Jesus never existed?

[bosk1]

Romans were ridiculously anal about recording events. The fact that Jesus isn't worth a Roman's footnote for 80 years says something.

rumborak

No, not at all.  They selectively recorded what they wanted to record.  They weren't at all "ridiculously anal about recording events" in a general sense.  The fact that Roman writers did not write anything about Jesus is more likely than not attributable to one simple fact:  he lived in a relatively unimportant (from a Roman perspective) province that the Romans recording virtually nothing about during this time period.  Virtually nothing, for example, about their privincial governor (Pilate) or about the regent they allowed to stay in place (Herod) despite the fact that these individuals were politicians.  So it is not surprising that contemporaneous Roman historians would have recorded anything about a local relgious leader whose teachings did not, during his lifetime, spread beyond a small portion of this relatively unimportant province.

[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

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

If that thought makes you feel better ...

@bosk: Lack of other evidence is hardly evidence for Jesus. Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

[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.

If that thought makes you feel better ...

@bosk: More stretched excuses for the lack of relevance of Jesus.

rumborak

Somebody better tell those excuse-making historians.

[rumborak]

What is the point of this thread? Neither you nor bosk are in any shape interested in actually discussing the topic. All that's happening is regurgitation of statements.
Jesus' contemporary record is 100% non-existent. Plain as that.It is up to your personal faith to believe the accounts produced 80 years later.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

What is the point of this thread? Neither you nor bosk are in any shape interested in actually discussing the topic. All that's happening is regurgitation of statements.
Jesus' contemporary record is 100% non-existent. Plain as that.It is up to your personal faith to believe the accounts produced 80 years later.

rumborak

Please explain your math to me. Jesus dies in 30 or 33 CE. Mark is written down in 70, at the latest. That's 40 years. You forgot to carry the 1, maybe? Also, 1 Corinthians was written in the 50s and contains the same basic elements of the resurrection narratives in the gospels. 

[rumborak]

116AD-30AD=86 years

[Ħ]

Jesus' contemporary record is 100% non-existent. Plain as that.It is up to your personal faith to believe the accounts produced 80 years later.

rumborak

Setting aside the gospel accounts for a moment, Paul was contemporary, wasn't he?  At least, he claimed to be.  And he sourced other contemporaries.

[hefdaddy42]

Jesus died sometime in the 30's.  Paul wrote in the 50's.

[bosk1]

@bosk: Lack of other evidence is hardly evidence for Jesus.

Never said it was.  My point is that your assertion that contemporary Roman historians should have recorded Jesus if he was real is provably false.

As far as the extraordinary evidence part, we have that.  But that has nothing to do with contemporary Roman historians.  So, nice try at sidestepping the issue.  But the point remains that your argument about contemporary Roman historians is incorrect.

[Scheavo]

And this extraordinary evidence is?

[snapple]

There is actually hardly any evidence on Nero being a total bastard, but most of us accept that he is.

Must have been a good guy.

edit: I'm just saying we can't pick and choose which sources are acceptable in the manner some want to. You have to go on what we have. In fact, much of Greek history comes from ONE GUY (Herodotus), who most modern historians claim had a huge tendency to over-exaggerate EVERYTHING. It's amazing how people love to pick and choose, crossing the line when it suits them but standing safely back when it doesn't.

going for the double edit: Also, the Romans were notorious for keeping track of the stuff that made them look good. Why the crap would they report about Jesus? His dealings were in the Jerusalem area. While they were the military force in the area, they certainly didn't give THAT much of a shit about it (at least as far as regards to Jesus are concerned).

[ehra]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

[rumborak]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

[Nihil-Morari]

Wow Rumby, impressive, I'm following.

[Ħ]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

If you assume naturalism before you even examine the evidence, of course your realized picture of the historical Jesus is going to be a naturalist one.  That's exactly what the Jesus Seminar is doing.

