Jesus didn't exist

SnowBall7:

I don't know what that was but barfing-up questions like that does not do your case any good nor does it speak well of your concern for facts.

I for one am not mythicist about Jesus but Carrier has some interesting points that I think add to the story. My problem with your references are that they really don't amount to evidence that he was real just because certain historians mention, in passing references, a cult that believed he was. These guys are not saying that they got this from records of Rome but from the traditions of certain groups in the generations prior to their own. The mentioning of them is along the lines of a parenthetical amidst the focal point of their discussions - that's it. They are not confirming anything.

[Motion]

Interesting topic. This guy is one of the first people I came across on this.




New Jesus Timeline, Part I (Introduction) - YouTube

[Ankhharu]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

Josephus mentioned him a couple of times. It was about 50 years after the fact, but it is better than nothing.

Mentioning someone 50 years after their alleged existence...how does that validate said existence when they never met them? That's no different than anyone of us mentioning his existence. Again, some historian of any era mentioning someone without any direct contact doesn't validate the subject's existence. Otherwise, we would be forced to acknowledge the existence of Mermaids, Vampires and Werewolves.

[Ankhharu]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

There is no reason to disallow the writings of Josephus,
Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny. Since the prime sources of
historical info concerning the reign of Tiberius was written after
his reign, why is it only the references to Jesus that these people
deem somehow lacking ?
Why did the Pharisses never say he didn't exist ?
Why aren't Jews today joining the "Jesus didn't exist" train ?
Why is all the Greco-Roman world and Eastern and African
histories in full agreement over 1900+ years that Jesus existed ?
Why is Jesus and his disciples, and his mother, in the Talmud ?
Why does the Talmud record that God rejected their sacrifices
after 30 A.D. ?
What about the Pilate Stone, the Pilate coins ?
What about Tertullian's account (he was a Roman lawyer who
had access to the archives) that Emperor Tiberius put to the Senate
to make Jesus a god in the pantheon, but the senate rejected this,
because by law only the senate could put something to a vote ? And
that Tiberius threatened those who persecuted Christians ?
How about the fact that in all the turmoil during and after Jesus's time,
the Jerusalem records were destroyed, along with the earliest Gospel,
the Hebrew Matthew ?
Is it strange that the dating of gospels has been bumped up 20-50 years
in the last few decades ? according to whom ? Jesus never instructed his
apostles to write down what he said. Word was spread by mouth then, in
the Hebrew tradition. It was not until the 1st century that the Jews assembled
their full book of books. Although most place Acts, and Epistles to Thessalonians
the closest to the life of Jesus (of the books we have today), how did Christianity
split Judiasm and cause such turmoil in the Roman empire, and spread to the East among contemporaries, who were willing to sacrifice their lives to attest to its truth, if "Jesus never existed" ?
Would not those living have known that he "didn't exist" ? Why did a contemporary
Greek (Luke) assemble a gospel ? Why did a contemporary North African (Mark)
assemble a gospel ? Were Greeks, Syrians, Africans, Jews, Romans, and other groups
natural allies during the 1st Century ? No. Yet, they all agree Christ lived. Why ?
Why are there numerous accounts of the lives and deaths, and works of all
the apostles from non-biblical sources ? Or are these accounts to be thoroughly discarded,
and is all tradition to be discared, historically speaking ? Gaul, Spain, India,
Ethiopia, even in the British Isles (Joseph of Arimathea).
Are the writings of Origen, Justin Martyr, Papias, Clement, Irenaeus, Eusebius and
others all to be discarded ?
Why did Titus Flavius Clemens, nephew of Emperor Vespasian, son of Roman prefect
Titus Flavius Sabinus , convert to Christianity and chose to suffer death for it
if "Jesus didn't exist" ?
Are all apocrypha and Christian writings of the 1st century to be disregarded because
they were written by "converts", or "believers" ?
The years 30-100 were tumultuous times.. what are the primary causes of this
tumult ? What split Judaism ? What changed the known world ? Did they all do it for a person
who did not exist ? If they said he existed then, who is someone 1900+ years later
to say that he did not, because why ?
I will no longer reply to this thread. It's a time-wasting trap.

