Jesus never existed?

[bosk1]

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.

Cool story.  And your evidence is?

[rumborak]

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.

I am not throwing away historical evidence. Far from it, I agree that the Bible is ample evidence that a person called Jesus did in fact exist. But, maybe I'm misjudging you here, but I would think you have at least a double standard when comparing Christian "evidence" to other historical evidence.
I can't remember which Roman (demi)god it actually was, but there's at least one who has been shown historically to exist as a real person. However, as with all characters in the Roman pantheon, he was up there with Zeus and the others doing magical things. Does that mean we can deduce the validity of those magical stories? Far from it.

rumborak

[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.

Cool story.  And your evidence is?

Life. Knowing that we are here in the now. Think about it, if you are real now and if he was real, he'd have the same desires as man, hence he had to eat and longed for a companion. I understand this if he were real. He got mad, showed dislike for hate. Usual human tendencies. And knowing how no,one will know the actual truth, you have to basically rely on faith for the rest.

[yorost]

...which is speculation, not evidence.  It's still filling in holes by assumption even if it seems reasonable.

[Ben_Jamin]

...which is speculation, not evidence.  It's still filling in holes by assumption even if it seems reasonable.

Which is all we got. I doubt we'll ever get evidence the atheists/agnostics want/need. But they had to exist at some point why else would their be stories from those times, I mean hell we won't really know how their life was lives how much faith they had. They had no grocery stores or easy means. Which is what I'm getting at, no one will know. But I know his teachings are true, basically to live peaceful is to be Jesus, living how he lives with forgiveness. That's all I'm sure he cares about.

[Super Dude]

...which is speculation, not evidence.  It's still filling in holes by assumption even if it seems reasonable.

Which is all we got. I doubt we'll ever get evidence the atheists/agnostics want/need. But they had to exist at some point why else would their be stories from those times, I mean hell we won't really know how their life was lives how much faith they had. They had no grocery stores or easy means. Which is what I'm getting at, no one will know. But I know his teachings are true, basically to live peaceful is to be Jesus, living how he lives with forgiveness. That's all I'm sure he cares about.

Which is why you blame his death directly on the Jews, and not just a specific group like the priesthood but collectively.

[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.

I am not throwing away historical evidence. Far from it, I agree that the Bible is ample evidence that a person called Jesus did in fact exist. But, maybe I'm misjudging you here, but I would think you have at least a double standard when comparing Christian "evidence" to other historical evidence.
I can't remember which Roman (demi)god it actually was, but there's at least one who has been shown historically to exist as a real person. However, as with all characters in the Roman pantheon, he was up there with Zeus and the others doing magical things. Does that mean we can deduce the validity of those magical stories? Far from it.

rumborak

What is the difference between "Christian" evidence and "historical" evidence? Are you saying the Bible or Christian writers or writers about Christianity cannot be used as evidence when discussing history? To your last comment, again, it seems you are comparing the validity of the *faith* to the validity of *history*. Are you saying because we cannot deduce the validity of the miracles we therefore cannot deduce the validity of Jesus of history? Who is doing that? That's not the question here. the question here is "Did Jesus ever exist?" Why are we bringing up the divine idea of Jesus or the miracles? As the question stands, did Jesus exist? Yes. Is Jesus Divine? That's a matter of faith that in no way diminishes the existence of Jesus.

[PowerSlave]

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.

I can't remember where I read it but, I remember something about that being a mis-translation and the true translation meaning "master of the craft". He could have been anything from a stone mason to whatever you could imagine that title applying to.

[Vivace]

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.

Cool story.  And your evidence is?

Life. Knowing that we are here in the now. Think about it, if you are real now and if he was real, he'd have the same desires as man, hence he had to eat and longed for a companion. I understand this if he were real. He got mad, showed dislike for hate. Usual human tendencies. And knowing how no,one will know the actual truth, you have to basically rely on faith for the rest.

What makes you think he didn't have the same desires as man? Are you saying he wasn't man? That's about the only way you wouldn't have such desires. Life in general is usually a term reserved for philosophy. Our knowledge of God and life falls under theology. Christ showing human desires from the Bible, illustrates that Christ was human.

