Did Jesus of Nazareth exist?
The majority of scholars both religious and secular trend to agree that Jesus did exist. Many like myself, accept his existence but do not accept him as being divine. Outside of the NT there are only three references to the Nazarene. Pliny, Josephus, and Tacitus. All say very little. I think he was a revolutionary that preached new ideas against the contemporary religion of Judaism and was ultimately executed for blasphemy. He was no god, he was not divine, there was no resurrection. But the man did walk the earth, at least I believe he existed and was quite a man. I’d like to hear others thoughts. I’m sure there must be some mythicists among us. And really, they may be right. No way to know for certain.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Not the one described in the bible stories, definitely not.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Apr 16, 2019
0
His name was pretty common in that tiem period.
i suspect that somebody wrote a story about a miracle workeer which was pretty common in that time period, who came ot believe he was the messiah and ended up beign crucified. The story was a popular one and so there were many others who wrote stories usign the character, but added in aspects from other more familiar stories giving him super natural powers. There were well over 60 stories that had jesus as a character in them at that time period.
Somethign similar happened when Cervantes wrote "Don Quixote". The book was very popular an sapawned a lto fo imitators that used the same characters.
In both cases the story was a bout a man who was a bit crazy, who had delusions of grandeur and sought to do noble work, failed and died. However in the case of Jesus, the subsequent (more fictionalized) stories became more prominent. Of course Don Quixote was completely fictional... but the current story of Jesus also is almost completely fictional too.
snytiger6
Level 9
Apr 15, 2019
0
I have no problem accepting that an itinerant Jewish peacher Jesus (not really named Jesus as that is a Greek name) actually existed and was later mythologized into the Jesus of the Gospels. The Mythists like to deny that such a man even existed, but they have their own agenda and stretch the truth to arrive at a conclusion that they started out with. In the light of serious historical scholarship, the Mythists simply perpetuate another myth.
Heraclitus
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
0
If Jesus said what he is reported to have said, my opinion is that he was a pretty smart and tough guy. I am in agreement with a lot of his teachings. We disagree on several issues however.
That business of borrowing a donkey without permission so that ancient prophecy could be fulfilled—now that was out-and-out fraud. If I had done such a thing I think I’d have kept it secret.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
0
Nazareth was founded around 100 A.D., if memory serves.
1of5
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
0
Actually, that is a red herring argument. More recent archeological evidence refutes this.
@Heraclitus Doesn't matter, the home village of Jesus the carpenter is clearly stated to sit on a cliff side (the villagers try and throw him off the cliff Luke 4:29 )
Modern Nazareth sits at the bottom of a valley.
@LenHazell53 Actually, there is a cliff (Mount Precipice) right outside the city of Nazareth. It is so well-known that it is a tourist trap.
@Heraclitus That is pushing it, Luke describes the cliff as being outside of the town, close enough that Jesus could be dragged to it's edge, after leaving the synagogue on a sabbath.
In Jewish tradition a sabbath's days journey is no more than a couple of hundred yards, Mount Percice is a mile and a half away from the edge of the city, so he would have to be dragged to the city edge, across open country and then they would have to climb it in order to throw him off it.
This is hardly what Luke 4:29 describes
29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.
Nazareth is not built on a hill and has no cliff edge and is in a valley (see pic)
This another one of those medieval Christian fake tourist traps like the site of the stable in Bethlehem, the site of the crucifixion and the site of the empty tomb.
As for there being buildings discovered there contemporary to the supposed time of Christ, unless they had Chez Jesus written on them in angelic fire so what?
1of5:
@LenHazell53 like I said earlier....
@1of5 I agree it is all fake
@LenHazell53 Yes, but you are overlooking the fact that Luke 4:29 (not written by Luke but by some author unknown), at least the way this gospel has come down to us, is a blatant contradiction in the first place. They couldn't have taken him OUT of the town and at the same time taken him to the hill upon which the town was built. That is a geographical contradiction. (Unless you rationalize it, as some theists do, by saying that what was "really" meant is that they took him to a more ancient site of Nazareth built on a hill, which I don't buy.)
And in the name of accuracy, no translation says they literally dragged him a mile and a half and up a mountain. Different translations say they drove him, or took him, or thrust him, forced him, or led him, or brought him. The Greek word used is ἤγαγον (ēgagon) which is usually translated as "led".
(Isn't it amazing how many different translations there are of the bible? But then this would probably be an English translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew translation of the Aramaic. In some cases it might even be the English translation of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew translation of the Aramaic. And that doesn't even include the transliteration problems of converting one alphabet to another.)
But if you are using the sloppiness of the gospel according to Luke as an excuse to discount all of the archeological evidence that there was indeed an ancient Nazareth, then THAT is pushing it.
As for your "so what" I don't really understand it. All I ever said was that argument that Nazareth didn't exist until 100 AD was a red herring argument. It is a false Mythist argument that actually plays into the hands of the Christian theists. They will use it against you to argue that you either don't know what you are talking about and don't care enough about the truth to find out, or that you really do know better and are being dishonest. Either way their eyes will glaze over and their ears will close up. They will accuse you of rationalizing your argument out of biased emotion and ignoring reason, facts, and science. You don't want that.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.