Agnostic.com

25 4

Here's an unresolved argument.

Did Jesus really exist? Not the magical Jesus that sits on high in heaven, -- we all know that's bullsh-t -- but did a man named Jesus roam the ancient world and preach a gospel that became the foundation of the Xian faith really exist?

I'm curious what the take on this is among the average non-believer. Personally, I think the lack of evidence proves he did not. Jesus only appears in the Bible and nowhere else in history. No other book confirms his existence so he's exclusive only to the Bible much like Humpty-Dumpty is exclusive only to Mother Goose -- they're characters found only in the books in which they're featured.

Had someone as influential as Jesus who had such a massive global impact on the world and influenced the lives of billions of people really lived, his life would have been exhaustively researched and written about and chronicled by history. Instead we got nothing but ludicrous and apocryphal claims in the Bible -- a work of fiction.

I think Jesus is just a character that was based on the wandering preachers and self-proclaimed prophets of the ancient world that roamed from city to city performing for money. There was no real life Jesus, he's just a literary archetype..

Sgt_Spanky 8 Sep 12
Share

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

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

There were many messiah figures at this time, preaching about the end times. I have no doubt that one of them could have been named Yeshuah and that he inspired a very devoted following who remained faithful to him--while remaining Jewish.

The reason he was not mentioned in extra biblical sources would be the same reason why others were not mentioned by name. There were just so many of them; and they were not taken seriously by the Romans. They simply killed them when they felt it necessary.

Saul/Paul, whoever he was, would hunt down these Christ followers because they upset the Jewish leaders of the time; and, at some point, he became convinced that this Jesus, whom he saw as completely human, but with a heavenly message, had been the Messiah but not just for the Jews, for everyone.

Since the Jews were not responsive, he had to appeal to the Gentiles and their beliefs about god men were incorporated into the Jesus story. And so, this person, whomever he was, was eventually turned into the son of god, savior of all mankind (not just the Jews) and then THE GOD of the universe by whoever wrote the gospel of John.

Christians are Paulists and don't even know it.

  • If this person had been completely fabricated I think those who made up the story would have done a better job of it. As it is, the stories about him contradict each other: his message is not clear, his origin story is not true to ancient prophesies about the Messiah, his nature (man? god-man?) is not clear...etc.

  • This only makes sense if there was a real person at the root of it and stories about him were well known, such as where he was actually born. So, they had to make up silly stories, like the census, his virgin birth, and miracles etc. in order to turn this person into the Messiah.

  • The Catholic Church finished the job. They decided which stories made it into what became the bible and others were considered heresy. Why did they allow conflicting stories? Likely because they were well known by different groups of Christians and they couldn't just throw all of them out. But, they could change them over time, either intentionally or not. And, so, a relatively obscure person, who was just one messiah figure among many, over time, was turned into the savior of mankind and THE GOD of the universe.

Your scenario is faulty on several grounds:
You say Jesus probably existed because the portrayals of 'him' were so seemingly discordant and full of holes? That makes no sense. Besides the fact these myriad factual inaccuracies, on top of all the logical and philosophical contradictions, make it progressively more likely the whole thing is made up.
You say there's "no doubt" one of the gospel stories COULD have been true, which is self-contradictory and false. It's VERY doubtful any of these fictional accounts are 'true.'
You say all the other would-be messiahs weren't mentioned in "extra-biblical sources." Oh really? Then why do we know about them?
Finally, what makes you think there were any "Jesus followers" when he supposedly died? There were only about eight 'Pauline' books in the first place, and none of them mentioned a flesh-and-blood man, only a celestial being. And even these eight books could have been tampered with.
Why can't some people shift their focus and consider there WAS no 'early church?' That it was all made up (sometime after Masada, when the Jews were destroyed in Palestine/Israel), possibly by Josephus, as another said earlier?
Examining everything we know, that seems the obvious likelihood.

