Did Jesus exist? NOT whether he was God but a real historical, charismatic Jewish religious leader who inspired a new religious movement. There is no PROOF he actually existed. The only tangible evidence we have he existed are writings that are dated at least 150-300 years AFTER he supposedly lived. That being said, it doesn't mean he wasn't a real.

Chances that he was historical. I would place bets that he was. Probably about 80% chance he really lived.

OK, so, if he were "real", i.e. there was an actual historical person that provided the "seed" for the Biblical Jesus, what would that person look like and how similar to the Biblical Jesus would he need to be to be considered real?

For example, it's widely believed that Joseph Smith used a map and changed the names a little for a several cities to become locations in the Book of Mormon. Does that mean that the Book of Mormon Cities are "real", that they were historical cities?

The most that historical Jesus believers can say (at this point) is that there may have been a person who taught some "radical" things. His name most likely wasn't Jesus (or the Jewish equivalent). He wasn't born as described, didn't have the followings of thousands as described (or there probably would be some contemporary note about him somewhere). He may not have even died as described. So, you're left with, there may have been a radical teacher in Israel around the time Christ was supposed to have lived.

I can pretty much guarantee that there was a "radical teacher" in Israel around the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived... There were probably many. Which one would have been "Jesus"? The seed person might not be anything like the Jesus that people see in minds when they picture a "Historical Jesus"

That raises the question:
In 150-300 years will someone write a scriptural account about an obscure boy named Harry Potter that did some miraculous things and destroyed evil?
Who knows? Maybe Harry Potter will be the next Jesus and wars will be waged based on which house you belonged.
Praise Gryffindor, in the blessed name of our Lord and Savior Harry Potter, Amen.

In the name of Harry, Hermione and Ron amen.

They are good people, they fight and overcome evil, and are very likeable. The professors in Gryffindor teach good, positive ethics.

And no, I don't care if Albus Dumbledore is gay.

This is my line of thought as well. Whether the stories were based on a real person or not, we can be fairly certain that almost all of the details, including his name, are off. As such, what's the point of even arguing that "Jesus" lived?

I'd love to die and find out that I was wrong about Christianity...but so were all the Christians...that Jesus was a woman, etc...

That isnt really true. His name was Yeshua and we know some things about him. Whether he was magical isnt thebpoint. He and his movement changed history and that makes him important.

Oh, good, they've finally found factual, peer reviewed, contemporary, archaeological finds, including proof that he was named "Yeshua"! Where is this, I'd love to see it.

Jesus is the Greek form of Yeshua and that is common knowledge. Every writer refers to him by one of those names or a variant.. Your ignorance of history is showing. Bye.

"Jesus is the Greek form of Yeshua and that is common knowledge. Every writer refers to him by one of those names or a variant.. Your ignorance of history is showing. Bye."

How is knowing the Greek form of his name proof of anything. Spider-man's common name is Peter Parker... This is common knowledge... Does that make him real?

Please tell me that somewhere, deep down you know that there is no actual proof of his existence. You may hope he was a real person, you may believe he was a real person. A lot of people may believe this. But hearsay and writings by people who have never met the guy, doesn't make for proof. It certainly doesn't prove that that was his name at all.

It's so interesting to me that you will point out just about every time some one states something along the lines that Christians believe the creation story to be a factual account of the creation earth, that many, if not most actually believe it to be allegorical... Yet, you can't accept anyone stating that there just might not be a historical Jesus to base the Biblical account on.

Because this.is my field and this is the simplest version and just about everyone in the field agrees with me.

If they didn't they'd have to get real jobs...

OMG. It is a real job.They teach, write and do research.Geesh

Maybe there was a person the myths were tied to, but once you accept he wasn't magical, is it really the same person?

josephus has written of jesus in the history of the jews-seems 100% jesus is historical.

From what I've read, the one reference to Jesus by Josephus in the history of the Jews is the only reference made in historical records, and even that is dubious, at best.

There are two references in Josephus,one of which is at least partly fake. The bare bones may well be original. The second is not disputed. There are also mentions in Tacitus and Pliny.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two references in Josephus,one of which
> is at least partly fake. The bare bones may well
> be original. The second is not disputed. There are
> also mentions in Tacitus and Pliny.

