Did Jesus Christ exist?

Pikachu said:

The idea that Jesus never existed is frequently brought up for no apparent reason in various religion threads around here. It is only natural to raise the question why this claim appears to be so popular. Maybe what they really mean is that the real Jesus was different from how the Bible describes him, but the problem is that posters like ComradeDavo, Taliesin, CurtSibling and especially Nanocyborgasm express themselves in ways that easily can be interpreted like they deny that the guy Christians build the Jesus myth upon existed at all. Some of them even try to give the impression that the historical documentation concerning Jesus is suspiciously sparse while it in fact is just as good as for any other person with similar contemporary status, which of course is quite sparse, but there is nothing suspicious about that.

Click to expand...

The big difference is that the documentation about Jesus was written by his fans, whereas documentation about many other historical figures is more neutral (though hardly ever really neutral!).
The non-biblical documentation about Jesus is really rare.

Meleager said:

I knew the link was biased when I posted it, however, it still holds some valid points. As you can imagine it is quite hard to find an un-biased view on this topic. If you find one please let me know, i'll be intereseted in what it says.

On your topic about the existance of the early church being no more proof of jesus then the existance of UFO followers proving the existance of aliens...
Even UFO followers exist becasue of some evedence / events. Lights in the sky and such. However this does not nessesarily prove the existance of aliens.
In the same strand christians must have had something to base their belief of (the existance of jesus), however this does not prove he is god.

The early church could only exist if...
a) there was something to base their faith off (i.e. jesus existance)
b) its all a conspiracy

b is simply not reasonable - it makes no sence. (Yes I do see that you said he exists).

This debate does raise some questions for me. Why do so many people want more proof of jesus then they do of any other acient figure? Why do they try to deny his existance more passionately than anyone else? The only answer I can come up with is fear that we may just be right.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is very difficult to identify an unbiased assessment - we all (in the christianised west anyway) carry so much cultural baggage for and against Christianity that such an assessment is almost impossible. Perhaps a followed of a non-monotheistic, non-exclusive religion such as Shinto or Buddhism might be able to do so.

I disagree that the faith of early christians proves Jesus' existence, although I agree it is strong supporting evidence. Only the contemporary witnesses, of whom even the Bible asserts there were very few, know if Jesus really existed - everyone else is relying on the testimony of those witnesses.

From a personal perspective it appears to me that the balance of evidence is quite strongly in favour of the existence of a man called Yeshua who was one of many messianic prophets at the time, but is also quite strongly in favour of much of the supporting 'evidence' for the divine nature of Jesus being manufactured after his death (time of birth, birthplace, genealogy, etc.) and further distortions to historical truth and Jesus' message being perpetrated by the Pauline church over period from the late first century right through the Council of Nicea.

Why people question the certainty of religionists is obvious, especially in these days - certainty is a dangerous thing, especially when it is not backed by fact or critical reasoning.

The men who blew up tube trains in London and the men who planned and executed the war in Iraq have two things in common - absolute certainty in their convictions, and a willingness to bring about the death of others to act on those certainties.

We certainly don't suspect you are right, we suspect you are wrong, but we are increasingly aware that - regardless - your certainty presents a genuine risk to the lives of us and our children.

Just IMHO of course...

Pontiuth Pilate said:

Recall that at one time there were more than 80 competing gospels - some as fleshed-out as those of Mark and Luke - and the Nicean Council pruned all the ones that didn't depict a trinitarian, divine Jesus.

Click to expand...

That is a rather speculative version of what happened at Niceae. Most of those “gospels” were never considered inspired among Christians.

ComradeDavo said:

Thats why I am doubtful, because other historical figures generally have stuff written about them during their lifetime.

Click to expand...

Not the ones of Jesus caliber. Here’s a short list of how many contemporary documents confirming the existence of some people of similar importance to Jesus:
-The Prophet Muhammad: 0
-Buddha Gautama: 0
-Confucius: 0
-Lao Zi: 1 (a strongly debatable one)
-Socrates: 0
The number of contemporary documents concerning Jesus fits perfectly well into this context.

Stapel said:

The big difference is that the documentation about Jesus was written by his fans…

Click to expand...

How is that different from other historical persons of similar reputation to Jesus?

The Prophet Muhammad is only known through Muslim sources, Buddha Gautama is only known through Buddhist sources, Confucius is only known through Confucian sources, Lao Zi is only known through Taoist sources and Socrates is only known through his own student. To me it appears to be quite common that people like Jesus is only known through the accounts of their own followers.

bigfatron said:

We certainly don't suspect you are right, we suspect you are wrong, but we are increasingly aware that - regardless - your certainty presents a genuine risk to the lives of us and our children.

