Did Jesus Exist?

[GakuseiDon]

Please look up at the top of the screen. Remember where you are? See where it says, "Exploring Christianity"? Did you forget?

This is the place to ask questions of Christians. This is not the place for arguing with Christians. Would you please stop insisting that we start arguing more around here? Thank you.

Darn! I didn't realise that. You are absolutely correct. My bad, and apologies to people on this board.

I had promised myself to stop arguing against mythicism after finishing my review of Doherty's book, so I will stop here, and leave you to your exploration of Christianity. Thanks for your time, merle.

 

[ElijahW]

Why would I expect an earthly incarnation of God to be the talk of the town? Are you serious? Can you imagine knowing that God incarnate was walking around town but nobody wanting to talk about it?
Could nobody have written about it? According to Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost:
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (Acts 2: 5-11, NASB)
So you are telling me that this really happened, but among all those amazed Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. from "every nation under heaven" there was not one person who could write it down until the book of Acts was written years later?
And if none of Jesus followers could write proficiently, do you agree with me that no books of the New Testament were written by his followers, including Matthew, John, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Relelation?

How many of his followers or people at the event in Acts do you think could write proficiently and why do you think that? What texts have you seen from anyone that you think are from his alleged time and area?

Uh excuse me, but what behavior have I shown here other than writing words?
That's all we do on this forum: write words. If you are going to accuse me of a certain behavior, then you will need to show me what words I said that match the behavior you claim.
Telling somebody that he acted a certain way on this forum but that their are no words of his on the forum that reflect the supposed behavior seems like an empty accusation to me.

What is being addressed is you are asking for a level of evidence that you know doesn’t exist without justifying why the evidence we have is inadequate. If you were showing us the evidence of comparable examples from Jesus’ time and culture then we would have a basis for why what we have is inadequate and know what we need to provide to meet your personal requirement of evidence to believe it was a historical figure in that time. If the evidence we have is equal or surpasses that of similar figures then you expecting or asking for more is illogical.

I am looking for historically valid evidence that Jesus existed.
As GasukeiDon writes, "I think that Mark was a type of hagiography or propaganda, so it is difficult to work out which parts are historical, if any" ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255-13/#post56834335) If it is difficult to work out what parts of Mark are historical, how do we know that any of it is historical?
Since Mark was written late, one would do well to look at what was written before Mark to find what they say about the historical Jesus. And when we do that, we have trouble finding clear details of the historical Jesus. If the later writers were speaking propaganda, and the earlier writers ignore the historical Jesus, could it be that Jesus never existed?

Sorry, but I’m going to assume that’s dishonest. You’re not looking for valid evidence. You are completely aware of the evidence we have out there. What you are doing is trying to say that the evidence we have isn’t good enough. But you’re doing this without demonstrating that your opinion of the evidence being too late or it not mentioning enough historical details is based on comparable examples.

Could it be that your expectation of evidence is based on other people’s expectations that have a bias against religion or are hoping to get published with some controversial idea and not based on actual evidence?

Oh, I thought of a good question!
If Jesus was recently seen on earth as a man, how can Hebrews stress the redemptive work in heaven, without ever mentioning that part of this happened nearby on earth in the presence of the author's peers?

I wanted to try and answer this since Gdon left but I didn’t know where to really start. Could you give a hypothetical example of what you wished the author said if there was a historical figure? Maybe include who you think wrote it and when to justify the particular level of historical reference you are expecting.

 

[doubtingmerle]

1 Cor 11:23-27

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

This is the only place where Paul describes any detail of Christ's life. However, the story told is similar to the sacred feasts of the Mithra religion. Notice also that Paul says he recieved this from a revelation from the Lord. (Obviously he doesn't mean he recieived it when Christ was alive on earth, for Paul never met Christ on earth.) So Paul says he had a revelation of a sacred meal, and it just happens to be similar to the sacred meal in the Mithra tradition. Did he really receive a revelation, or was he simply claiming a sacred feast like other religions had?