[ehra]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

I agree. Just wanted to clarify whether we were arguing over the existence of a guy named Jesus who taught a lot of good moral and religious messages while leading by example, or the existence of a wizard named Jesus.

[hefdaddy42]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

If you assume naturalism before you even examine the evidence, of course your realized picture of the historical Jesus is going to be a naturalist one.  That's exactly what the Jesus Seminar is doing.

What he is saying is that naturalism is what we know from living in the world, so for him to accept something other than that requires some pretty impressive evidence.

[William Wallace]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

Would it really mean anything if Tacitus reported Jesus' miraculous doings? We have reports of supernatural events from several ancient historians, but I doubt you accept any of them. And there's no reason to dismiss Christian literature from the outset. It's obviously biased, fine. Take that into account. But don't dismiss the bulk of the written evidence of the Jesus' life and works because you don't like what it says about it. Unending skepticism is retarded.

[Ħ]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

Would it really mean anything if Tacitus reported Jesus' miraculous doings? We have reports of supernatural events from several ancient historians, but I doubt you accept any of them. And there's no reason to dismiss Christian literature from the outset. It's obviously biased, fine. Take that into account. But don't dismiss the bulk of the written evidence of the Jesus' life and works because you don't like what it says about it. Unending skepticism is retarded.

This.  Rumby, I think you should reevaluate the historicity of the gospels, especially the synoptics.  There's many ways we can know that they were an honest attempt to portray what actually happened.  What about how the disciples, including Peter, the first leader of the church, were complete dunces at times?  If the stories were invented to advance Christianity, would the church leaders (whether it was Peter/Paul or their followers) have permitted those writings?  Likely not.  What about the attention to useless detail?  Jesus having a pillow as he slept on the boat?  Peter and Jesus catching precisely 153 fish?  James being the son of Zebedee, some random dude?  You don't see that attention to detailin legends or contrived religious literature.  You see that in honest attempts at eyewitness history.  Imagine your alleged two generations that it took to construct the gospels.  Imagine some old guy passing down his knowledge to his son: "Now remember that Jesus had a pillow, boy!  This is critically important material!"  Or imagine early cult leaders, saying to each other, "Guys, I have a great idea! Let's throw in a bunch of insignificant names so scholars 2000 years from now will think that our accounts are actually true!" 

Those are just a few examples that I thought of on the spot, but there are books written on the subject.  You really ought to reconsider how you are reading the gospels.  You've got to see that your naturalistic assumptions are created a LOT of problems for your interpretation of the evidence.

[Scheavo]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

Would it really mean anything if Tacitus reported Jesus' miraculous doings? We have reports of supernatural events from several ancient historians, but I doubt you accept any of them. And there's no reason to dismiss Christian literature from the outset. It's obviously biased, fine. Take that into account. But don't dismiss the bulk of the written evidence of the Jesus' life and works because you don't like what it says about it. Unending skepticism is retarded.

Then don't dismiss or ignore the written evidence for Buddha's life and HIS "miracles."

Or Joseph Smiths

Or Mohamed

[rumborak]

Neither Herod nor Pilate are reported to walk on water or raise from the dead. So please, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

rumborak

I thought the discussion was about whether he was an actual dude or not, not whether he did any of the crazy shit in the Bible. Not sure what's so extraordinary about "Jesus existed."

As I said in my initial reply to the thread, it's reasonable to assume that some dude existed at some point. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the core messages by him are attributable to him. Where it gets very dicey is the part that make him look divine, i.e. walking on water, healing lepers, being resurrected. There is zero evidence outside the documents written by the believers themselves. Let's be honest; when a man manages to feed 5,000 people all at once with a single loaf of bread, that makes waves in the Roman empire, because when 5,000 people witness the same miracle, they will tell people left and right about it. No such thing is mentioned anywhere. It's reasonable to assume it never happened.

rumborak

Would it really mean anything if Tacitus reported Jesus' miraculous doings? We have reports of supernatural events from several ancient historians, but I doubt you accept any of them. And there's no reason to dismiss Christian literature from the outset. It's obviously biased, fine. Take that into account. But don't dismiss the bulk of the written evidence of the Jesus' life and works because you don't like what it says about it. Unending skepticism is retarded.