Click to expand...

Pikachu said:

Not the ones of Jesus caliber. Here’s a short list of how many contemporary documents confirming the existence of some people of similar importance to Jesus:
-The Prophet Muhammad: 0
-Buddha Gautama: 0
-Confucius: 0
-Lao Zi: 1 (a strongly debatable one)
-Socrates: 0
The number of contemporary documents concerning Jesus fits perfectly well into this context.

Click to expand...

And who says I belive any of them existed either? I look into things case by case.......I don't make broad generalisations of 'person x existed so person y must have to' and vice versa. Perhapos if I looked into each of them I would find reason to believe they to are myth, however they are not the topic of this thread.

Pikachu said:

That is a rather speculative version of what happened at Niceae. Most of those “gospels” were never considered inspired among Christians.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, don't you see Saying that a Gospel is particularly "inspired" is a circular definition. They were endorsed by Niceae because they were inspired and they were viewed as inspired because they were endorsed. It's "Old Thrashbarg" theology.

Here’s a short list of how many contemporary documents confirming the existence of some people of similar importance to Jesus:
...
-Socrates: 0

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking. Plato doesn't count as contemporary? Or is his bias too blatant?

This is cheating a bit, but Wikipedia lists a number of other authors who met Socrates and whose works have survived, including Anisthenes.

Good to know the first Western philosopher isn't ENTIRELY mythology dreamed up by the first Western grad student

He was a great man who spread peace and love of humanity but he had no magical or godly power or calling :shakehead

@Pikachu:

If you posting the laughinh smilie in mockery at Ron's mentioning of the extremists
that blew up the London Tube, then you fall even further below my contempt.

Just like a fundie type to let the mask slip and show the cruel zealot underneath...

You all should be locked up.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but a Christ-like figure (historically, not metaphorically) is alluded to in Marcus Aurelius's Meditations

I think many can agree there was a figure in history that closely resembles the christ that the christians hold to.

But the fantasy fan-fiction powers and godly origin that have been reverentially
attached to him by clueless or ruthless church demagouges is bunk, quite obviously.

How anyone can take the mass-metaphors and myths of the classic age as 100% true is rather stupefying.

He may have been an inspiring figure for those who equated to terrorists of their age, but he was no godly son.

.

Pontiuth Pilate said:

That's exactly my point, don't you see Saying that a Gospel is particularly "inspired" is a circular definition. They were endorsed by Niceae because they were inspired and they were viewed as inspired because they were endorsed. It's "Old Thrashbarg" theology.

Click to expand...

It wasn’t exactly like you suggest, though. The first council of Niceae in AD 325 did only settle the question of Arianism, and did in fact not define which books were canonical and which were not. That didn’t happen until Hippo in 393. There were however many slightly different New Testament canons around long before that, and there were only a handful books whose status were disputed about the time of the first Niceae council. 7 of them were finally accepted into the Bible (Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude and Revelations) while the remaining 6 were rejected (Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, Acts of Paul and Apocalypse of Peter).

You've got to be joking. Plato doesn't count as contemporary? Or is his bias too blatant?

Click to expand...

ComradeDavo demanded documents about Jesus written in the period 7 BC to 33 AD, i.e. they had to be written while Jesus was still alive. Plato and the others who wrote about Socrates wrote about him after he was dead and are therefore not good enough for ComradeDavo. Apart from that, you are of course right. We have several documents about Socrates dated to shortly after his death. We also have a document about Confucius dated to a short time after his death by the way.

CurtSibling said:

@Pikachu:

If you posting the laughinh smilie in mockery at Ron's mentioning of the extremists
that blew up the London Tube, then you fall even further below my contempt.

Just like a fundie type to let the mask slip and show the cruel zealot underneath...

You all should be locked up.

.

Click to expand...

Who are the fundies here?

I didn’t laugh of the London tragedy, but of Bigfatrons ridiculous concern about Meleager’s terrorist tendencies. I find the irony of that comment funny. I hope it was just a joke, though.

I'd say that JC probobly did exist, but I have extreme doubts about any divinity.