Both references in Josephus are widely regarded as later fraudulent insertions, and Josephus' wrote long after the supposed "Jesus" lived anyway, so it's not like he was around to witness any "Jesus."

There are no mentions of "Jesus" in either Tacitus or Pliny. Tacitus mentions what christians of his time believed about "christus" (never mentioning "Jesus"), and then proceeded to call what they believed a "pernicious myth."

Pliny also never mentions "Jesus" or even "christus." He mentions christians of his time only, adding that they are guilty of "depraved, excessive superstition." Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of this "superstition"; and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.

Wrong. Start with the Wiki article on Josephus and Jesus. It has a good discussion of them and it is well annotated with a lot of footnotes

Bona DEA unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. Start with the Wiki article on Josephus and
> Jesus. It has a good discussion of them and it is
> well annotated with a lot of footnotes

That article says the first "Josephus" reference is " most likely not authentic."

It also says the second (referring to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James") is "largely acknowledged as authentic," but also notes that there are scholars that "question the authenticity of the reference."

So...what was "wrong?"

I would say over 95% or higher. BTW, the earliest writings that mention Jesus are the Epistles and they were written around 30 years of Jesus' death.

Conversation at the Jesus had a mole on his left peck conference.



I love...carpet. I love...desk.

Brick, are you just looking at things in the office and saying that you love them?

I love lamp.

Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?

I love lamp. I love lamp.
-------------------------


Did you know that 83.568% of statistics are made up on the spot? Well it's true. Along those same lines 94.3625% of historical Jesus threads are about the same thing.

Oh, and, I love thumbtack.

I was taught (in my conversion-to-Judaism classes) that it is the consensus of contemporary Jewish historians and rabbis that---during that particular, politically- and theologically-charged period in Middle Eastern history---there were a number of rabbis, scholars, and Jewish "political" figures wandering (they were usually literally walking) from place-to-place within the general area of what is now present-day Israel, building [hoped-for] eventual consensus on:

1) what to do with the overall practical problem which involved everyone (of ANY ethnicity, nationality, religion, or civil status: free or slave, etc.) living in that that area because it was under Roman [foreign], and reflexively brutal, occupation...

2) the internal-to-the-Jewish-people politics (Pharisees/Sadducees/kohens/levites, etc., plus internal Jewish ethnic conflicts, such as with the Samaritans, who are related quite closely to non-Samaritan Jews), and...

3) the internal pressures, from within Judaism, which were expanding Jewish thought and understanding...and causing a great deal of what (in our contemporary understanding today) we might understand as liberal/conservative conflict...

...and that the "Jesus" of the NT is probably a conflation of some ("more than one") of these Jewish males who were all, each for their own religious or political reasons, trying to influence those who they came in contact with so that the balance would eventually favor their intellectual/theological/legal/political positions.

The more I learn and understand about the actual history (the writings of the period, plus our contemporary archaeological finds) of that period, the more I agree with this hypothesis.

It may have been a small number of Jewish men (two or three, for example---those who stood out for some reason, and made a particularly lasting impression sufficient for their stories to then be told from generation-to-generation), but it was enough for critical mass...

...and those stories became one story (to our present knowledge, very likely beginning with Josephus).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 02:48PM by Tevai.

I dont think most scholars would agree with that. There could have been a bit of confusion, but getting a bunch of people with the same name mixed up and turning them into one individual is kind of far fetched and not too likely..Were your teachers actual NT scholars? I.would bet they were not and the theory is something that is more of a personal opinion.Being Jewish or even a Jewish scholar doesnt make a person an expert on the NT or Jesus

I'm really surprised by this comment. Tevai offers a personal anecdote and you shit on it.

I get that you are emotionally charged by this discussion but come on.

I am sure she was taught that and I politely said I dont agree and neither would most scholars.If the person who taught her was an actual scholar, it still isnt a mainstream view. That is a fact. How is that shitting on it? Your comment to me might meet the definition though.I happen to like Tevai and we have had this discussion before. If she is offended, I am sure she can tell me herself, but we both have a right to an opinion.I hope she knows no offense was intended.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 11:36PM by bona dea.