Cliff notes: "All these Christian based religious texts support Jesus' existence. Since I can't find non-religious based historical references to support my opinion, it is clearly fallable and I lose the argument. Therefore, I will no longer reply to this thread."

Again, I'll use Vampires as an example. In supporting the vampire's existence, I direct you to Anne Rice Novels. If Vampires did not exist, why do her novels say otherwise? What about Bram Stoker? He mentions Vampires. These books support Vampires, you are all wrong.

[Clark Park]

I think it is probable that Jesus did exist.

He was an obscure and unimportant person in his lifetime, but a group of religious reformers after his death created the myth of a living man-good.

It's interesting that if Jesus was a Jew ... and a rabbi, even ... his own people rejected him and did not follow him.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

Josephus mentioned him a couple of times. It was about 50 years after the fact, but it is better than nothing.

Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

Never mentioned him at all.

All of the references to Jesus are bogus ... that were added by Christian copyists and translators centuries later in order to add "legitimacy" to Christianity. They were not in the original writings.

[PatDJohns]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

Never mentioned him at all.

All of the references to Jesus are bogus ... that were added by Christian copyists and translators centuries later in order to add "legitimacy" to Christianity. They were not in the original writings.

Then why do the Arabic translations of these ancient Latin texts also mention Jesus? What did Muslims have to gain from his mention?

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by PatDJohns

Then why do the Arabic translations of these ancient Latin texts also mention Jesus? What did Muslims have to gain from his mention?

First off, Arabic was/is used by non-Muslims, even more so in the past than now, when Jewish and Christian populations in predominantly Muslim lands were proportionally larger.

Second, why would Muslims themselves have a problem with the mention of Jesus? Jesus is mentioned numerous times in the Quran itself and is considered in Islam to be a prophet.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

Never mentioned him at all.

All of the references to Jesus are bogus ... that were added by Christian copyists and translators centuries later in order to add "legitimacy" to Christianity. They were not in the original writings.

There have been several threads discussing the historicity of Jesus and the topic of Josephus has come up several times. There are three passages in Antiquities that deal with Biblical charcaters or references. Two of them have majority support to be authentic, while the third (and the most direct) is highly questionable to varying degree.

1. James the brother of Jesus:

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... 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; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

This one is considered by the vast majority to be authentic in its entirety.

2. John the Baptist:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

Again, this reference to a central Biblical character is considered to be completely authentic.

3. Testimonium Flavianum

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Reading this you can immediately see the differences between the James passage..."Jesus, who was called Christ" vs. "He was the Christ". The entire Testimonium reads like a heavily Christian influenced source with words like "if it be lawful to call him a man"; the direct implication that the Jews killed Jesus, "at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us (us=Jews)"; and of course the entire section from "those that loved him at the first...to...wonderful things concerning him".

These are all pointed out as very obvious interpolations added later by Christian writers/translators. However, the kernel of the story is still believed to have been there as it also appears in the Arabic/Syriac copies of Josephus, but in a different form absent the superlatives and with a couple of critical word changes. The Syriac version reads like this:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man and teacher. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was believed by them to be Christ. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, that reads much more like what one would expect a Jewish historian to have written about Jesus. Afterall, Jesus would have been nothing more then any one of a number of rebellious Messianic preachers wandering around claiming that the end of days was imminent. Viewed in that light, Jesus was simply a well known and popular figure in the larger Messianic movement and it would not be out of place for Josephus to have mentioned him. Overall, the majority of historians believe that Josephus did mention a person named Jesus who has become the central figure of the Christian religion.

In general, I accept the historicity of Jesus. I believe that he did exist but keep an open mind about it in general. Questions of his divinity are an entirely separate matter.