This story is consistant with the view that Paul was simply presenting another savior god, and not saying that this savior god had walked on earth recently with his peers.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How many of his followers or people at the event in Acts do you think could write proficiently and why do you think that? What texts have you seen from anyone that you think are from his alleged time and area?

Romans, 1 & 2 Corithians, Galations, Philipians, 1 Thes., Philemon, Hebrews, and James, for instance, are not far off.

Where do any of these say that the incarnate God walked on earth among their peers? Where does any reference the earthly Jesus in a direct quote? Where are the storys of the miracles? Where is the story of the trial before Pilate and the story of the crucifixion? Where are the references to Joseph, Mary, Judas, Mary Magdalene, or Joseph of Aramathea? Where is the reference to Pentecost? Weren't these things the talk of the town?

What is being addressed is you are asking for a level of evidence that you know doesn’t exist without justifying why the evidence we have is inadequate. If you were showing us the evidence of comparable examples from Jesus’ time and culture then we would have a basis for why what we have is inadequate and know what we need to provide to meet your personal requirement of evidence to believe it was a historical figure in that time. If the evidence we have is equal or surpasses that of similar figures then you expecting or asking for more is illogical.

Historian Richard Carrier explains why the evidence for the resurrection is not as good as the evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon here: The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story .

He summarizes:

On the Rubicon crossing we have corroborating physical evidence, and we know several contemporaries wrote on the war and thus provided direct or indirect evidence for the crossing. Apart from the direct testimony of Caesar himself, we have the letters of Cicero and his friends, and the letters he had from Caesar and Pompey, and we know Livy, Pollio, and others also recorded the event (for later historians used their accounts). Later, several known critical historians investigated and documented the event. And the course of history--including abundant physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the records of contemporaries and later critical historians--demonstrates decisively that Caesar invaded Italy's east coast all the way down, chased Pompey out of Italy, and eventually seized Rome. There is absolutely no way this could have happened had he not crossed the Rubicon. The "belief" that he had done so could not cause any of this evidence to exist nor have produced the subsequent historical outcome.

On the Resurrection, however, no eyewitness wrote anything--not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve, nor any of the Seventy, nor any of the Five Hundred. All we have is Paul, who saw nothing but a "revelation," and who mentions no other kind of experience or evidence being reported by anyone. On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman. On the Resurrection, no critical historian documents a single detail, or even the claim itself, until centuries later, and then only by Christian apologists who can only cite the New Testament as their source (and occasionally bogus documents like the letter sent by Jesus to Abgar that Eusebius tries to pass off as authentic). On the Resurrection, no physical evidence of any kind was produced--no coins, no inscriptions, no documentary papyri, no perpetual miracles. And everything that followed in history was caused by the belief in that resurrection, not the resurrection itself--and we know an actual resurrection is not the only possible cause of a belief in a resurrection.
​

So there is your challenge: Please find me evidence for the resurrection that is as good as the evidence for Caesar.

 

[ElijahW]

Romans, 1 & 2 Corithians, Galations, Philipians, 1 Thes., Philemon, Hebrews, and James, for instance, are not far off.

Where do any of these say that the incarnate God walked on earth among their peers? Where does any reference the earthly Jesus in a direct quote? Where are the storys of the miracles? Where is the story of the trial before Pilate and the story of the crucifixion? Where are the references to Joseph, Mary, Judas, Mary Magdalene, or Joseph of Aramathea? Where is the reference to Pentecost? Weren't these things the talk of the town?

Who/when/where on Hebrews? Do you think James was written by the apostle James? So you look at the Epistle of James as the single piece of text that we have left by a follower in the time and area of Jesus?

Historian Richard Carrier explains why the evidence for the resurrection is not as good as the evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon here: The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story .