Which is all we got. I doubt we'll ever get evidence the atheists/agnostics want/need. But they had to exist at some point why else would their be stories from those times, I mean hell we won't really know how their life was lives how much faith they had. They had no grocery stores or easy means. Which is what I'm getting at, no one will know. But I know his teachings are true, basically to live peaceful is to be Jesus, living how he lives with forgiveness. That's all I'm sure he cares about.

What atheists and agnostics want is specific evidence, experience-based evidence, not feelings, stories, historical documents, etc. The only evidence they will accept is if God suddenly appeared and said "Hi", however I'm 99% sure that even that wouldn't be enough. However we *do* know some things when it concerns that period of time, how the apostles lived, where they traveled to (for the most part) and the early structures of these newly founded Christian communities. The only documentation we have for Jesus's teachings come from the Apostles, passed down either orally or written, like in the case of Paul where we have most of his letters. To accept these testimonies is no different than to accept the testimony of someone who came up to you and said they just saw a Space ship. But there is a lot more to Christ's teaching than to just live peacefully. He passed down a tradition that he asked us to keep, practice and teach to others. That's the Christian tradition which is alive and dynamic.

[rumborak]

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.

I am not throwing away historical evidence. Far from it, I agree that the Bible is ample evidence that a person called Jesus did in fact exist. But, maybe I'm misjudging you here, but I would think you have at least a double standard when comparing Christian "evidence" to other historical evidence.
I can't remember which Roman (demi)god it actually was, but there's at least one who has been shown historically to exist as a real person. However, as with all characters in the Roman pantheon, he was up there with Zeus and the others doing magical things. Does that mean we can deduce the validity of those magical stories? Far from it.

rumborak

What is the difference between "Christian" evidence and "historical" evidence? Are you saying the Bible or Christian writers or writers about Christianity cannot be used as evidence when discussing history? To your last comment, again, it seems you are comparing the validity of the *faith* to the validity of *history*. Are you saying because we cannot deduce the validity of the miracles we therefore cannot deduce the validity of Jesus of history? Who is doing that? That's not the question here. the question here is "Did Jesus ever exist?" Why are we bringing up the divine idea of Jesus or the miracles? As the question stands, did Jesus exist? Yes. Is Jesus Divine? That's a matter of faith that in no way diminishes the existence of Jesus.

I think we were talking about different things. The existence of a man called Jesus is almost no question for me; yes, he did exist. I had moved on from there to distinguish what we can not consider as historically valid.

rumborak

[Vivace]

But that doesn't answer the question. What is the difference between Christian evidence and historical evidence and in what way are you applying them? to what object? I'm very curious to know of this parameter you have set.

[hefdaddy42]

Not quite.

It's called math.

And that still has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.

That's true.

[rumborak]

But that doesn't answer the question. What is the difference between Christian evidence and historical evidence and in what way are you applying them? to what object? I'm very curious to know of this parameter you have set.

There is no clear-cut line between "religious evidence" and "historical evidence", if that's what you are asking.
But, there is the act of prioritizing evidence by "believability".

As an example, and in order to not use Christianity (because I have the impression people here are way too involved in Christianity to make a fair assessment of its historical validity), let's use Heaven's Gate.
If you read any of their self-produced literature, it is stated with absolute conviction and certainty that a spaceship was hiding behind Hale-Bopp. Now, there is no evidence from NASA or otherwise that that is the case. And I would think that you too believe with absolute certainty that there was no spaceship, and not only that, but you also view it as a historical certainty.
What was the problem? The problem was that the literature was written by people for whom those "facts" were beyond question. Not only that, the literature was written to recruit more people.

Now tell me how that is different from Christian literature.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

But that doesn't answer the question. What is the difference between Christian evidence and historical evidence and in what way are you applying them? to what object? I'm very curious to know of this parameter you have set.

There is no clear-cut line between "religious evidence" and "historical evidence", if that's what you are asking.
But, there is the act of prioritizing evidence by "believability".

