CDZ Reply to no proof of existence of Jesus

[sakinago]

A. The source you got you're information from is clearly highly biased. Which this is a topic where it's hard to avoid bias, however that source conveniently skipped over plenty of evidence, and even molded plenty more evidence to fit its narrative.

The first link I saw provided ample evidence to the contrary of your source. Was not that hard to find at all. So I have to assume you did nothing to get the information from your source.

Here's the link

Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?

If you want to question the source I posted, be my guest, see what you come up with

B. It's not very logical or probable to assume that there was no central figure that started the largest religion in the world. It doesn't really make sense for a bunch of people 40 to 100 years later to make up a person, and all simultaneously write about this person while this religion (small at the time) was growing pretty steady and fast in the region.

C. Jesus is the most written about person in the entire world.

D. I haven't heard a legit historical scholar try to argue the point that Jesus didn't actually exist. The scholar who wrote that book with half decent proof pointing to the possibility that Jesus didn't exist would be an almost overnight millionaire...it's pretty low hanging fruit that a number of people could snag up, but no one has...because it's just not the case. Jesus existence is more likely than say Viking king who were pretty positive existed. More likely than Hannibal of Carthage, or Sargon of Akkad.

E. If you attacking Christianity, there's a lot more successful ways of doing that than trying to go after the existence of Jesus. One of those being the deity of Jesus, that should be first on your list haha.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus one bit. I do, however, doubt his story. Of course, I doubt most of the Bible. For reasons that don't belong in this thread.

 

[sakinago]

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus one bit. I do, however, doubt his story. Of course, I doubt most of the Bible. For reasons that don't belong in this thread.

Completely fine, this thread was created in response to one that had been shut down, saying no proof of Jesus is out there.

 

[USApatriotz]

Thanks for starting this thread again. Let me start by saying I'm NO liberal! Simply because no evidence exists for something does NOT mean I'm a democrat! I voted TRUMP all the way!!

Just because Jesus is the most famous figure ever doesn't mean he existed! Superman is known worldwide so you think he exists?? My link biased?? LMAO!! The bible is the most biased book on earth! Plus NO ONE ever saw Jesus! He never posed for a painting or sculpture of even wrote a single WORD! People on earth believe Jesus was either white, black, or middle eastern because NO ONE SAW HIM!

There is NO WAY he looked Swedish like the modern portrayls of Jesus. My anthropology professor back in college said he would've looked more like BIN LADEN! When the Puritans came to America NO depictions of Jesus were even allowed! Then they started depicting Jesus as a blonde white guy to subjugate the black slaves & Native Americans. And remember I'm NO liberal! Another excellent source on the lack of existence for Jesus:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.


There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.


By Raphael Lataster December 18, 2014
Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

 

[jwoodie]

The question of Jesus' existence beggars the question of how Christianity could have developed in his absence. Was it simply a case of mass hysteria? (I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party had such ancient roots.)

 

[westwall]

Thanks for starting this thread again. Let me start by saying I'm NO liberal! Simply because no evidence exists for something does NOT mean I'm a democrat! I voted TRUMP all the way!!

Just because Jesus is the most famous figure ever doesn't mean he existed! Superman is known worldwide so you think he exists?? My link biased?? LMAO!! The bible is the most biased book on earth! Plus NO ONE ever saw Jesus! He never posed for a painting or sculpture of even wrote a single WORD! People on earth believe Jesus was either white, black, or middle eastern because NO ONE SAW HIM!

There is NO WAY he looked Swedish like the modern portrayls of Jesus. My anthropology professor back in college said he would've looked more like BIN LADEN! When the Puritans came to America NO depictions of Jesus were even allowed! Then they started depicting Jesus as a blonde white guy to subjugate the black slaves & Native Americans. And remember I'm NO liberal! Another excellent source on the lack of existence for Jesus:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.


There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.


By Raphael Lataster December 18, 2014
Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

There is ample evidence from non Christian sources. I'll rely on Tacitus for the best evidence we have. The Christians were blamed by Nero for the great fire in Rome in 64 A.D. I wonder where on Earth they got the ide for their name? Oh wait, it's right there.

Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 120 CE) The Annals (c. 116 CE)
(comments on the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome [64 CE] in which Nero chooses to deflect blame away from himself onto the Christians)

• How does Tacitus characterize Roman Christians?
• For what "abominations" might the Christians have been "infamous"? What might Tacitus mean by "hatred of the human race"?
• What does Tacitus tell us about Jesus?

44.2. Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations.

44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated.

44.4. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps.

44.5. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.

 

[sakinago]

Thanks for starting this thread again. Let me start by saying I'm NO liberal! Simply because no evidence exists for something does NOT mean I'm a democrat! I voted TRUMP all the way!!

Just because Jesus is the most famous figure ever doesn't mean he existed! Superman is known worldwide so you think he exists?? My link biased?? LMAO!! The bible is the most biased book on earth! Plus NO ONE ever saw Jesus! He never posed for a painting or sculpture of even wrote a single WORD! People on earth believe Jesus was either white, black, or middle eastern because NO ONE SAW HIM!

There is NO WAY he looked Swedish like the modern portrayls of Jesus. My anthropology professor back in college said he would've looked more like BIN LADEN! When the Puritans came to America NO depictions of Jesus were even allowed! Then they started depicting Jesus as a blonde white guy to subjugate the black slaves & Native Americans. And remember I'm NO liberal! Another excellent source on the lack of existence for Jesus:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.


There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.


By Raphael Lataster December 18, 2014
Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

I am happy to start this thread again Usapatriotz. And I have to say I did not vote for trump. I lament probably more of what he wants brings in than I like. I am also glad Hillary didn't win... but back on topic

A. You have to consider the fact that Rome sacked Jerusalem in a brutal way shortly after the fact of the alleged Jesus

B. Even after this fact (remember history is written by the victor) you still have to take into account what Tacitus wrote, who has no benefit in reporting Christ. You're sources ignore Tacitus wholly

C. There's many more secular sources that affirm a Christ like figure for Christianity at and around the time. Again much of that history was set into flames by Rome. What we do know is there was a central figure, before and after HISTORY of roman sacking, that there was a movement of a central figure. And fro
What we've learned of the Dead Sea scrolls, is that writing from the time that many have considered diluted through generations, was a lot more accurate than we wan to give credit to. Things like the existence of pontius pilot in line with roman records of when he ruled

 

[waltky]

OP wrote: Jesus existence is more likely than say Viking king who were pretty positive existed.

Yeah...

And the reason the Vikings were such good sailors...

... is `cause dey was ScandiNAVIans.

 

[yiostheoy]

As far as historians go, Josephus Flavius and Eusebius are the two earliest historians who mention Jesus.

It is no surprise that nobody mentions him concurrently however. He was not a political statesman. He was just a handyman (tekton) who led a reform movement against 1st Century Judaism and was murdered for it.

How much more evidence does anyone need?

There is even less evidence for Muhammad and for Buddha.

Arguments against Jesus (Iesous in Greek) are merely rhetorical and satanic.

 

[sakinago]

OP wrote: Jesus existence is more likely than say Viking king who were pretty positive existed.

Yeah...

And the reason the Vikings were such good sailors...

... is `cause dey was ScandiNAVIans.

What? What point are you trying to make?

 

[USApatriotz]

As far as historians go, Josephus Flavius and Eusebius are the two earliest historians who mention Jesus.

It is no surprise that nobody mentions him concurrently however. He was not a political statesman. He was just a handyman (tekton) who led a reform movement against 1st Century Judaism and was murdered for it.

How much more evidence does anyone need?

There is even less evidence for Muhammad and for Buddha.

Arguments against Jesus (Iesous in Greek) are merely rhetorical and satanic.

Neither Josephus or Eusebius were even ALIVE when they allege Jesus was! All they did was repeat stories people told them! They had no idea if it was true or a myth since they NEVER saw him!

