Jesus never existed?

[William Wallace]

I agreed to review a book about the "Jesus-myth" and I'm debating the author right now.

Thoughts? Does anybody actually think this idea is likely?

[wasteland]

As an atheist, I believe that he actually existed as a human being, but nowhere as "divine" as he is described in the Gospels. I tent to think Jesus "only" was an exceptionally great man who as a result exceptionally inspired people for millennia. My two cents. 

[yorost]

Likely?  No.  Something spawned Christianity and the mass of other writings and religions related to Christ.  Without Jesus as a person you're left with a tall task of filling in how everything took off.

Not going to say I'm well acquainted with the subject, but I do recall reading about theories that Jesus was a conglomerate of 2-3 people.  I don't think those were taken too seriously, though.  The simplest explanation is that Jesus existed one way or another.

[Dark Castle]

As an atheist, I believe that he actually existed as a human being, but nowhere as "divine" as he is described in the Gospels. I tent to think Jesus "only" was an exceptionally great man who as a result exceptionally inspired people for millennia. My two cents. 

Why aren't more Atheists in my area like you? 
As for my two cents, I may have become Agnostic recently, but I do believe that he existed.

[kirksnosehair]

As an atheist, I believe that he actually existed as a human being, but nowhere as "divine" as he is described in the Gospels. I tent to think Jesus "only" was an exceptionally great man who as a result exceptionally inspired people for millennia. My two cents. 

Why aren't more Atheists in my area like you? 
As for my two cents, I may have become Agnostic recently, but I do believe that he existed.

I am agnostic as well.  I believe the person Jesus from Nazareth did exist, but, like wasteland, I don't believe any of the miraculous events that are attributed to him in biblical writings.  With that said, he was obviously an incredibly gifted, charismatic and wise person who has inspired many.

[hefdaddy42]

He existed.

[JoiseyDTLovah]

I'm agnostic dyslexic insomniac.  I spend my nights awake wondering if there really is a Dog.

[William Wallace]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

[Sigz]

I have a hard time believing he never existed in any form.

[Ħ]

For a dude who was supposed to be around 2000 years, we have more than enough historical records of his existence to definitively say he existed.

[William Wallace]

For a dude who was supposed to be around 2000 years, we have more than enough historical records of his existence to definitively say he existed.

To play devil's advocate, what about the argument that there are no contemporary reports about Jesus?

[Jamesman42]

I'm agnostic dyslexic insomniac.  I spend my nights awake wondering if there really is a Dog.

Wow, you are dyslexic! I think you meant to type "God."


I agree with hefdaddy42.

[rumborak]

In my book it could go either way. There might have been one guy, there might have been a couple of (real or not real) guys whose stories were merged, which happens all the time in mythology. I think the utter lack of contemporary records puts a hard upper limit on how influential he really was. He certainly wasn't heralded by the Jews in Jerusalem upon his entry to the city.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

In my book it could go either way. There might have been one guy, there might have been a couple of (real or not real) guys whose stories were merged, which happens all the time in mythology. I think the utter lack of contemporary records puts a hard upper limit on how influential he really was. He certainly wasn't heralded by the Jews in Jerusalem upon his entry to the city.

rumborak

Which is, interestingly, the reason he probably wasn't more prominently mentioned by first century writers who could have written about him. Not because he didn't exist.

[GuineaPig]

I think that anything was written about him at all makes it considerably more likely he existed than he didn't.  There's pretty low standards for determining if a guy existed 'round those times.

[lonestar]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

I think there is too much of an impact on the course of human events for him to have not existed.  Son of God, no.  Figure of great historical significance, yes.  Wicked awesome Scrabble player, you bet your sweet ass.

[snapple]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

I think there is too much of an impact on the course of human events for him to have not existed.  Son of God, no.  Figure of great historical significance, yes.  Wicked awesome Scrabble player, you bet your sweet ass.

 

[eric42434224]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

I think there is too much of an impact on the course of human events for him to have not existed.  Son of God, no.  Figure of great historical significance, yes.  Wicked awesome Scrabble player, you bet your sweet ass.

And he was RIPPED.  See those abs he has on that statue on the cross over the altar at church?
Serious six-pack.  Dude got laid for sure.  He was like a hippie Tyler Durden.
First rule of christianity.  No one talks about christianity.

[Ryzee]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

I think there is too much of an impact on the course of human events for him to have not existed.  Son of God, no.  Figure of great historical significance, yes.  Wicked awesome Scrabble player, you bet your sweet ass.

And he was RIPPED.  See those abs he has on that statue on the cross over the altar at church?
Serious six-pack.  Dude got laid for sure.  He was like a hippie Tyler Durden.
First rule of christianity.  No one talks about christianity.

At my local Catholic church they have him on a stained glass window that has a greenish tint to it.  And yes, he's ripped as fuck, so he looks like the Hulk.  You wouldn't like Jesus when he's angry.

[Chino]

I also agree he existed, but i believe his actions have been greatly exaggerated and over enhanced.

[hefdaddy42]

He existed.

Cool. I'll just tell him that DTF's bible scholar-overlord agrees with me. Argument settled.

Um, OK.

[Vivace]

In my book it could go either way. There might have been one guy, there might have been a couple of (real or not real) guys whose stories were merged, which happens all the time in mythology. I think the utter lack of contemporary records puts a hard upper limit on how influential he really was. He certainly wasn't heralded by the Jews in Jerusalem upon his entry to the city.

rumborak

There are gaps in history that we cannot even fill due to people not writing about these people. This is called "normalcy" when you are dealing with a history that not only dates this far back, but in a culture that was mostly comprised of illiterates. The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist and it's because of Paul that we get the earliest written accounts of Christ granted he wasn't an eyewitness but he had an experience. Given how the history played out, the documentation on Christ, who wrote this documentation at first, how the Gospels eventually were written, the Primitive Kergyma of the faith and how the canon came to be, I'm shocked anyone thinks 1) he didn't exist and 2) he's a mixture of more than one person. History just doesn't paint it like that.