@Storm1752

I did not say that no messiah figures were mentioned, but there were many who were not. How many extra biblical messiah figures can you find, named, in ancient writings?

The gospels were written years/decades after this person is said to have lived. What did exist was different stories about this Yeshua person. Different people telling different things which is why, when these stories were written, they had some things in common, but conflicted in other ways.

Paul saw this Jesus person as a human who had attained a special status and was a physical being who was going to return.

Jesus as he is ultimately portrayed in the bible did not exist. But the vast majority of biblical historians think there was a person at the root of the myths.

It makes no sense that this person was completely made up, yet so many elements of his life , message and his very nature are in conflict.

And, the bible is a product of the Catholic Church.They decided what there religion would accept and that which they would call heresy. They made up the silly Trinity doctrine in order to appease the monotheists.

In the end, it really does not matter. Whether a man existed, or not, he was not, is not, the god of the universe, savior of mankind.

2

Yeah there's no mention of Brian either. 😁

No Brian?? Nooo... Now I suppose you're going to tell me there were no knights that say Nie! either. 😥😢

@Cyklone oh no they by all means existed after all who would keep people from crossing that freaking bridge. 😁

1

I don't have a problem if there was a person named jesus, just like I don't have a problem if there was a person named lucy, I think it's like saying "someone had toast for breakfast" I'd just assume, ok, someone had toast for breaky.
But as soon as you tell me that this toast or Lucy did magical things, I would require evidence to convince me of the events, and if evidence isn't provided, I would take this toast or person named lucy as non credible.

Garf Level 7 Sep 12, 2020
1

"Maybe" is as definitive an answer as will ever be given. Generations of Israeli archaeologists have been scouring that country looking for evidence of... anything, and although they've been looking mainly for evidence regarding the Mosaic stories, they also haven't found anything regarding Jesus. And these are true professionals, so they aren't the type to sweep it under the rug if they found some contemporary engraving of his name and genealogy or something of that sort.

The most charitable thing we can say is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is however some evidence that the gospels are fake, in that they get both the history, and worse the physical geography of the holy land (Which can't be debated. ) wrong, in ways that people who lived there at the time could not have done.

@Fernapple This is understood. But I invite you to think of the story of George Washington, who we know to be a living historical figure, chopping down a cherry tree. We know this is a myth, yet many adults in the US believe it anyway. Or the stories of Lincoln working as a rail-splitter and building his own log cabin, which were only political embellishments but have become popular American mythology, to the point that there's a group called "The Log-Cabin Republicans". And these have come about in an age of very high literacy and education, by comparison to 2,000 years ago. Even the truth about well-documented figures can become distorted by publicity and myth-making. Most people think Patton looked like George C. Scott.

The compilers of the NT were not concerned with historical accuracy, they were telling a mythology to persuade an audience that the Messiah had returned and fulfilled Hebrew prophecy. This is why so many inaccuracies abound; the compilers had to wrangle the story around to make Jesus fit the prophecy about being of the line of David, of being born in this city and yet coming from that city, riding into Jerusalem on an ass, yada yada yada. None of the books even agree on the details of his birth. All were composed between 70 and 200 years later, by people who had never met the man, if he did exist. But the same is true of most biographies of famous figures of our time. The standards of historical accuracy did not exist in those days and in that place as we know them.

So there may have been such a preacher, claiming to be the Messiah, crucified by the Romans because he was a disruptive influence, and his followers may have been devoted enough to form a cult that survived his death. Certainly the cult survived whether or not there was such a man. It seems odd to me that it would be based on a wholly fictitious person, and his claims may have been made, even if his deeds were mythology.

@Paul4747 Yes I agree. But my comment was not refering to the post about Jesus, only about the accuracy of the gospels, following a line in the comments.

Good comment anyway.