As an example, and in order to not use Christianity (because I have the impression people here are way too involved in Christianity to make a fair assessment of its historical validity), let's use Heaven's Gate.
If you read any of their self-produced literature, it is stated with absolute conviction and certainty that a spaceship was hiding behind Hale-Bopp. Now, there is no evidence from NASA or otherwise that that is the case. And I would think that you too believe with absolute certainty that there was no spaceship, and not only that, but you also view it as a historical certainty.
What was the problem? The problem was that the literature was written by people for whom those "facts" were beyond question. Not only that, the literature was written to recruit more people.

Now tell me how that is different from Christian literature.

rumborak

Keep the focus on Christianity. We're not taking about the Heaven's Gate cult, and by shifting the focus to them, you conveniently excuse yourself from answering the legitimate points that have been brought up and instead argue motive.

[rumborak]

Wow, so at this point analogies aren't even fair game to you, WW?
Heaven's Gate is a perfect discussion ground because none of you has their soul staked on the validity of their claims. At least in the case of bosk that fact colors his willingness to entertain arguments so strongly, that it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion. And you're not too far from that spot either, WW.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I tend to agree with rumby.  He was fairly clear in his post as to why he was bringing up Heaven's Gate as an example.

[Scheavo]

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.

Which is the first illogical step Christians, and any devout follower of any specific religion, take. Look around the world, and you see people making the exact same arguments for their religion. Those arguments are by definition false and wrong, because they lead to different conclusions... hell, they reach whatever conclusions the speaker wants them to.

It's really just another way of going after what rumby's going after right now though.

I also like when the world "cult" comes up, because it's a word that can only be used in support of a strong bias.

[William Wallace]

Wow, so at this point analogies aren't even fair game to you, WW?
Heaven's Gate is a perfect discussion ground because none of you has their soul staked on the validity of their claims. At least in the case of bosk that fact colors his willingness to entertain arguments so strongly, that it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion. And you're not too far from that spot either, WW.

rumborak

Valid analogies, sure. Yours was not. Changing the historical and social context makes all the difference in the world.

[rumborak]

That's a True Scotsman argument. You're trying to carve out Christianity a nook in which it can not (or must not) be questioned or compared to anything else, for the plain reason that you know it won't make Christianity look good (because there is really is no inherent difference between Christianity and HG). That's exactly why I suggested using HG as the discussion ground.

Again, little value to this discussion. I'll wait for Vivace's or H's reply.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

That's a True Scotsman argument.

It's not at all. You can't compare a modern movement like Heaven's Gate to an ancient religion; the differing social context invalidates the comparison. Another first century religious movement would be a better choice, especially one that developed under the Roman Empire. If you don't understand my objection, than you're too thick to see past your own confirmation bias, ironically.

[Super Dude]

Manichaeism.

[Scheavo]

That's a True Scotsman argument.

It's not at all. You can't compare a modern movement like Heaven's Gate to an ancient religion; the differing social context invalidates the comparison. Another first century religious movement would be a better choice, especially one that developed under the Roman Empire. If you don't understand my objection, than you're too thick to see past your own confirmation bias, ironically.

So god and the nature of reality have changed since the first century? I think his point is all the more poignant because it uses a modern religion; ancients had an excuse of ignorance, Heaven's Gate people can't really use that defense.

[bosk1]

Not quite.

It's called math.

Hey, if you think those passages are there to present a literal timeline of events, I'm not going to say you're wrong.

[hefdaddy42]

Not quite.

It's called math.

Hey, if you think those passages are there to present a literal timeline of events, I'm not going to say you're wrong.

I am saying that I don't see how a belief in literal truth and inerrancy in the Bible can lead to any other assumption.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Not quite.

It's called math.

Hey, if you think those passages are there to present a literal timeline of events, I'm not going to say you're wrong.

I am saying that I don't see how a belief in literal truth and inerrancy in the Bible can lead to any other assumption.

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

[eric42434224]

But if the bible is inerrant, one would think that it would have to be very clear as to what is literal and what is metaphor.  It is easy to say how "clear" it is to you or others, but so many have believed in the literal interpretation for centuries....and still do.

[yeshaberto]

While there are possibly a few obscure passages (I can't think of any at this time) that aren't clear, I haven't ever had a problem with seeing the contrast between the literal and the metaphoric.  Are there passages that don't coincide with our current scientific knowledge, there is little doubt.  But that has been the case for centuries.

[GuineaPig]

Not quite.

It's called math.