I think you aren't even realizing your own inherent bias by saying I exhibit "unending skepticism". In the grander scheme of opinions out there I would say I am far more religion-leaning about the veracity of biblical claims than your average atheist/agnostic.

Miracles aren't just things that happen between drinks at a bar, everybody just casually glances over and goes back to their business. Miracles, like the feeding of 5,000 people with one loaf of bread are miracles because they completely and utterly defy the natural sequence of events, When 5,000 people simultaneously witness an otherwise impossible sequence of events, that's a bigger event than the coronation of an emperor.
What you're essentially proposing is miracles that were super-awesome, but strangely made no waves. All that happened (in your scenario) is some dude writing it down as "coolio, this thing happened". That's where my natural skepticism kicks and says "nah-ah. That's not how humans have ever behaved in history".

rumborak

[rumborak]

This.  Rumby, I think you should reevaluate the historicity of the gospels, especially the synoptics.  There's many ways we can know that they were an honest attempt to portray what actually happened.  What about how the disciples, including Peter, the first leader of the church, were complete dunces at times?  If the stories were invented to advance Christianity, would the church leaders (whether it was Peter/Paul or their followers) have permitted those writings?  Likely not.

Neither of the gospels were written by Peter, keep that in mind. The gospels appeared out of some unknown communities. And, take for example the sighting of Jesus after his death. Peter wasn't privy to that. So, Peter would never have been in the position to say "no, that didn't happen!"
Bottom line is, you got stories appearing and they get integrated into the canon, because, who can deny them?! That's how mythologies have evolved since the dawn of time. The flood myth appears in all kinds of creation myths because they were transferred from one to the next over time.

  What about the attention to useless detail?  Jesus having a pillow as he slept on the boat?  Peter and Jesus catching precisely 153 fish?  James being the son of Zebedee, some random dude?  You don't see that attention to detailin legends or contrived religious literature.

What about the details that are just plain historically wrong? (e.g. that geographical error in one of the gospels). Just like in any story-telling, people "color" the story with small facts. To the teller of the story they're not important, they're just there to draw in the listener more. To the reader 2,000 years later they come across as fact.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

Then don't dismiss or ignore the written evidence for Buddha's life and HIS "miracles."

Or Joseph Smiths

Or Mohamed

This.  If you want to believe that jesus is the son of god because of detailed ancient books, I would think you would have to use the same reasoning and believe the assertions of other religions and their texts.

[Zook]

Then don't dismiss or ignore the written evidence for Buddha's life and HIS "miracles."

Or Joseph Smiths

Or Mohamed

This.  If you want to believe that jesus is the son of god because of detailed ancient books, I would think you would have to use the same reasoning and believe the assertions of other religions and their texts.

I thought other religions were bollocks if one was a Christian.

[Ħ]

What about the details that are just plain historically wrong? (e.g. that geographical error in one of the gospels). Just like in any story-telling, people "color" the story with small facts. To the teller of the story they're not important, they're just there to draw in the listener more. To the reader 2,000 years later they come across as fact.

rumborak

Could you be specific?  And please remember that we aren't discussing Biblical inerrency here.  We are discussing whether they can be treated as historical evidence, which is prone to error.  Don't throw out the whole thing due to one date that's a bit off, or one geographical mistake.

And ancient literature was not written in a colorful, detailed way.  Modern literature does that, yes.  But the standards are different for ancient literature--you don't see that kind of attention.

[rumborak]

Have you read other mythical accounts? They're equally as specific about minute details. Even details that are written first-hand account like, but nobody actually could have observed first-hand (discussions of Norse gods in Valhalla, or Luke 12:42, or Genesis!).
Detail is not an indicator of veracity.