You called into question the education of people you don't know and then did an appeal to authority.

If, and when, people call into question your education, you do your best to set them straight as it is offensive.

You know people can turn what you did here back on you, maybe your "most scholars" aren't actual scholars, maybe their view isn't the "mainstream view", maybe they just have personal opinions?

What is their background? Just who are these "scholars" you keep speaking for?

Interesting that it is only an appeal to authority in the case of history. If I said almost all scientists believe in evolution, you would agree but history is different apparently. Sorry it isnt and your attitude is very anti intellectual. Please, tell me what your background is and what books you have read.
As far as Tevai's teachers, I asked. I dont know what their backgrounds are but it is reasonable to assume that PHDs in ancient history who are associated with major universities and who have written peer reviewed books( that is the definition of a scholar by the way) are busy with their careers and not teaching conversion classes. This is my field, I spent and am still spending a lot of time reading scholarly books on the subject, taking classes etc and I am really tired of being put down by people who really have no background in the subject and who dont know what they are talking about. Just to be clear, I am not talking about Tevai, I am talking about you. Good bye



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 11:35PM by bona dea.

>"Interesting that it is only an appeal to authority in the case of history. If I said almost all scientists believe in evolution, you would agree but history is different apparently."

You're missing a very big component there... There's actual observable proof of evolution. It's not just a bunch of scientists saying that it's true that makes proof. They have tested, observed and had peer reviews... Please, I really would like to know, where is that same level of proof for the historical Jesus. There isn't any that I've seen, it's hearsay and conjecture. No contemporary account at all.

>"Sorry it isnt and your attitude is very anti intellectual."


Asking for peer reviewed proof of your evidence is anti-intellectual??? Really, I'd love to hear how that's the case. I would think that most historians would say that basing the belief in historical events on hearsay would be anti-intellectual.

>"Please, tell me what your background is and what books you have read."

And here it is. It's all about credentials with you. Not actual proof, not actual real answers to debate, just, "what are your credentials. I have a feeling that I could have a veritable alphabet soup behind my name and you would still discount it because, "This is your field".

It's nothing but a logical fallacy. Since you can't answer the question, attack the person asking and attempt discredit them. This is how you've answered every attempt to get you to back up your arguments. Change the subject to credentials.

>"...This is my field, I spent and am still spending a lot of time reading scholarly books on the subject, taking classes etc"

Then please, I really would like to know why on the question of a historical Jesus, and pretty much only that case, evidence doesn't matter. How an appeal to numbers is the enough to confirm something. I really am asking... Why is this different than anything else I've ever learned about studying history and any other science.

>"and I am really tired of being put down by people who really have no background in the subject and who dont know what they are talking about."

They nor I have been putting YOU down. They are questioning the lack of evidence to support your statements. That's not a personal attack. If you can back up your claims more than you have, please do so.

>"Just to be clear, I am not talking about Tevai, I am talking about you. Good bye"

Well, I'm glad you're being clear. Good day to you too!

Thanks Tevai for the actual information regarding the hypothesis and what you learned in those classes. Very interesting. Certainly gives more to think about than just trotting the word, "Scholar" out like that settles everything.

Refusing to read actual scholars, much less giving them any respect is kind of anti intellectual. This is not meant for Tevai, but for you



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 11:33PM by bona dea.

It probably doesn't have anything to do with scholars. This person probably just doesn't respect you, and I'm not surprised, given your emotionally charged attitude in this thread and your multiple appeals to authority and your continual insistence that you are a scholar in this field but have yet to reference or link to any scholarly works that support your assertions.

I could claim that I have six PhD's in various disciplines but it doesn't mean anything. It's just me saying something. That's kind of what the Internet is. Which is why I am wondering why you're getting so charged about this.

I understand this forum is a little different because some of the people here actually know each other in real life, but that doesn't mean that their probably aren't a bunch of people here who have the capacity to be dishonest about the most basic things about who they are, including gender, age, and yes, academic background and scholarly qualifications.

