• In total there are 40 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 39 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

In becoming more familiar with BookTalk I've read more than a handful of times that it is highly doubtful that Christ even existed at all.

Doubting if Jesus ever walked the earth has always puzzled me. I've concluded that what is really being denied is not his actual existence, but ascribing divinity to the man. Atheists can not live with that assertion, so it appears they are willing to go one step further and claim that he never was even a true historical figure.

Setting the gospels aside, Christ is mentioned, however briefly, in the following historical sources:

1} The Roman governor of the province of Bythinia-Pontus (in modern-day Turkey), Pliny the Younger,
in a letter written to his emperor, Trajan (112 AD), mentions a group of Christians who are followers
of “Christ, whom they worship as a God” (Letter 10 to the Emperor Trajan).


2} The Roman historian Tacitus gives a lengthier reference in his history of Rome, The Annals (115 AD),
in his discussion of the torching of the city of Rome by the emperor Nero in the year 64 AD. Here he mentions the Christians as the hatred of the human race and says that they were followers of “Christ” who, he notes, was crucified under the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was the emperor.


3) The Antiquities.

The briefer of the two references indicates that he was called by some the messiah and that he had a
brother named James.

The longer reference (Book XVIII of Antiquities) gives considerably more detail, indicating that Jesus
was known to be a wise man who did spectacular deeds and had a following among both Jews and Greeks. This reference also says that Jesus was brought up on charges by the Jewish leaders, appeared before Pontius Pilate, and was crucified and that his followers formed a community that continued to thrive.


As a historical figure, the general consensus among biblical scholars is that Jesus probably did in fact exist, at the very least.
Heck, even Bart Ehrman (I've read 2 of his books) says he no doubt existed.

Why do atheists insist that he most likely did not?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Hello Ant, I discussed this topic at some length in a review of Earl Doherty's recent book Jesus Neither God Nor Man. http://www.booktalk.org/jesus-neither-g ... 11515.html

In summary, the historical claims you present here are examined in detail by Doherty, and shown not to meet the most basic historiographic standards of evidence.

More recently, I compiled the following Twelve Good Reasons not to believe in Jesus. If you follow the link there is quite a lively discussion.
1. No extra-biblical contemporary evidence for Jesus, despite historians Josephus and Philo writing about closely related material.
2. Jesus of Gospels obviously partially fictional, especially performance of impossible miracles, major political events such as passion, crowds
3. No definite evidence that Saint Paul knew of an historical Jesus - absence of clear reference leads apologists to clutch at scanty straws in epistles
4. Sudden emergence of Christianity around Roman Empire does not match spread from single genius founder.
5. Continuity of Christ myth with previous stories of dying and rising saviours from Greece, Syria, Babylon and Egypt
6. Long period between supposed life of Jesus and emergence of Gospels - at least 40 years before first gospel and possibly 150 years until four gospels finalised.
7. Evidence that historical Jesus story is dumbed down public version of original allegorical secret mystery - if Jesus did not exist he would have been invented anyway
8. Political demand for 'one for all' redeemer - historical story met emotional need for new syncretic vision in wake of disaster of destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
9. Opportunity among therapeuts of Alexandria to develop Jesus story as new myth based on manufactured Serapis myth - adding Israel to Greek-Egypt syncretism
10. Match between Christ myth and cosmic story of movement of stars - alpha omega moment of end of Age of Aries and start of Age of Pisces in 21 AD
11. Broad messianic expectation based on Hebrew prophets - demand to explain how prophecy from Isaiah, Daniel, Micah, etc was realized
12. Logical argument that cosmic gnostic Christ figure was carnalized, with gradual shift over generations from eternal myth to historical fiction.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