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Some GREAT info below on to the utter lack of evidence for Jesus & how other gods like Hercules have very similar stories to Jesus!

Did Jesus exist?

 

[westwall]

As far as historians go, Josephus Flavius and Eusebius are the two earliest historians who mention Jesus.

It is no surprise that nobody mentions him concurrently however. He was not a political statesman. He was just a handyman (tekton) who led a reform movement against 1st Century Judaism and was murdered for it.

How much more evidence does anyone need?

There is even less evidence for Muhammad and for Buddha.

Arguments against Jesus (Iesous in Greek) are merely rhetorical and satanic.

Neither Josephus or Eusebius were even ALIVE when they allege Jesus was! All they did was repeat stories people told them! They had no idea if it was true or a myth since they NEVER saw him!

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Some GREAT info on to the utter lack of evidence for Jesus & how other gods like Hercules have very similar stories to Jesus!

Did Jesus exist?

There is evidence from Rome itself (Tacitus Annals) that he existed. The fanciful ramblings of anti religious people can't eradicate that well established fact.

 

[yiostheoy]

Josephus is a Jewish source and he mentions Jesus about 70 A.D.

Other than Josephus, the next most current source that we have is Eusebius around 325 A.D.

 

[Dr Grump]

Did Jesus exist? probably. Was he the son of a god? no.

 

[jwoodie]

Did Jesus exist? probably. Was he the son of a god? no.

Please define "son" and "god" as referred to in your post.

 

[Dr Grump]

God is an assignation given to a deity that some people believe created the universe and all in it. Son is his offspring.

 

[jwoodie]

God is an assignation given to a deity that some people believe created the universe and all in it. Son is his offspring.

So do you deny the existence of (any) god, or that Jesus is his (biological) offspring?

 

[Dr Grump]

God is an assignation given to a deity that some people believe created the universe and all in it. Son is his offspring.

So do you deny the existence of (any) god, or that Jesus is his (biological) offspring?

Jesus as a person probably existed. And yes, there is no god or son of god. Just myths....with some good allegories in there, but myths nonetheless.

 

[usmbguest5318]

this is a topic where it's hard to avoid bias

What? The topic of whether Jesus was extant isn't one for which there is any place for bias. The guy either walked the Earth or he did not. That he did or didn't isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of historic fact. WTH? Does someone think "Jesus" was a codeword of sorts used by and agreed upon by the writers of the period -- the synoptics, John, Paul of Tarsus and his pen palls, Flavius Josephus, the gnostic gospel writers, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Thallus?

Assuming we aren't going into whether he was indeed descended from a god or a god himself, what one believes or doesn't believe has nothing to do with it. I should think even the most hardcore atheists will concur that a man named Jesus did live, make speeches advocating for societal change, gather disciples and supporters, create political problems for the Jewish and Roman leaders of Judea, and thus get himself killed by the political power wielders of the day.

Suggesting that Jesus didn't exist is like saying Ghandi or Mother Theresa didn't exist. I never met either of them but I didn't need to in order to know they existed. It's much the same with those early writers.

Good lord. People on here really will just post any dumbass thought that crosses their mind, won't they? When I see stuff like that, I'm ever more convinced that some people really don't deserve to have the right of free speech. The right of free speech presumes one has something of merit to say. Just so one can fill the air with one's words is not why we grant freedom of speech.

 

[FA_Q2]

The better question here is why does one that thinks he did not exist care?

The basic fact of the matter is that one of faith is going to believe that Jesus existed. The very basis of faith is that proof is not necessary nor even sought - it is personal and the 'proof' for faith internal. For those that do not believe, does Jesus' existence change anything? Not at all. Christianity is still here, it's effects and influence still here and ultimately trying to state Jesus did not exist is an exercise in futility. You are not going to convince anyone that has faith and those that do not have faith are not really in a position to care one way or another.

The only reason that I can see for trying to bring something like this up and defending it (Jesus not existing) would be to throw discredit onto a religion which is, at the very best, nonsensical.