He summarizes:

On the Rubicon crossing we have corroborating physical evidence, and we know several contemporaries wrote on the war and thus provided direct or indirect evidence for the crossing. Apart from the direct testimony of Caesar himself, we have the letters of Cicero and his friends, and the letters he had from Caesar and Pompey, and we know Livy, Pollio, and others also recorded the event (for later historians used their accounts). Later, several known critical historians investigated and documented the event. And the course of history--including abundant physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the records of contemporaries and later critical historians--demonstrates decisively that Caesar invaded Italy's east coast all the way down, chased Pompey out of Italy, and eventually seized Rome. There is absolutely no way this could have happened had he not crossed the Rubicon. The "belief" that he had done so could not cause any of this evidence to exist nor have produced the subsequent historical outcome.

On the Resurrection, however, no eyewitness wrote anything--not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve, nor any of the Seventy, nor any of the Five Hundred. All we have is Paul, who saw nothing but a "revelation," and who mentions no other kind of experience or evidence being reported by anyone. On the Resurrection, no neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything--not Joseph, not Caiaphas, not Gamaliel, not Agrippa, not Pilate, not Lysias, not Sergius, not anyone alive at the time, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman. On the Resurrection, no critical historian documents a single detail, or even the claim itself, until centuries later, and then only by Christian apologists who can only cite the New Testament as their source (and occasionally bogus documents like the letter sent by Jesus to Abgar that Eusebius tries to pass off as authentic). On the Resurrection, no physical evidence of any kind was produced--no coins, no inscriptions, no documentary papyri, no perpetual miracles. And everything that followed in history was caused by the belief in that resurrection, not the resurrection itself--and we know an actual resurrection is not the only possible cause of a belief in a resurrection.
So there is your challenge: Please find me evidence for the resurrection that is as good as the evidence for Caesar.

Trying to say that Jesus should have left the same level of evidence as Caesar did is one of the craziest suggestions you hear out of mythers. Just nuts. A comparable example to Jesus please. Not the most famous emperor from a completely different culture. Also Carrier argues against the resurrection a lot( I think) but this conversation is about the possibility of a historical core so don’t get the arguments mixed up on what you are trying to disprove.

Open up Josephus and pick a comparable name and let’s see if the evidence for them meets what you expect and if not maybe reconsider expecting evidence of Jesus Christ to match up to the level of evidence to Julius Caesar. Like I said to you last post, be careful about picking up the expectations of others because biases and agendas are strong around the topic of Christ.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who/when/where on Hebrews?

Nobody knows. Some have argued that Hebrews refers to a time befrore the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but we can't be sure.

Do you think James was written by the apostle James? So you look at the Epistle of James as the single piece of text that we have left by a follower in the time and area of Jesus?

James was probably not written by a half-brother or by one of the disciples of Jesus. We don't know when it was written. It may or may not have been written before Mark. Maybe it should not have been on my list of the earliest books.

Trying to say that Jesus should have left the same level of evidence as Caesar did is one of the craziest suggestions you hear out of mythers. Just nuts.

Ah, so we are now moving the goalposts? For you had previously said:

What is being addressed is you are asking for a level of evidence that you know doesn’t exist without justifying why the evidence we have is inadequate.
​

So now you admit that such levels of evidence do exist for some people? So I was not asking for a level of evidence that doesn't exist.

Saying that there are a lot of people with low level of evidence does not mean that a low level of evidence is adequate. It just means that there are a lot of things we don't know. (I suppose Rumsfield would call them known unknowns.)

A comparable example to Jesus please. Not the most famous emperor from a completely different culture.

Open up Josephus and pick a comparable name and let’s see if the evidence for them meets what you expect and if not maybe reconsider expecting evidence of Jesus Christ to match up to the level of evidence to Julius Caesar.

Since its your example, maybe you can pick a name for us.

Like I said to you last post, be careful about picking up the expectations of others because biases and agendas are strong around the topic of Christ.

Yes, I am well aware that biases and agendas are strong around the topic of Christ.