One of the reasons I don't really like threads like this is that they devolve into arguments based on A versus B. People invariably group together into people who either believe in the historicity of Jesus/ reality of Bigfoot/ theory of evolution/ belief In 'woo-woo' or spiritual nonsense- or people who don't, and possibly start offering supporting facts, links, etc. to support their positions. I'm sure I am as guilty as anyone in participating and arguing about these things, just to clarify. I'm not above getting in to a debate.

However, you claiming that you have the academic highground because you're a " scholar " is just so arrogant and I can't even wrap my mind around it. Even on the Internet.

Feel free to get incredibly haughty and offended by what I just said.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2017 09:49AM by midwestanon.

Whatever. Whether he likes me or not, he is rejecting scholarship. I am not a scholar. I am a history major and have never said otherwise. I have, however, read the scholars unlike many of the know everything mythicists.BTW, I didnt start this. I made a perfectly polite observation and was attacked by three separate posters not including you. They were were not part of the discussion at the time and really had no reason to be involved. Of course they have a right to join, but they could do it without the nastiness. Another thought, if you dont enjoy thisntopic, dont read it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2017 08:57AM by bona dea.

I still am a little surprised by your comment as it was a pointed response to a personal experience.

You made a perfectly valid point to me that I was doing the same to you.

Again I asked her and stated that her teacher's view isn't mainstream which is a fact.

I don't enjoy the topic- which is why nothing in my post was about the historicity of Jesus. I also don't enjoy your spurious claims about people rejecting scholarship when they don't like the things YOU say, which is just another way of saying that they are rejecting you- Ergo they are rejecting scholarship. So despite your claims that you never said you were a scholar, you really did through implication. Additionally, you were (are) so standoffish about it you left everyone in little doubt that you're the only one who can talk with any authority about Jesus. Pure arrogance.

My opinion if of course is of little value. But here it is.

The definitive answer to the question of Jesus having been a real historical figure is: MAYBE

That should settle all discussion :-).

Ka-ching!!!

I am not rejecting scholarship bona deal. Quite the opposite.

I am stating that just throwing the word scholar around is of no value whatsoever. The word by itself without the reference that scholarship can provide is meaningless. Please understand the difference.

Give us some scholarship then. That would be a pleasant change.

+100. Done & Done nailed it.

He lives!

He was one of the finest long distance on my high school's track team.

What do I win again...?

I'd agree with at least a 95% chance. But he wasn't any more magical or divine than anybody else. He was just a guy.

Gosh i love this discussion couple thousand tears after the fact...years ago i read one theory that christs brother james was the go to guy and that christ was just his hang around brother...the people loved james...that theory was that barabas was james and thats why the people hollered to release him at the trial...seems james was leading the essenes on the shores of the dead sea where many scrolls were discovered not that long ago...what it does demonstrate for sure...radical reigeous folk have been around for a long time...gawd not so much...ill save my rehearsal of another book about the crucifiction being faked cuz simon was good with dope for another day...if you havent got proof...you better dam well be entertaining

I'll bet $1000 mythological dollars that he was.

Ex-CultMember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only tangible
> evidence we have he existed are writings that are
> dated at least 150-300 years AFTER he supposedly
> lived.

Tangible as in extant copies? Kind of. There are early dated fragments of the Gospel of John (125 CE), Matthew (150 CE), etc. However, most scholars are in agreement that some of the New Testament is quite old. Many of the Pauline Epistles are dated in the 50-60 CE range, which would be a couple decades after his dead. Does that mean he existed? Of course not, but there are texts a hell of a lot earlier than "300 years after" he lived.

but even after a couple of 30 year decades, everyone is dead.

There is no.such thing as a thirty year decade. A decade is 10 years.

Flip a coin.

Ex-CultMember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only tangible
> evidence we have he existed are writings that are
> dated at least 150-300 years AFTER he supposedly
> lived. That being said, it doesn't mean he wasn't
> a real.

Two things:
The "gospel" stories are claims, not "tangible evidence."
And you're a bit late, the earliest ones probably (but not certainly, we don't know for certain since we have no originals and the authors are unknown) date to around 50-60 years after he supposedly lived.