1

If there were a Yeshua as in the stories he probably would have been forgotten. His magic tricks are third rate at best.
It takes a cultural gimmick to stick around like that. It seems the Gospels were all written after 70ce which is after the Romans tore down the temple. Yeshua had been around a couple of hundred years at that point but exclusively as a spiritual being. Paul was famously a follower in 40ad. Only seven of his letters are potentially authentic and of those seven only one passage lends itself to thinking Paul “might” have thought of Yeshua as a physical being, and of course that could have been added later.
Gospel Yeshua seems to be a composite of a handful of real people including a character called “The Egyptian” who was an anti-Roman rebel leader.
The main reason for the story is so God could forgive sin without blood sacrifices since blood sacrifices require the temple which had been destroyed.
It’s pretty dry stuff really, and not the central issue that it's been made into.
Weird how people that believe the end is near insist on making the world come to an end. Believers are famously into letting the world come to an end. They really believe it ends with them living in celestial Disneyland when all they’ll get is extinction for our species.
Stupid

1

On my way out of religion, I tried doing research to find out what kind of person Jesus really was. The more I looked into it, the more I was convinced he didn't even exist. There are just too many cults based on god-men that could do all kinds of magical things. It just so happened the one I was raised in was the one that believed in a god-man named Jesus.

1

The more I have read and heard on this subject, I don't believe he did exist.

1

To be honestly don't care.
Even if there was a real guy, that wouldn't sway my non-belief in any way.

1

As a historian, I can say: we will never know for sure. It's way too back in time.

1

Yes, I agree, and all the Christian claims from outside the Bible only confirm the existence of Christians, so they vastly overstate the evidence. Things like Paul saying he was a persecutor are not demonstrated by outside evidence.. so they are accepted as true... when they are also evidence of someone inflating their own self worth in the story.

0

to a rabbi at least, "Jesus of Nazareth" (actually Joshua, the most common male name then) might equate to "John Doe, from Nowhere"

0

I agree he likely did not exist. I will add to the evidence with this observation: purportedly, jesus (not his real name in any event, as that is a greek name) was jewish. Jews do not proselytize. It is forbidden. No way a jew wandered around preaching and proselytizing. He especially would not go about telling people they were going to heaven (not part of judaism) or to hell (also not part of judaism) for not being jewish (also not part of judaism; note that heaven and hell crept into later jewish folklore but it isn't part of the religion). That is retroactive projection on the part of christians, the same sort who portray their hero, an ancient middle eastern jew, as blond and blue-eyed.

g

0

Exactly. You've missed many discussions on the subject.
No, Jesus did not exist, but I'm tired of spelling it all out again

0

Jesus is also a figure in the Koran. I've read somewhere there was another manuscript other than the Bible or Koran that described a "Jesus" existing but I haven't researched it.

0

At age 13, I told my parents I'm an atheist. I realized the Bible is just a book of stories or fables written by men. I don't waste time wondering if Jesus existed.

I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

Simply pondering the historical existence of a man isn't magical thinking, it's speculating on the origins of a religion that impacts everyone. Seems like a legitimate intellectual exercise to me.

@Sgt_Spanky No it's really not...Jesus the man, the myth, the legend, never existed. No real debate, unless you HAVE to believe because of other cultural or psychological issues.

@Storm1752 Yeah, it actually is. If it weren't debatable no one would ever ask the question. The reality of Jesus/God isn't debatable among rational thinkers but questioning the reality of a historical Jesus is perfectly reasonable. And the answer is, no, there wasn't one.

0

In a word...no

0

There were at least nine of them, but none of the were the carpenter of Nazareth as spoken about in the New Testicle of the holly Babble.

If the biblical Chrust had existed why is there no historical record of him?
When there is historical verification for John the Baptist (no mention of Jesus), Simon Magus (again no mention of Christ) and St. Paul who only ever describes "the Christ" as a spiritual being, not a living person.

0

There were Jesus cult/gnostic groups who worshipped a man named Jesus, then Josephus and the romans used that to massiahfy and make the Jews into a more passive nation of ppl. Josephus wrote the Jewish wars which shows how much of a problem the Jews were for Rome. They married Josephus into the ruling families of Rome and created the Christ story based on the gnostic Jesus cults. Only two historical mentions of a Jesus and both were by Josephus and both a considered to be later addition to his text years later. <Forgery basically. Hope this info helps.