 

[ElijahW]

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Nobody knows. Some have argued that Hebrews refers to a time befrore the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but we can't be sure.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
James was probably not written by a half-brother or by one of the disciples of Jesus. We don't know when it was written. It may or may not have been written before Mark. Maybe it should not have been on my list of the earliest books.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So you have no evidence of any disciple or follower of Jesus being able to write before Paul came on the scene? Yet you still expect writings to have survived that talk about his life from whom again?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
All I’m trying to do here is get you to recognize that expecting writings to survive that mention Jesus’ life isn’t rational since he came from a culture that wasn’t big on writing and left almost nothing. It wasn’t until after the temple fell (220)do they write the Mishnah, so to expect a bunch of uneducated Jews at the time of Jesus to be leaving notes behind for us to find later is irrational.

[FONT=&quot]

Ah, so we are now moving the goalposts? For you had previously said:

[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is being addressed is you are asking for a level of evidence that you know doesn’t exist without justifying why the evidence we have is inadequate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So now you admit that such levels of evidence do exist for some people? So I was not asking for a level of evidence that doesn't exist.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Saying that there are a lot of people with low level of evidence does not mean that a low level of evidence is adequate. It just means that there are a lot of things we don't know. (I suppose Rumsfield would call them known unknowns.)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Not moving the goal posts at all. Sure the evidence you seek exists for some people but we are looking for a comparable example. The comment above was in relation to you asking for undeniable evidence of Jesus specifically that you know doesn’t exist. Not that, what you would label undeniable or valid evidence, doesn’t exist for anyone. That is ridiculous, you’re not going to establish the level of evidence so that no one meets it but just above whoever you are trying to disprove.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Since its your example, maybe you can pick a name for us.

I’d prefer you to pick which ever figure you think you have valid evidence that supports their existence. I don’t think you are going to find evidence for anyone similar so there is no point in me grabbing a random name but if you think historical evidence exists for similar figures to Jesus, then hopefully it is because you know the name and evidence.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Yes, I am well aware that biases and agendas are strong around the topic of Christ.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Percentage wise, what do you think the probability is that you’ve picked up a bias from hanging out with anti-theists about the historical Jesus and what kind of evidence you should expect?[/FONT]

 

[AlexBP]

A good case can be made that Paul and his followers thought of Jesus as a mythical being. (A good case can also be made that his Jesus was thought of as an historical person.) The title of this thread is, "Did Jesus Exist?" (meaning did he exist on earth as a historical person), not "I know for sure that Jesus did not exist." I am not claiming to know one way or the other, but I think the preponderance of the evidence goes to the mythical interpretation.

This is the heart of the matter. You think that the preponderance of the evidence points one way, but to the vast majority of people, including non-Christians, that interpretation of the evidence looks very silly. Your case rests upon the assumption that prior to the writing of Mark, everyone believed Jesus to have lived in the heavenly realm, and that Mark invented the earthly life story of Jesus while knowing it was fiction. After this, everyone accepted Mark's version, including both the other gospelers and the enemies of Christianity. This is the part that most of us find quite silly.

To illustrate why, let's imagine a comparable scenario. Let's take someone who we all agree today did not live an earthly life: Frodo Baggins. Let's imagine that I write a book in which I assert the following things:

Frodo Baggins lived from 1932 to 1981.
Frodo Baggins was born in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, and died in Baltimore, Maryland.
Frodo Baggins visited places such as the Empire State Building, the St. Louis Arch, and Wrigley Field.
Frodo Baggins met and talked with people such as Frank Sinatra, Richard Nixon, Garry Trudeau.
Frodo Baggins was tried by the United States Supreme Court on April 9, 1981, and executed three days later.

Now, do you think I would have any luck convincing people that my version of the life of Frodo Baggins was correct? Moreover, do you think that I'd be able to convince everyone? Do you think that even people dedicated to proving my claims about Frodo Baggins untrue would accept that my main narrative about life was true?

If you answered "no" to any of those questions, then you understand why most of us have trouble taking your hypothesis seriously. You might try arguing that in ancient Rome there was less documentation then there is today and it would be tougher for people to double-check facts. That would be true; however, it would be a mistake to assume that ancient Rome was packed with superstitious people willing to accept anything. Richard Bauckham has shown in his book What the Apostles Saw that people in the relevant time and place put a premium on getting accurate, eyewitness testimony.