> Chances that he was historical. I would place bets
> that he was. Probably about 80% chance he really
> lived.

Me, I'd put the "odds" at 10% that there was "some actual guy" on which the stories were loosely based. And I think I'm being generous with that :)


Note for "R.H." -- the Pauline epistles are essentially silent about an actual, earthly "jesus." They don't say anything about such a person. The gospels do...

Notwithstanding the massive amount of "print" that has been expended on this question, both on the Board and in the literature generally, it is a meaningless question--until you identify the criteria, i.e. the necessary conditions, that satisfy the pronoun "he." (As in the question "Did he exist?") You need to provide the reader with the properties of the person that are deemed necessary and sufficient to satisfy the referent "Jesus" before you can discuss whether such person existed or not. Here are some possibilities:

(1) A person actually named "Jesus' living in the first century;
(2) An itinerant preacher (of whatever name) claiming to perform miracles, and attracting a following:
(3) A historical person (having whatever properties) actually identified by some unknown founder(s) of Christianity as a basis to establish a religion.
(4) etc. etc. etc.

Until we know what you are talking about, the whole question is without substance. And it doesn't matter what position some scholar might take on the matter. The same problem applies.

The most obvious choice is (3) above, but then we have to ask whether we have access to *any* facts that might answer this question. Can we get into the mind of an unknown person, or group, to establish the foundational basis for Christianity? Are there any facts that would cast any light, one way or another, on this issue, other than pure speculation? Note that a question that is in principle purely speculative, is not a question for intellectual debate; only rhetorical debate.

Why do people waste so much time debating this non-issue? In short, once you remove the religious significance associated with the name "Jesus" which in Christianity necessarily assumes existence, there is really not much more to meaningfully discuss.

I'm really much more interested in whether there was a historical spiderman. There's as much archaeological evidence for him as the jesus character.

My vote: not convinced.

The historical basis of a dude existing seems more likely than not. Why? There are all sort of people in history which have been deified. In the case of Jesus it just stuck better than other dudes. If you look through history its riddled with "god" men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

The thing I find fascinating is if you just read what supposedly come out of his mouth in the Bible, and especially in the books that didn't make it into the Bible, he seemed like a good dude. Its difficult to know after millennia of manufactured consent of churches what this movement was about originally. Whatever it was it must have resonated powerfully with the people of the day.

There are also all sorts of "god-men" in history that were not based on any real person at all.

Marduk, Ba'al Hadad, Osiris, Ra, Zeus, Odin, Thor...the list goes on and on. I haven't actually added up the numbers, but there are probably at least as many entirely-fictional 'god-men' (and some women, too!) as there are 'god-men' loosely based on a real person.

Odin's an interesting comparison:
The first written texts we have about him are from the 1st century CE (same period as the jesus stories). The stories about him assert he was a real person AND a god. He was widely worshiped, even in cultures far removed from his (somewhat murky) origins. The earliest writings about him exist as copies, but no originals have survived. He was said to go among the people working miracles (with his magic wolves and his retinue of courageous men and his sons).

Yet nobody thinks there was a real man behind the Odin myth.
How about that.

"Yet nobody thinks there was a real man behind the Odin myth."

Well, Mormons do.

Several years ago (about 2011 I think), before the more controversial (i.e., weird-ass) names were removed from examination on Family Search, I found some ordinance dates for Thor (yes, that Thor; his ID at the time was LD9R-JF3):

B - 27 Feb 1993 Laie
E - 9 Feb 1994 Laie
SP - 14 Oct 2008 Seattle (to Odin & Frigg)
SS - 4 Apr 1996 SLC (to Sif)

When I clicked on the "Odin" link, all I got was "all completed," no dates or places specified.

So Odin's temple work has been done. Not kidding.

decultified Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, Mormons do...
> So Odin's temple work has been done. Not kidding.