You put that very precisely.

0

The jury's still out.
I ffind the mythicist's arguments unconvincing.
You can't jump from "these are mythic elements" to "Jesus never existed." Non sequitur.
I also find Bart Ehrman's book (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth) unconvincing as well. Professor Ehrman is a new testament scholar and a non-believer. I highly recommend his other books. You can find talks by him on youtube as well.
And of course the apologist's arguments are not only bullshit but stinky bullshit as well. William Lane Craig is a 'fine' example of this- he proclaims that we have evidence for an historical jesus- matthew, mark, luke & john. Ok, craig, by the same logic, I can prove Harry Potter exists. Or Huckleberry Finn. Or Atticus Finch. Or...

How closely have you actually looked into it? It's obvious 'Jesus' never existed. I'm just too tired of the subject to get into it with you.

0

I don't think he did - but that's not the point.

Whether he did or he didn't, the 'magical Jesus, son of god' certainly didn't - so christianity is based on bullshit.

With that established, is the existence of a particular 'ordinary man' 2000 years ago of any relevance at all?

0

Why does it matter?

0

Most likely there were several of him. That is how most myths grow, because people remember stories better than names. So that often two stories, about two different people, get attached to the same name. Then that name becomes more famous because it has two stories attached, so that when someone forgets name that goes with a third story, they are more likely to attach that to the most famous name, and so on.

Though it would be unwise to think with any certainty that it is pure myth, since it is quite possible that most of it may just be a fiction. Perhaps, or perhaps not, borrowing just a name or a couple of vernacular stories from popular myth.

Though I have heard that some scholars say, that many of the contradictions in, and styles of the new testament, clearly indicate two figures, who can be divided leaving two logically consistent persons. One an old testament style prophet, preaching hard Judaism, and the other a later fictional addition delivering the liberal teachings.

The one thing that you can say for certain, is that after all this time and with such doubtful evidence, then any one who thinks they can say anything at all with even half certainty, is deluded or dishonest.

0
0

There's no evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth. The evidence against him is that all "historical" references are early 2nd century. Folklore. All of the gospels are plagiarized from the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, born Yosef ben Matityahu, a Jewish general who defected. He made two passing references to Jesus and one anecdotal to the death of John the Baptist. The whole "religion" was contrived sometime in 2nd and 3rd century. Total bullshit.

Actually some scholars say, that the two references made to Jesus by Josephus, are later forgeries put into his work after his death. Because they do not appear in some early copies, and are writen in a different syle. So even that is doubtful.

@Fernapple Are those the only sources other than the Bible or Koran? I've heard that there are manuscripts that describe a "Jesus" but haven't really looked into it.

Exactly.

@Fernapple Since fictitious Jesus supposedly died 33 ACE and Josephus was born 37 ACE and there's only two passing references to that name in those huge volumes means nothing even if he did write them and he died early 2nd century.

@Fletch Therre are no others that refer to anything remotely close to the biblical Jesus no. He is purely a creation of the gospels. But you have to remember that there are a number of none cannonical gospels, most of which describe a very highly mythical Jesus, which would seem to indicate that you are really dealing with a much older myth, which probably began long before the biblical dates.

For all of them you have to ask however, how much credibility can really be given to writings for which we have, no dates of publication, no original manuscripts, no named editors or copyers, no location of origin, no original authors names, (Even Math, Mark, Luke, John, were not added until several centuries into the Christian era, and even the church admits they are fake.) which get both the history, and worse the physical geography of the country they were supposedly written in wrong, in a way no one who had been there could, and which contradict one another, even after the more extreme versions are dumped by the chuch, in a desparate attempt to make some logical sense of them.

0

No shit, Sherlock!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:533519
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.