So the questions you'd have to address to defend your hypothesis are:

1) Why would Mark choose to write a book about the earthly life of Jesus if everyone at the time knew Jesus had no earthly life? You've said that he did so to give hope to people, but isn't that a rather odd way to give people hope?

2) Why would anyone who knew Jesus to be a heavenly being switch to believing he was an earthly being based only on one source?

3) Why do we have no record of anyone in ancient times, even among enemies of Christianity, charging that Jesus did not exist?

4) If your sequence of events is plausible, why hasn't anyone else in history ever done the same thing, i.e. taken a story of a spiritual being and written a fictional story about that being's earthly life and somehow convinced everyone that their story was correct?

 

[Johnnz]

I posted this on another thread. But it's relevant here too I reckon.

Anyone taking a position against the reliability of the NT cannot bypass N T Wright's recent books. A Forum such as this will largely be viewpoints with varying degrees of justification. A refutation of Wright's scholarship published in somewhere appropriate for scholarly review would be far more authoritative.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your case rests upon the assumption that prior to the writing of Mark, everyone believed Jesus to have lived in the heavenly realm, and that Mark invented the earthly life story of Jesus while knowing it was fiction. After this, everyone accepted Mark's version, including both the other gospelers and the enemies of Christianity. This is the part that most of us find quite silly.

Well no, the mythical Jesus case does not rely on everyone believing Jesus lived in a heavenly realm. The early writings of the era indicate that Christianity was fractured into many groups, including Paul and his (possibly) mythical Jesus, the Q community and their Greek-cynicism-like philosophy (possibly with a founder named Jesus), and various forms of gnosticism with their view of an interposing medium to God. What was the Corinthian church like? ""I am of Paul!" and "I of Apollos!" and "I of Cephas!" and "I of Christ!". (I Cor 1:12) That verse reflects the fractured nature of early Christianity.

And no, I am not claiming that everyone accepted Mark's version. Rather, it was quite the opposite. Within the Q community we see writers writing as though Mark was true (Matthew, Luke, Irenaeus).

And no, Mark's idea did not conquer Christianity. In fact, if you look at early second century Christian writings, the traditions of both Mark and Paul were marginal. Instead folks were talking about the Logos (Word) as a revealer of God. See JESUS PUZZLE: Preamble - Century of Apologists .

To illustrate why, let's imagine a comparable scenario. Let's take someone who we all agree today did not live an earthly life: Frodo Baggins. Let's imagine that I write a book...Now, do you think I would have any luck convincing people that my version of the life of Frodo Baggins was correct? Moreover, do you think that I'd be able to convince everyone? Do you think that even people dedicated to proving my claims about Frodo Baggins untrue would accept that my main narrative about life was true?

We don't know how much the Q community (probably in the area of Syria) knew of Pauline Christianity in Greece and Turkey. They probably didn't see Mark as a book taking a mythical god and giving him an earthly existence. Rather both Mark and Paul could have played off the common Jewish beliefs of a dying Messiah (from Isaiah 53) and the common idea of that era of a savior-god. Jesus (meaning savior) could have been a common name for the expected savior. Paul could have tied the expected Jesus into a mythical salvation, wheras Mark ties the expected Jesus to the leader of his Q community.

it would be a mistake to assume that ancient Rome was packed with superstitious people willing to accept anything.

No kooks and quacks in the ancient world? Think again. Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels

1) Why would Mark choose to write a book about the earthly life of Jesus if everyone at the time knew Jesus had no earthly life? You've said that he did so to give hope to people, but isn't that a rather odd way to give people hope?

Not everyone knew Paul's message. Paul could have led a localized group that was not well known in other areas.

Rather, Mark's message could have been that the founder of the Q community had worked many miracles, had promised to come back and set things straight, and then after dying per Isaiah 53, had apparently left his grave, for it was found empty.

2) Why would anyone who knew Jesus to be a heavenly being switch to believing he was an earthly being based only on one source?