Pikachu said:

ComradeDavo demanded documents about Jesus written in the period 7 BC to 33 AD, i.e. they had to be written while Jesus was still alive. Plato and the others who wrote about Socrates wrote about him after he was dead and are therefore not good enough for ComradeDavo. Apart from that, you are of course right. We have several documents about Socrates dated to shortly after his death. We also have a document about Confucius dated to a short time after his death by the way.

Click to expand...

Well, I would accept writings by people who witnessed Jesus. Are there any though?

Would you accept writings from someone who has interviewed many eyewitnesses and compiled a book based on those interviews?

We want the engine, not the oily rags.

Can't you admit your JC evidence is built on fan-data?

Pikachu said:

Who are the fundies here?

Click to expand...

Would you like a list?

Pikachu said:

I didn’t laugh of the London tragedy, but of Bigfatrons ridiculous concern about Meleager’s terrorist tendencies. I find the irony of that comment funny. I hope it was just a joke, though.

Click to expand...

I think your sniggering is in bad taste, but I expect little better...

.

Oda Nobunaga said:

But Jesus was not an important person in his time. He was one jewish prophet among many, an alleged miracle-worker ALSO among many, and he did nearly all his work in the hinterlands of a backwater of the Empire.

He only became important by the time his message began spreading around (thanks to, allegedly, Paul), by which time he was, of course, quite dead.

Click to expand...

Excuses excuses.

If it took that long for his message to evolve, there's no way to know where it actually came from. For all I know, Paul (or yet others) may have made the whole thing up and referenced a predecessor. That was done ridiculous amounts of times in antiquity.

bigfatron said:

Why people question the certainty of religionists is obvious, especially in these days - certainty is a dangerous thing, especially when it is not backed by fact or critical reasoning.

The men who blew up tube trains in London and the men who planned and executed the war in Iraq have two things in common - absolute certainty in their convictions, and a willingness to bring about the death of others to act on those certainties.

We certainly don't suspect you are right, we suspect you are wrong, but we are increasingly aware that - regardless - your certainty presents a genuine risk to the lives of us and our children.

Just IMHO of course...

Click to expand...

You can be rest assured that I am not a terrorist.

As for your comments about certianty being a dangerous thing I think you have to remember the other side of the coin.

If it wasn't for people being certian about their beliefs (Martin Luther King comes to mind) then the world we live in today would be a horirble place.

Sure there are many times when "certianty" may have caused problems (remember by the way that the "sterio-typical" terrorist is not very religiously educated) , but I think that in the world we live in today people who will not stand up for their beliefs are a bigger problem then the ones that do.

PS. Dont say you were only refering to religion... you bought up the "people who planned an exectuted the war in iraq not me".

Nanocyborgasm said:

Excuses excuses.

If it took that long for his message to evolve, there's no way to know where it actually came from. For all I know, Paul (or yet others) may have made the whole thing up and referenced a predecessor. That was done ridiculous amounts of times in antiquity.

Click to expand...

There remains only one way that jesus could not exist that I can think of. Pure conspiracy. If you wish to continue to suggest that Jesus did not exist you must show a conspiracy. The facts are...
1) There is no motive
2) What you are suggesting in near impossible
3) If jesus didn't exist the jewish priests would have slammed the movement before it even started (after all, Jesus' existence would have been easy to prove at that time).

Its one thing to deny Jesus' divinity, its completely another to deny his existance.

Given the two choices of:
1. Jesus was a historical figure and the source of Christianity
2. Jesus was fictional and part of "conspiracy" that started christianity

Clearly, the historical choice has the most weight. First, people are terrible at keeping secrets and there is a zero percent chance that such a secret would have been kept by all the participants over the time needed to get the religion self-sustaining.

Second, the NT books are such a jumbled mess that the people smart enough to think up such a scheme couldn't have produced such a terrible text. We'd have something more coherent and organized.

Third, the is no motive for starting such a thing. No significant power, no fame, no riches, no free sex. Those are the prime motivators for any scheme that takes real sustained effort. In 30 AD there was no local or national media and to stand out in a crowd only drew that attention of the Romans. Roman inclusion into this plot only makes it less likely.

Fouth, faith is transferred from person to person; people convert because the see things in believers that they want to experience. It is very difficult to fake such emotions and sustain that myth over many years. Faking it is too damn hard without immediate payoffs (power, fame, money or sex). And

Lastly, there is no evidence for a conspiracy. Lack of evidence of Jesus' historicity is not evidence of a conspiracy. Can anyone produce a single contemporary document that says a group of Jews conspired to create christianity? Please hold yourselves to the same standards you demand of others. Occam's razor: Jesus was a real person.