Hey, if you think those passages are there to present a literal timeline of events, I'm not going to say you're wrong.

I am saying that I don't see how a belief in literal truth and inerrancy in the Bible can lead to any other assumption.

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

What are the "history" books?

[yeshaberto]

other than the writings (Job, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) and the prophets (Isaiah through Malachi), the rest are primarily history.  Generally, though, Genesis thru Deuteronomy are considered law, and Joshua through Nehemiah are considered history.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

But if the bible is inerrant, one would think that it would have to be very clear as to what is literal and what is metaphor.  It is easy to say how "clear" it is to you or others, but so many have believed in the literal interpretation for centuries....and still do.

I agree with what you're saying.  Unfortunately, Westerners have interpreted the Bible in a very Western fashion for a very long time, and the Bible wasn't written by Western folks. I also think one ought to be careful when throwing around the word "inerrant" when using it to describe the Bible, mainly because there are some very obvious copy errors in the text.  I won't dispute that at all.

I do think the Bible is absolutely true, for the record.  I do not, however, think it is exhaustive by any means.

EDIT: And, sorry, didn't mean to derail the topic.  There's enough evidence out there to support Jesus as being a real person.  I do believe the statements he made concerning himself and the acts he performed to be truth based upon other evidences that some would consider unreliable.

[hefdaddy42]

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

I don't see Genesis having much in common with Psalms or Job at all.

I agree that Genesis isn't a scientific text.  But it is a descriptive text, and it explicitly describes creation as taking 6 days.

[eric42434224]

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

I don't see Genesis having much in common with Psalms or Job at all.

I agree that Genesis isn't a scientific text.  But it is a descriptive text, and it explicitly describes creation as taking 6 days.

A friend of mine, who is very religious, was talking about this the other day.  When trying to show how it likey isnt literally a 24 hour day, and that a day could mean a million years.  He asked me that, when it comes to god, isnt a million years for each day more realistic?  I told him, considering the scope of how powerful god supposedly is, why would he need an entire 24 hours much less a million years?  The way god is described as all powerful, I would think it is more reasonable that it simply came into being in an instant.  And I was always amused that the all omnipotent entity needed to rest!  If you are outside of time, matter, or all laws of our existence....would you really need a nap?  LOL.

[GuineaPig]

other than the writings (Job, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) and the prophets (Isaiah through Malachi), the rest are primarily history.  Generally, though, Genesis thru Deuteronomy are considered law, and Joshua through Nehemiah are considered history.

OK.  I was just wondering whether wolfandwolfandwolf considered Exodus to be a "history" given his opinion the Bible is absolutely true, and historians' views on the subject.  Though, that still leaves the problem of Joshua.

[yeshaberto]

It is clear that the Genesis creation account was not written as a scientific text to describe the creation of the Universe and specifically, the Earth.  The Genesis account has a lot in common with the Psalms and with Job, both poetic types of literature.  That said, no telling how much time elapses from "In the beginning" to "Let there be light".  The creation "story" in particular is pretty stylized and isn't written in nearly the same way some of the other "history" books in the Old Testament are written.

I don't see Genesis having much in common with Psalms or Job at all.

I agree that Genesis isn't a scientific text.  But it is a descriptive text, and it explicitly describes creation as taking 6 days.

A friend of mine, who is very religious, was talking about this the other day.  When trying to show how it likey isnt literally a 24 hour day, and that a day could mean a million years.  He asked me that, when it comes to god, isnt a million years for each day more realistic?  I told him, considering the scope of how powerful god supposedly is, why would he need an entire 24 hours much less a million years?  The way god is described as all powerful, I would think it is more reasonable that it simply came into being in an instant.  And I was always amused that the all omnipotent entity needed to rest!  If you are outside of time, matter, or all laws of our existence....would you really need a nap?  LOL.

It did not take God 24 hours to create the items each day.  They were "instant" as you assumed.  He spoke "let there be light" and there was light, etc.
The reason for the 24 hours was to establish our 24 hour day.  The seven days was to establish our week.
The reason for the rest was so that we would rest.

[Super Dude]

When I was in Jew school, I was in a class that asked about that seven days thing, and we decided that in "God time," a day would be like a thousand years or more.