We don't know that anybody switched. Paul had his community in the 50's. Mark and his successors had their community in the 90's. Both groups seem to have faded toward obscurity as Logos theology swept to the forefront of 2nd century Christianity. Only later would groups emerge with combinations of the gospels and epistles, and most inportantly, with the Book of Acts that tied it all together. These people emerged with documents of their savior that had lived a century earlier. By this time none of this would have been easy to verify. With the passing of time, people could read these books through the mythical eyes we sometimes use when reading old storys, and the message could have caught on, while the Logos message died out.

3) Why do we have no record of anyone in ancient times, even among enemies of Christianity, charging that Jesus did not exist?

The writer of I John appears to be in the camp that Jesus came as a human. He writes:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. (I John 4:2-3)

​

There must have been some that did not think Jesus had come in the flesh, and to this writer, they were antichrists (which is typical of the way early Christian groups condemned each other.)

4) If your sequence of events is plausible, why hasn't anyone else in history ever done the same thing, i.e. taken a story of a spiritual being and written a fictional story about that being's earthly life and somehow convinced everyone that their story was correct?

Nobody thinks it happened that way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

[FONT=&quot]So you have no evidence of any disciple or follower of Jesus being able to write before Paul came on the scene? Yet you still expect writings to have survived that talk about his life from whom again?

[/FONT]

I find it interesting that, in order to support the historical Jesus, you deny that any of his disciples could have written a book. So do you agree that 1 & 2 Peter really are not written by the apostle Peter, and that they were written by somebody who pretended to be Peter?

My emphasis has always been on those who could have written about the historical Jesus, in particular, the apostle Paul. If the historical Jesus existed we would expect it to be mentioned there.

Also if Herod had killed many babys in Bethlahem, if many had witnessed Pentecost, if a great earthquake had opened many graves, if many dead people walked through Jerusalem showing themselves to many, and if there was darkness at the middle of the day, surely people must have been talking about it. And if people were talking about it, why didn't Josephus and other historians record it?

All I’m trying to do here is get you to recognize that expecting writings to survive that mention Jesus’ life isn’t rational since he came from a culture that wasn’t big on writing and left almost nothing. It wasn’t until after the temple fell (220)do they write the Mishnah, so to expect a bunch of uneducated Jews at the time of Jesus to be leaving notes behind for us to find later is irrational.

OK, so if we don't have information from a certain time and place, then isn't the correct answer, "I don't know"?

Did the Historical Jesus Exist? I don't know.

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Not moving the goal posts at all. Sure the evidence you seek exists for some people but we are looking for a comparable example.

OK, there is good evidence that Herod the Great and the Apostle Paul existed.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]The comment above was in relation to you asking for undeniable evidence of Jesus specifically that you know doesn’t exist.

Please, please, please where did I ever say I needed undenaible evidence?

I have emphasized that I am not looking for undenaible evidence.

You have insisted that I am demanding undenaible evidence. How do you know that your accusation is true? If I ever asked for undeniable evidence, please show me where I said that.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Not that, what you would label undeniable or valid evidence, doesn’t exist for anyone. That is ridiculous, you’re not going to establish the level of evidence so that no one meets it but just above whoever you are trying to disprove.

We have fairly good evidence for Paul and Herod the Great, for instance.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Percentage wise, what do you think the probability is that you’ve picked up a bias from hanging out with anti-theists about the historical Jesus and what kind of evidence you should expect?

[/FONT][/FONT]
Uh, about the same percentage chance that everybody here, including both you and I, have picked up a bias about Jesus. I would say it is close to 100% probable that all of us that have heard about Jesus have a bias about him.

But most of the bias in my life has been very heavy on the pro-Christian side. To mention only some of the influence in my life would not be telling the whole story.

 

[AlexBP]

Instead Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek Cynics.

As I said, we don't know what was in Q, nor can we even be sure that Q existed at all. I find it a likely hypothesis but have limited patience with further speculation about what was in it or what was meant. I've never heard anyone posit a link between the Cynics and Q before, and I'm afraid that I just don't see it.

