes, the benefit of that worship does indeed belong to you.

The idea that someone does not exist because some other person has a mistaken idea about them is a rather odd one! (If I have understand the logic, that is)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[logician]

The early Christian epistle writers are obsessed with a mythical Christ figure that was crucified in a spiritual realm, they had visions of a resurrected Christ figure. It is not known when or even if their Christ would have lived on earth. The gospel writers writing at the end of the first century place his crucifixion during the time of Pilate. if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. Richard Carrier

Since MAtthew and Luke are based upon Mark, then they must also be fiction.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, according to your history text, the angel of the Lord helped Peter escape from prison, Acts 12:7. Any relation to the brother of the Lord?

Again, you make the serious mistake of holding ancient history to modern standards. Do I believe in the story of the founders of rome as told by Livy? No, it is religious/political myth mixed in with history? Do I believe Herodotus' account of Io, the argo, Helen of Troy? No, once again we have myth in history. Do I believe in all the miracles performed by Apollonius of Tyana, as told in his biography by Philostratus? No.

Examples such as these, where ancient biographers and historians mixed the unhistorical with the historical could easily be multiplied. This does not preclude them from being ancient histories, it just means the modern historian cannot accept everything in them and must examine them critically.

All your snide sarcasm reveals is a lack of understanding as to the content of much of ancient historical texts, because rather than read them, or spend time reading actual academic publications, you troll websites and read a few popular books intending to reinforce the conclusion you already reached

 

[dogsgod]

What silliness. We'll grant you that some gospel material might very well draw from an historical preacher or preachers, but the "founders of Christianity"? Good luck with that.

 

[Oberon]

What silliness. We'll grant you that some gospel material might very well draw from an historical preacher or preachers, but the "founders of Christianity"? Good luck with that.

When did I say "founders of Christianity"?

And again you miss the point. It wasn't about "gospel material" being drawn from anything, but that you continually point out what are clearly unhistorical parts of the gospels or Acts as if this precludes them from being ancient history, when in fact the same elements are ubiquitous in that genre.

 

[fallingblood]

Since MAtthew and Luke are based upon Mark, then they must also be fiction.

Not totally correct. Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark. However, there were other accounts used as well, such as the Q Gospel. Luke even mentions that others had already written accounts or at least set off to do so. So we know that the writer of Luke was at least aware of these accounts, and possibly even familiar with some of them.

Also, Mark is not pure fiction. So your whole argument fails. Even if Mark was fiction though, you're using a logical fallacy.

 

[roger_pearse]

What silliness. We'll grant you that some gospel material might very well draw from an historical preacher or preachers, but the "founders of Christianity"? Good luck with that.

I suppose it all depends on whether we base what we believe about ancient history on evidence or speculation. 100% of the ancient evidence tells us that the gospels were written by either apostles of apostolic men (Tertullian, Contra Marcionem IV, 1). Nor is there anything surprising about that; even today, every great man has his disciples, although admittedly it is usually Judas who does the biography!

I suppose if we were cynical, we might find it remarkable how certain people can be of things which no ancient source whatever mentions. It's always a bad idea to base one's statements on theories. Let the data speak, is my view.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[fallingblood]

It is, of course, the case that some people claim to see the dead, although I notice the description above is rather vague and unspecific, and filled with claims that are untestable or at least unreferenced. There's a bit too much general analogy in all this.

But surely general claims are of no value in evaluating a specific claim? That has to be assessed by means of evidence. If instead we merely brush the evidence aside and just appeal like this to the common beliefs of a period, then surely all we are doing is making an appeal to group prejudice? In short all this is petitio principi?

Incidentally I'd be most interested to see the list of examples of the dead coming back to life, supposedly like the resurrection of Jesus, from classical sources (I recognise that you may simply be repeating an idea you read somewhere, in which case of course that info will not be to hand).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The Gospel of Matthew actually has an account (27:52-53). So just in the Biblical story we see this not being all that unique. Paul even states that without a general resurrection, there would be no Jesus resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 15:16)

That is strictly speaking of resurrection. However, the appearance of the dead, we can look at Virgil's Aeneid where Hector (who is dead) appears to Anchises.

Today though we do know have many more documented cases. So much so that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV even states that these apparitions of the dead is a common characteristic of uncomplicated grief.

Granted, I am more familiar with modern day examples of this phenomenon; however, there is quite a bit of evidence supporting that the same thing happened during that time, and was not considered impossible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is strictly speaking of resurrection. However, the appearance of the dead, we can look at Virgil's Aeneid where Hector (who is dead) appears to Anchises.

We would need to compare more than one example to make any suggestions... such as the common belief that resurrection was possible. In my reading, it most certainly is not common.

BUT

The resurrection of Jesus is not a part of the arguments for the historical Jesus. But you would know that...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We would need to compare more than one example to make any suggestions... such as the common belief that resurrection was possible. In my reading, it most certainly is not common.

BUT

The resurrection of Jesus is not a part of the arguments for the historical Jesus. But you would know that...

I can add to this:

The ancient world had no popular belief in a man who was crucified and ressurrected on the third day during the time of Jesus.

The similar myths of gods dying and resurrecting yearly are surely ancient and common - according to the sowing and harvesting of crops.

But a man like Jesus being crucified and ressurrecting is unique.

 

[dogsgod]

I suppose it all depends on whether we base what we believe about ancient history on evidence or speculation. 100% of the ancient evidence tells us that the gospels were written by either apostles of apostolic men (Tertullian, Contra Marcionem IV, 1). Nor is there anything surprising about that; even today, every great man has his disciples, although admittedly it is usually Judas who does the biography!

I suppose if we were cynical, we might find it remarkable how certain people can be of things which no ancient source whatever mentions. It's always a bad idea to base one's statements on theories. Let the data speak, is my view.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

That a risen saviour figure of the epistle writers hearkens back to an historical figure is not a problem, why couldn't it? What is most unlikely is that this historical figure lived at the time the gospel writers place him. The unlikelihood of this placement is not based on theory, it's based on a reading of the gospels and of the epistles themselves. The pretenders on this board provide worn out appeals to authority and popularity because they can't provide counter arguments that stand up to scrutiny.