The way I view this question, ant, is that the man portrayed in the gospels is not real. By that I mean that no man produced the miracles reported or was resurrected as reported. That man didn't create the sensation recorded in the Gospels, either, or else much more extensive commentary on him would exist. The fall back then becomes to say that a man existed who was magnified into the quite different man we see in the Bible. I think that's probably what happened, but for me the historicity of Jesus isn't the important thing. The important thing is that he was believed to have been real. Robert argues that the gospel writers themselves don't insist that Jesus was real, that they're telling an allegorical tale while at the same time satisfying popular demand for a more dramatic story. I can't see that a reading of these books supports that view. Influences on the theology from Greece, Egypt, or other traditions don't mean that the Gospels writers had no ideas about their subject as a living man and were therefore consciously writing fiction. They are following the traditions passed down to them from the time of the supposed Jesus. It mattered greatly to them that Jesus was a real man who was also the incarnation of God. Their communication of this is direct and effective, as seen by the complete acceptance of the story as literal. Their depiction of the Jews as the killers of Christ isn't explainable if Jesus is a fable to them. That depiction of course had horrific consequences down through the ages.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

I agree that a man named Jesus probably lived and inspired something of a fanatical following. He became a martyr when he was crucified, and over time the stories about the man evolved into a belief that he was the son of God. It's quite relevant that the gospels were written some time after Jesus' death. I don't see how such beliefs could grow from a metaphor of the planets and stars, although it seems likely that astrological themes along with other mystical ideas played a large role in shaping Christianity. It probably mattered a great deal to the early mythicists that Jesus was a real person. Thus, Jesus is an amalgamation of many cultural beliefs and rituals and today we know almost nothing about the man himself.

The idea that Jesus never lived probably appeals to some people. I don't think it's mainstream, among atheists and theists alike.
-Geo
Question everything
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

No, I do not believe any man such as Jesus (divine or not) really existed in history. That is the conclusion others have come to (Earl Doherty, Albert Schweitzer)

It is not "wish fulfillment" that leads atheists to this conclusion, Ant. . . it is total absence of historical proof.

Also frankly I have never understood why it was such a big deal if there was a Jesus that he was crucified. Lots of people were. None of it makes any sense.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

it is total absence of historical proof.
I've cited authentic historical sources with little if any reason to promote a mythical man, without elaborating to any propitious degree. But apparently you've decided to "poison the well" by indicating there is a "total absence of historical proof."

Short of a historical figure coming back from the dead to prove their existence to us, historical evidence is limited to the discovery of artifacts, inscriptions, texts, and the like. Fine, you've dismissed what does in fact exist as documented evidene.

Thanks
Last edited by ant on Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Robert,

Some interesting stuff there. I will have to research this further.

ant
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

lady of shallot wrote:No, I do not believe any man such as Jesus (divine or not) really existed in history. That is the conclusion others have come to (Earl Doherty, Albert Schweitzer) It is not "wish fulfillment" that leads atheists to this conclusion, Ant. . . it is total absence of historical proof.
TS Kuhn comments in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that a paradigm change only occurs when a new paradigm is accepted as superior. Recognising that an old paradigm is implausible makes little difference. People will stick with it if it is the best they have.

In the case of Jesus, absence of evidence makes little difference to people's ongoing commitment to belief. The only thing that would change opinion is an explanation that gives a superior rationale for why Christianity emerged as it did.

This is why, as DWill and Geo have alluded, I focus on the natural cosmic story. If it can be shown there are factors within the cultural milieu, in terms of astronomical observation, that made a messianic story inevitable, and that the Jesus story was constructed to fit with this bigger cosmic science, we have a very important key to the puzzle of understanding how and why the Epistles and then the Gospels emerged as they did.

Ignoring this cosmic framework, as almost all history has done, leaves us reliant on completely implausible claims. Leaving aside the impossibility of the traditional accounts of supernatural intervention, we still have the implausibility of how an obscure peasant produced a sudden world movement, why the Jesus story went viral. We also have the implausibility that Paul was the main advocate, but saw fit to mention nothing definite about his hero Jesus. These problems become straightforward and simple once we place the cultural evolution within a mystery religion framework, in which widespread secret knowledge of the stars provided the essential back story. We also have to recognise that suppression of this stellar vision was a main goal of orthodoxy.