The word "Cynic" as applied in ancient Greece didn't mean quite what it does today, although there's some relationship. The Greek Cynics basically believed in living according to nature. They believed that all social institutions were corrupt and turned people away from nature. They believed in mental freedom and disagreed with politicial rule, religious authority, and social structure. Some went in for a complete rejection of social norms to the point of dressing in rags and living in filth, though not all went that far.

Some of the "Q material" can be fitted into that mold without too much stretching. The speech on the conditions of discipleship would be one example. Some of the Q material has no relationship, such as the institution of the Great Supper. And much of the Q material is opposed to what the Cynics believed, such as numerous promises of eternal reward or the comissioning of the twelve.

 

[Spirko]

Around 70 AD the book of Mark was written

Actually, it was written about ten years before that.

We have no record of anybody clearly claiming this before the book of Mark.

Really? That's really interesting, because Galatians (49AD), James (50 AD), 1&2 Thessalonians (51, 52 AD), 1&2 Corinthians (55, 57 AD), and Romans (57 AD) were all written before Mark and were written with the understanding that Jesus live, died, and was raised from the dead.

Paul seems to be writing of a heavenly Jesus dying in a heavenly realm.

In what verse?

He expresses no interest in the miracles or earthly teachings of Jesus, or in any of the earthly events.

Yeah, Paul's letters were pastoral in nature, not apologetic. Your point?

And contemporary secular historians wrote nothing about Jesus.

First of all, this isn't true. Josephus, Lucian, Pliny, Seutonius, and Tacitus were all secular historians who mentioned Jesus.

Second, why does it have to be a secular historian?

 

[AlexBP]

Well no, the mythical Jesus case does not rely on everyone believing Jesus lived in a heavenly realm. The early writings of the era indicate that Christianity was fractured into many groups, including Paul and his (possibly) mythical Jesus, the Q community and their Greek-cynicism-like philosophy (possibly with a founder named Jesus), and various forms of gnosticism with their view of an interposing medium to God.

Actually the early writings, if we're talking about those prior to Mark, don't indicate any such thing. No Gnostic writing comes from that time period or anywhere near it. Some left-wing scholars have tried to date some of the gnostic gospels to that time period but the supporting evidence is nil. As for the "Q community", we've no reason to believe that such a thing existed. As I've said, I accept the existence of the Q document as likely though not proven. However, the Q community is pure historical fiction. I'm aware that there are a few scholars who believe it existed. However, when scholars believe something untrue, it remains untrue.

What was the Corinthian church like? ""I am of Paul!" and "I of Apollos!" and "I of Cephas!" and "I of Christ!". (I Cor 1:12) That verse reflects the fractured nature of early Christianity.

I don't think it does. It reflects personal conflicts and ambitions, but the entirety of that epistle and others make it clear that Paul expected a unified set of beliefs.

 

[AlexBP]

And no, Mark's idea did not conquer Christianity. In fact, if you look at early second century Christian writings, the traditions of both Mark and Paul were marginal. Instead folks were talking about the Logos (Word) as a revealer of God. See JESUS PUZZLE: Preamble - Century of Apologists .

I'm afraid that here you're simply flat wrong. That article is so full of nonsense that it's tough to know where to start. I'll begin by noting that the article lacks proper references. That's particularly problematic given the number of incorrect statements it makes right at the start:

whoever recast the Gospel of John to include the Prologue

Nobody recast the gospel of John ot include the prologue. The prologue is in every existing manuscript.

Likewise the article says that in the years up to 130 A.D.;

One of the key features of that picture is the unusual diversity of expression to be found in the early Christian record: about the figure of Jesus, about Christian theology, ritual practice and views of salvation. This diversity points not to a human founder and single missionary movement proceeding out of him, but to a widespread and uncoordinated religious movement founded on various beliefs in a divine, intermediary Son of God, a wholly spiritual entity. A related feature is the virtually universal silence in that early record on anything to do with the human man and events known to us from the Gospels.

As we've already seen throughout this thread, this is not true.

