Zone1 These 5 historical truths suggest Jesus may have never existed

[TNHarley]

MSN

www.msn.com

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus' life, which become more crystalized in later texts.
3. Even the New Testament stories don't claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Personally, I believe jesus existed. His powers may have been a bit exaggerated, but I believe he existed. But my opinions are just that. Opinions.
Maybe he was just an "allegory" like everything else in the bible. Lol

 

[Votto]

MSN

www.msn.com

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus' life, which become more crystalized in later texts.
3. Even the New Testament stories don't claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Personally, I believe jesus existed. His powers may have been a bit exaggerated, but I believe he existed. But my opinions are just that. Opinions.
Maybe he was just an "allegory" like everything else in the bible. Lol

Apart from the Christian faith, you have the writings of Josephus the corroborate he exists.

As a result, any historian worth their salt would acknowledge he existed.

The book of Mark was the earliest gospel and written by someone who either witnessed the life of Jesus or spoke to those who knew him.

As for the gospels not aligning perfectly, this in my opinion only adds emphasis to the authenticity of the gospels. After all, in a court of law the testimony of witnesses would not perfectly match, but they should align as evidence at points where they do not contradict each other. In other words, the gospels were written by 4 different authors as they did not copy each other.

 

[DGS49]

As I have posted in this forum before, we have a virtual cornucopia of circumstantial evidence that lead to only one conclusion: that fellow existed and had an overwhelming influence on most of the people he encountered.

 

[TNHarley]

Apart from the Christian faith, you have the writings of Josephus the corroborate he exists.

As a result, any historian worth their salt would acknowledge he existed.

The book of Mark was the earliest gospel and written by someone who either witnessed the life of Jesus or spoke to those who knew him.

As for the gospels not aligning perfectly, this in my opinion only adds emphasis to the authenticity of the gospels. After all, in a court of law the testimony of witnesses would not perfectly match, but they should align as evidence at points where they do not contradict each other. In other words, the gospels were written by 4 different authors as they did not copy each other.

Isnt the validity of his writings questioned? Like they were added later? I know certain references were, because they were only found in one translation.

 

[TNHarley]

As I have posted in this forum before, we have a virtual cornucopia of circumstantial evidence that lead to only one conclusion: that fellow existed and had an overwhelming influence on most of the people he encountered.

Such as?

 

[Votto]

Isnt the validity of his writings questioned? Like they were added later? I know certain references were, because they were only found in one translation.

The last chapter or so of Mark was said to have been added later which went into detail what happened after the resurrection

But does this detract from its authenticity or add to it?

 

[TNHarley]

The last chapter or so of Mark was said to have been added later which went into detail what happened after the resurrection

But does this detract from its authenticity or add to it?

Detract

 

[Calypso Jones]

Why believe anything out of the lying secular god hating media??? Commies always want to destroy belief in God.

all their statements are false. And it is the people who know no better that believe them without checking it out for themselves.

 

[DudleySmith]

Isnt the validity of his writings questioned? Like they were added later? I know certain references were, because they were only found in one translation.

Just because some pseudo-intellectuals question something doesn't make their claims valid.

Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges Jesus really existed. He is a major NY critic most of the pagans and deviants love to cite, even though his claims have all been destroyed by real scholars.

Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]

Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.[1]"


Another clue is that there are no anachronisms anywhere in the NT. This would be impossible if they were written at later times and just made up by con artists writing years later or never there. Everything in the books fits the exact historical times they claim to be re culture, society and law, and places.

 

[TNHarley]

Just because some pseudo-intellectuals question something doesn't make their claims valid.

Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges Jesus really existed. He is a major NY critic most of the pagans and deviants love to cite, even though his claims have all been destroyed by real scholars.

Yeah, new parts of the book showing up in only slavic translations, centuries later, doesnt take away from it lol

 

[DudleySmith]

Yeah, new parts of the book showing up in only slavic translations, centuries later, doesnt take away from it lol

You're right, they don't mean squat. There are too many early translations that agree to take later rubbish seriously, as with the Gnostics and people who try and pass off forgeries and apocrypha as 'legit'.

 

[Calypso Jones]

https://harbingersdaily.com/intended-to-deceive-and-distract-what-stance-should-christians-be-taking-on-ufos/

 

[Votto]

Detract

But then comes the question of why it was added.

Was it added to propagate a lie, a lie that was getting people killed by Rome and the Jewish religious authority?

And why would his followers die, basically all of the disciples but one, for preaching the resurrection which was the entire point of their faith?

Did they become rich? No. Was it for any kind of worldly power? No.

Or were they just all insane?

Their writings don't seem to suggest they were crazy.

The miracles described Jesus doing in Mark were not added later.