Looking more broadly at the implausibility of the "Big Bang Theory" that Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity, we can compare the evolution of Christian belief to the evolution of phyla from the Burgess Shale after the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago as described by Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life. This evolutionary model supports the multiple origin theory for Christ, as against the traditional single point origin hypothesis of an historical founder. Just as life became macroscopic when there was enough oxygen in the air of the planet, Christ came into being in the common era as a way of explaining reality that enabled an accommodation between disputing parties and fitted with enough existing strands of evidence.

Initially the Cambrian Period supported numerous body forms, or phyla. A few out-competed all the others, and survived through to modern times, such as tetrapods. The same evolutionary pattern is seen in Christianity. Current Christian beliefs are the descendants of the most successful phylum, orthodoxy, and barely recognize the contested birth of the meme, the existence of other phyla which were often more intellectually coherent than the one that survived.

The competing phyla of early Christianity - Gnostics, Syncretists, Docetics and others - were in memetic evolutionary competition to determine which was most adaptive to social needs. Orthodox Christianity enabled support for imperial structures while also offering a redemptive message of guilt for murdering Christ. The Catholic Church had powerful accessible rituals, an ordered community and a persuasive narrative. Its historical Jesus met emotional needs for an incarnate redeemer. His actual existence was irrelevant against the power of the myth. Since Jesus did not exist, it was necessary to invent him. Jesus is the imaginary story of what a messiah would have done, had he existed, grounded in the 'as above so below' ancient cosmology geared to a new vision for the new age of the common era.

Such a story, designed to meet emotional needs, can readily be more attractive than one based on rational coherence. The problem now for faith is that the demand for rational coherence is catching up with traditional beliefs which may have served to build community, but are not true, especially the historical Jesus.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:
it is total absence of historical proof.
I've cited authentic historical sources with little if any reason to promote a mythical man, without elaborating to any propitious degree. But apparently you've decided to "poison the well" by indicating there is a "total absence of historical proof."

Short of a historical figure coming back from the dead to prove their existence to us, historical evidence is limited to the discovery of artifacts, inscriptions, texts, and the like. Fine, you've dismissed what does in fact exist as documented evidene.

Thanks
Thanks Ant. You seem to have overlooked the more thorough research that Robert Tulip posted. I don't see how the opinion of one person could "poison the well"

I did not say that the sources you quoted do not exist. Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy. If Jesus had the historicity of say Mohammed I would agree that he is a real figure. As you say believing his divinity is not the same as believing in his historical being.

For instance I can say that the men and women hung and pressed at Salem are true historical figures that died accused and found guilty of being witches without believing in fact that they were witches.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy
By who's standards? Your personal standards or agreed upon standards by biblical scholars?

When considering the plausible credibility of a source, scholars utilize 3 criteria:

Independent attestation - (maintains that traditions that are attested independently by more than one source are more likely to be reliable than those found in only one source.)

criterion of dissimilarity - traditions that appear to work against the vested interests of the Christians who were telling them are more likely to be historically accurate than those that Christians may have “made up” to suit their own purposes.

criterion of contextual credibility - argues that no tradition about Jesus can be accepted as reliable if it cannot plausibly be situated in a first-century Jewish Palestinian context

Once again, HOWEVER BRIEF, Christ is mentioned in the sources I previously indicated.

All are independent sources

All had no vested interests to mention Christ in efforts to promote Christianity, apocalypticism, or any type of mysticism for that matter.

All can plausibly be situated in the jewish/Palestinian context of the historical Jesus.

What exactly are the scholarly standards you are referring to?
Are you saying these sources are all in on the "myth"? Why would pagan sources all be in cahoots about this?
Why are these sources considered accurate on other unrelated accounts but inaccurate when mentioning Christ?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”