My overall point isn't to throw away the whole thing. But again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But of the really wild claims there is none, and so reasonable (i.e. absence of the inherent bias of personal faith) one should reject those claims. Just as it's reasonable to reject that Loki and Baldr had those verbatim conversations in Asgard.

rumborak

[bosk1]

What about the details that are just plain historically wrong? (e.g. that geographical error in one of the gospels). Just like in any story-telling, people "color" the story with small facts. To the teller of the story they're not important, they're just there to draw in the listener more. To the reader 2,000 years later they come across as fact.

Still beating that dead horse?    It still amazes me that you love to claim such "errors" no matter how many times you fail to cite to a single provable error when called on the subject.

[rumborak]

Bosk, you believe the Bible is inerrant and the Earth is 6,000 years old. Any discussion between you and me isn't worth the disk space it's saved on.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Yes, I believe the Bible is inerrant.  No, I have no idea how old the earth is.  But aside from that, great arguments.

[Nihil-Morari]

Bosk, you believe the Bible is inerrant and the Earth is 6,000 years old. Any discussion between you and me isn't worth the disk space it's saved on.

rumborak

 

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, I believe the Bible is inerrant.  No, I have no idea how old the earth is.  But aside from that, great arguments.

bosky, a belief in the Bible's inerrancy leads automatically to a belief in a roughly 6,000 year old Earth.  If you start with the 6 days of Creation, and then all of the begats in Genesis, down through the Exodus and then the time of the Judges and into the monarchy on into the time of Jesus, and then up to now, it is a little more than 6,000 years.

[bosk1]

Not quite.  And that still has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.

[Ben_Jamin]

Jesus was a simple carpenter, whom after being baptized saw his calling as the son of god. To teach people about loving each other, treating one another as you would like to. Somewhere down the line, someone decided to exaggerate his roles to misguided people. He was a Jew speaking to his people, and yet they chose to kill him over a murderer, yet the murderer asked Jesus for forgiveness.

Also, guaranteed if Jesus was to return, people would shun him

[yorost]

As long as you know that's about as speculative as anything else.

Consider simple carpenter.  It's gaining steam that carpenter is miscast as a lower caste in Jesus' time.  It may indicate he was born into a well off family and received an excellent education.  Now, I don't anything about how people figure these things out, but some of the reasons for believing this sound plausible.

[Vivace]

rummy, you are arguing your idea from an Antioch point of view but from an atheistic approach. That is, because history doesn't record the miracles, therefore the miracles didn't happen. Fair enough, but to quote your words, isn't that a bit strong? I think there are a great many things in history that were never recorded but in hindsight we might be able to speculate, even academically that they could have an excellent chance of happening. For you, speculation is not even a possibility which makes me wonder what kind of history you believe. In studying history sometimes all you have is a pot, maybe a sign or symbol. That's it. How you shape history from that comes from the surrounding happenstances of the time. You CANNOT ignore these happenstances or take them with a grain of salt, if you do you could miss out on something very important. Tacitus writting about Christus is quite extraordinary. Why did he write about him at all? He was a pagan and not a fan of Christianity. The fact we have his account on Jesus speaks volumes there. You speak of bias yet you throw this piece of history away for the sole reason that it's too late. Sorry, but that's not what historians do. That is what someone with an agenda does, someone with a message.

Also, you seem to be arguing from the divine side that it never existed. That's not the discussion here. I never brought up the divinity of Jesus. The only places you have eyewitness accounts come from the Bible and even that needs to questioned under the title of authorship and form criticism. The fact remains that enough evidence exists that Jesus *did* exist. The evidence of his divinity is a concept of *FAITH*. You either believe the apostles or you don't. We...get...it. You don't believe the apostles. But be careful that conviction doesn't spill over into claiming false idea of *history*. The study of the history of Jesus and the faith of the divinity of Christ fall under two very separate fields of study called: history and theology. Interestingly enough, most theologians use history in their academic works and historians are not afraid to study theology to help in their academic works of history. THAT'S what it means to be unbiased.