I stand corrected.
Figures it would be mormons. :)

You got me, I don't know if Odin was based off a real guy. The Vikings did a horrible job of writing things down when compared to their contemporizes. Could the exploits and tale tells of some old king became a God overtime? I could see that happen especially when information primarily traveled by voice. Can't fact check squat. It's really a coin flip.

Its interesting if you take Zoroaster for example. Nobody debates if he was real, its not like the records for his existence are any better than Jesus. He was long gone before he came up in Greek literature for example.

People who insist that Jesus is, or was, real are an interesting study in themselves.

People who insist he wasnt are totally ignorant about the ancient world and about historical method.Interesting that most mythicists are angry atheists and not scholars

It is great to see some people assign a percentage to the probability of the existence of Jesus, instead of using phrases like Bart Ehrman's favorite "almost certainly". What would be even better is to see how people came up with that percentage, especially when compared to Richard Carrier's calculations in his book "On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt".

Carrier also addresses the problem that some people have raised here, which he calls "the minimal theory of historicism", which can be summarized as:

(i) that Jesus was “an actual man” with “followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death” and

(ii) he “was claimed by his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities,” and

(iii) his “followers soon began worshipping [him] as a … god”

(Source: http://eschata.apocryphum.com/2015/04/21/a-short-note-on-carriers-minimal-historicism)

The importance of the mininal theory of historicism cannot be understated. Without it, endless debate could occur about issues that would not resolve the question, eg whether Nazareth existed when Jesus was born.

but that does not mean that he was ever a living breathing creature

but Mickey Mouse is not a real person, Let alone anyone who raised himself from the dead.

A person being able to raise themselves from the dead would be a trick on par with making a basket ball shot through a basket ball hoop that was located on the moon. Jesus only really matters IF he actually performed that magic trick, because clever sayings really do not mean as much as the magic trick. The idea that some singular person, a Jesus, was so full of such clever quips and sayings that it completely transformed a dominate political empire that otherwise would have remained the same is pure tail wagging the dog ideology. "Jesus" was the unembodied but personified encapsulation and evolution of an accumulation of human longings and political longings INCLUDING BRUTAL MOCKERIES, INSULTS and PARODIES of various populations. Eventually He became the adopted face and personification of the Roman Empire as that Empire realized that (imposed) internal mental control over people is vastly more effective and cost efficient than the external control of compulsion maintained by brute physical force. The second coming of "Jesus" is the second coming of the Roman Empire as the First coming / formation of
"THE" (Roman) Catholic Church -an empire that has been far more powerful, durable, far reaching and influential than the original.

Why did so many Romans join and support Christianity?

The stories were probably based off of multiple sources that were especially from Roman culture. The central hero is probably symbolic of someone that Romans greatly respected.

raiku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did so many Romans join and support
> Christianity?

It was the captivating allure of Jesus' majestic divine personality (that the Caesars just could not compete with) ....even for the Romans who had never actually met Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-jDH3Sn9Pw

no evidence for the existence of the fake jesus character.

there is plenty of evidence for the fake Jesus character, just like there is plenty of evidence for Mickey Mouse. There is only fake evidence for the actual person Jesus who NEVER actually existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-jDH3Sn9Pw

Probably yes because my heart wants to say no. That name has been a thorn in my side forever people always saying to go to him for help and healing but of course have gotten nothing.

Historical Jesus 11/4

Non-historical Jesus 1/4

This is and will remain a bit like the "we never landed on the moon" argument. You cannot rely upon all of the available evidence and historical records, because none of them hint at anything other than he actually existed.

No, for this one, and "the moon landing was faked" crowd, you must arrive at the scene with your conclusion firmly in hand and then manipulate the evidence to twist elements of it so they seem to hint at what you hope to be true. This is likely why the world had to wait over 1700 years before this argument was birthed. Following this pattern, I imagine if humanity exists in the year 3669, the moon-landing-was-faked crowd may have a resurgence in popularity.

I'd wait until at least one major university, textbook or academic in the field at a respected university is able to win over a few more devotees before I bet the farm on this one.

Recommendation from actual scholarship. A great look at what the evidence actually is, from actual historians.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/historical-jesus.html

I bet 5.00 it just doesn't matter. Not even a little bit.

HH =)