[rumborak]

The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist

No, that's too strong a term. Thanks to the Romans we know *Christians* existed who believed in someone called Jesus Christ. We do *not* have records from the Romans reporting about Jesus himself.

rumborak

[Vivace]

The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist

No, that's too strong a term. Thanks to the Romans we know *Christians* existed who believed in someone called Jesus Christ. We do *not* have records from the Romans reporting about Jesus himself.

rumborak

*yes* we do.

[William Wallace]

In my book it could go either way. There might have been one guy, there might have been a couple of (real or not real) guys whose stories were merged, which happens all the time in mythology. I think the utter lack of contemporary records puts a hard upper limit on how influential he really was. He certainly wasn't heralded by the Jews in Jerusalem upon his entry to the city.

rumborak

There are gaps in history that we cannot even fill due to people not writing about these people. This is called "normalcy" when you are dealing with a history that not only dates this far back, but in a culture that was mostly comprised of illiterates. The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist and it's because of Paul that we get the earliest written accounts of Christ granted he wasn't an eyewitness but he had an experience.

Paul was a Jew. He was also in contact with eyewitnesses, James and Peter for example.

Given how the history played out, the documentation on Christ, who wrote this documentation at first, how the Gospels eventually were written, the Primitive Kergyma of the faith and how the canon came to be, I'm shocked anyone thinks 1) he didn't exist and 2) he's a mixture of more than one person. History just doesn't paint it like that.

Don't be shocked. The mental blockage generated by skepticism is awfully thick.

No, that's too strong a term. Thanks to the Romans we know *Christians* existed who believed in someone called Jesus Christ. We do *not* have records from the Romans reporting about Jesus himself.

rumborak

What's the difference? Furthermore, we would expect that Jesus' followers would be those most likely to write about him and in most detail - just like most ancient teachers or philosophers. Upper crust Roman historians wouldn't have cared all that much about him.

[rumborak]

The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist

No, that's too strong a term. Thanks to the Romans we know *Christians* existed who believed in someone called Jesus Christ. We do *not* have records from the Romans reporting about Jesus himself.

rumborak

*yes* we do.

"Written in AD 116"

Lol. The guy wasn't even born for another 30 years after Jesus' supposed death.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The Romans for the most part did all the documentations and it's because of them we know that Jesus did exist

No, that's too strong a term. Thanks to the Romans we know *Christians* existed who believed in someone called Jesus Christ. We do *not* have records from the Romans reporting about Jesus himself.

rumborak

*yes* we do.

"Written in AD 116"

Lol. The guy wasn't even born for another 30 years after Jesus' supposed death.

rumborak

That's such an idiotic objection. Ron Chernow was born long after George Washington died, he obviously wrote his biography of Washington even later. Clearly, Washington's existence is questionable.

[rumborak]

Are you seriously equating the validity of Washington's existence with Jesus?
Washington was written about every fricking day during his time.

Nobody wrote about Jesus for a century.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Are you seriously equating the validity of Washington's existence with Jesus?
Washington was written about every fricking day during his time.
rumborak

So? All you have are written documents. All the "witnesses" are dead, no interviews to conduct. Any surviving written accounts aren't easy to access. The people that have access to them are experts, collectors of rare documents and museums, all of whom have a vested interest in keep the "historical Washington" alive and well. 

Nobody wrote about Jesus for a century.

No. Mark may have been composed in the early 60s, but 70 CE at the latest. Jesus probably died in 30 or 33. The pertinent question, however, is why he wasn't written about earlier.

[GuineaPig]

It's also entirely plausible that people wrote extensively about Jesus prior to our existing sources, and it was simply lost.  Given that apocalyptic preachers weren't exactly uncommon at the time, I don't think it would be high-up on anyone's to-do list to go around making copies of accounts of his life.

[Super Dude]

I say it doesn't matter, because the religion has existed for 2000 years now and has essentially earned its keep.

[rumborak]

So? All you have are written documents. All the "witnesses" are dead, no interviews to conduct.

For you coming from a religious family that might be enough. It ain't for me.
Romans were ridiculously anal about recording events. The fact that Jesus isn't worth a Roman's footnote for 80 years says something.

rumborak

[Chino]

So? All you have are written documents. All the "witnesses" are dead, no interviews to conduct.

For you coming from a religious family that might be enough. It ain't for me.
Romans were ridiculously anal about recording events. The fact that Jesus isn't worth a Roman's footnote for 80 years says something.

rumborak

The Romans would have documented every time he took a shit.

[William Wallace]

So? All you have are written documents. All the "witnesses" are dead, no interviews to conduct.

For you coming from a religious family that might be enough. It ain't for me.
Romans were ridiculously anal about recording events. The fact that Jesus isn't worth a Roman's footnote for 80 years says something.

rumborak

Your statement tells me you haven't bothered to study beyond a few google searches, but you feel entitled to pass judgement.

[Vivace]

So? All you have are written documents. All the "witnesses" are dead, no interviews to conduct.

For you coming from a religious family that might be enough. It ain't for me.
Romans were ridiculously anal about recording events. The fact that Jesus isn't worth a Roman's footnote for 80 years says something.

rumborak

The Romans would have documented every time he took a shit.

it's your choice to accept the document or not. The idea that will not accept leave very little room open for any rational or reasonable discussion of this topic. In many ways it's like in Inherent the Wind whenever the attorney had a reasonable argument and the judge said, "nope". Whatever. Your choice. Most historians however choose to listen.