The fact that the part about the resurrection being added later suggests to me that the account was written before the resurrection. The only alternative is to believe it was all a lie to begin with. If so, why add the part about the ressurection later? Why not just write it in when the rest was written?

 

[TNHarley]

You would think, out of the miracles he did, someone would have wrote about them. Especially first hand accounts. Those miracles would have been big deals.
Of course, that was the time of mysticism and such, so maybe they werent. Lol

 

[Votto]

You would think, out of the miracles he did, someone would have wrote about them. Especially first hand accounts. Those miracles would have been big deals.
Of course, that was the time of mysticism and such, so maybe they werent. Lol

Most of history is lost, whether it be to illiteracy, or writings that were later destroyed like a fire in Alexandria where their library burned to the ground.. Most of history we have today were preserved by Monks in monasteries and we have the Bible because the Hebrew people valued literacy and education.

To even have the Bible is a miracle in itself, amongst all of the persecution and such.

But just look at today. You have an openly corrupt President with people walking around asking for evidence as the state censors all the information and propagates falsehoods.

Was it any different back then?

Probably not.

The State crucified Jesus, just like they are doing to Trump today.

Nazis gotta Nazi

And yes, I just want to see the heads explode who think I am comparing Jesus to Trump.



Of course I'm not.

 

[TNHarley]

Was it any different back then?

Probably not.

Thats fair.

 

[norwegen]

I’ve sometimes wondered in the past if the gospels were written after the fact as a way to explain away the end of the temple, Judea, and Jewish culture, but the gospels don’t expound exclusively on the end of the age. They also attest to an age that would arise thereafter, later to be called generally the Christian Age, or Church Age. Even if the gospels were written after the fact, this vision of the future is nonetheless on target; prophetic, even.

The epistles are also prophetic in this way, and we know that at least some of them were written before the age ended. Doubly prophetic. And perhaps the events of the times, namely the First Jewish War, solidified in the disciples’ minds the words of their Christ a few short decades earlier enough to confidently inspire them to memorialize them.

Contrary to the OP, Paul did quote Christ on at least one detail – that of the bread and wine:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:23-25)​

More striking is the well-established existence of James the Just and an unbeliever’s link between him and Jesus:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20.9.1.200)​

In his epistle, James doesn’t call Jesus his brother, so he may have been a half-brother or a cousin. At any rate, he existed and was martyred sometime between the mid 40s and early 60s AD.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

MSN

www.msn.com

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus' life, which become more crystalized in later texts.
3. Even the New Testament stories don't claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Personally, I believe jesus existed. His powers may have been a bit exaggerated, but I believe he existed. But my opinions are just that. Opinions.
Maybe he was just an "allegory" like everything else in the bible. Lol

Brains Flatlined Back When People Thought the World Was Flat

King Arthur existed, but nothing told about him was true. Oedipus existed as a pre-Greek hero of the Helots, so the Greeks had to slander him.

Jesus was an insignificant leader of a fringe cult. Even those who got him crucified exaggerated his importance. He had a few devoted followers who had to make up stories about him to get more converts. Paul was sent to stop them, but switched to becoming the new cult leader when he saw that would give him more power than he had as a flunky of the High Priest lowlife.

 

[alang1216]

Just because some pseudo-intellectuals question something doesn't make their claims valid.

Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges Jesus really existed. He is a major NY critic most of the pagans and deviants love to cite, even though his claims have all been destroyed by real scholars.

Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In this book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]

Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.[1]"


Another clue is that there are no anachronisms anywhere in the NT. This would be impossible if they were written at later times and just made up by con artists writing years later or never there. Everything in the books fits the exact historical times they claim to be re culture, society and law, and places.

I'm an Ehrman fanboy and agree that Jesus existed. I disagree that "Everything in the books fits the exact historical times they claim to be re culture, society and law, and places." Things like the Roman census are clearly theological creations, not historical facts.

 

[alang1216]

But then comes the question of why it was added.

Was it added to propagate a lie, a lie that was getting people killed by Rome and the Jewish religious authority?

And why would his followers die, basically all of the disciples but one, for preaching the resurrection which was the entire point of their faith?

Did they become rich? No. Was it for any kind of worldly power? No.

Or were they just all insane?

Their writings don't seem to suggest they were crazy.

The miracles described Jesus doing in Mark were not added later.

The fact that the part about the resurrection being added later suggests to me that the account was written before the resurrection. The only alternative is to believe it was all a lie to begin with. If so, why add the part about the ressurection later? Why not just write it in when the rest was written?

The writers of the NT were more focused on theology than history. If and account was deemed to be unclear adding a passage would seem to be a logical decision. None of the Gospels claims an author and there are whole sections of the NT that were written in the name of others, pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world.