So with whoppers like that, the article is not off to a very good start. Now you refer to "early second century writings", but the article mainly deals with what it says are late second century writings. (And its dating is often incorrect, as we'll see in a minute.) There are some question marks surrounding the dating of nearly all the relevant writings. Nonetheless, if one wanted to talk about "early second century writings" one would surely mention Papius, Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Oxyrhynchus Gospel, the references in Eusebius to Quadratus of Athens, and a number of others. It is most likely that these predate all of the sources that the article references. However, none of them fit well into the theory that you're trying to promote. Indeed many include references to or shared material with the gospels. So in the early second century it's flatly obvious that Christians did believe in the gospel narratives and the epistles.

The theory that the article is advancing is, as best I can tell, that there was a very short time in the mid second century when the earlier belief in an earthly Jesus disappeared, after which it abruptly popped back into existence and took over after about 180 A.D. This, I think we can all agree, would be quite odd and would call out for explanation. But let's looks at the evidence anyway. As your article admits up front, to make the theory work you have to ignore the writings of Justin the Martyr. Since he's the most prominent apologist of the mid second century, that's a tough pill to swallow. It focuses on other apologists of that time period, but we have a substantial amount of material from sources other than apologists to work with. For instance if it's true, as seems likely, that several of the non-canonical gospels originated around 160 A.D., it would blow a massive hole in your theory that Christians in that time didn't believe in an earthly Jesus. Likewise with a tremendous amount of other writings that may date from that time period.

Your article puts a lot of focus on the Epistle to Diognetus and Octavius of Minucius Felix. However, we're not sure when those were written. It may have been as late as the third century, which would make them irrelevant to this debate. So the amount of mid-second century writing that supports your hypothesis is quite slim, while the amount that proves you wrong is large indeed.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Irenaeus, the most important apologist of the second century. It's true, as your article says, that his writings probably date from around 180 AD. However, he lived through the middle of the century and surely would have taken note if there was a period when Christians inexplicably stopped believing in an earthly Jesus and then went back to it.

 

[ElijahW]

I find it interesting that, in order to support the historical Jesus, you deny that any of his disciples could have written a book. So do you agree that 1 & 2 Peter really are not written by the apostle Peter, and that they were written by somebody who pretended to be Peter?

I have no reason to go against modern scholarship here. Do you?

My emphasis has always been on those who could have written about the historical Jesus, in particular, the apostle Paul. If the historical Jesus existed we would expect it to be mentioned there.

Emphasizing that someone who didn’t know him or his followers well should have recorded some unspecified historical details about Jesus needs justification IMO.

Also if Herod had killed many babys in Bethlahem, if many had witnessed Pentecost, if a great earthquake had opened many graves, if many dead people walked through Jerusalem showing themselves to many, and if there was darkness at the middle of the day, surely people must have been talking about it. And if people were talking about it, why didn't Josephus and other historians record it?

You’re off track. A historical core to Jesus is what you are trying to argue against, not miracles.


What “other historians” do you think should have mentioned Jesus?

OK, so if we don't have information from a certain time and place, then isn't the correct answer, "I don't know"?

Did the Historical Jesus Exist? I don't know.

If you don’t see any other possibilities then you have good justification with working off the only theory available. There is no certainty when dealing with the past because we weren’t there. He could have been an alien, but historical core with legend added to make him look more messiah-like is by far the most rational and supported explanation.

OK, there is good evidence that Herod the Great and the Apostle Paul existed.

We have fairly good evidence for Paul and Herod the Great, for instance.

The closest example you could find to Jesus to compare to was a king of Israel and Paul from the Bible? Why do you think that is?

What evidence for Paul do you think is “good”? What historians convinced you of Paul’s existence?

Please, please, please where did I ever say I needed undenaible evidence?

I have emphasized that I am not looking for undenaible evidence.

You have insisted that I am demanding undenaible evidence. How do you know that your accusation is true? If I ever asked for undeniable evidence, please show me where I said that.

I will gladly use whatever term you wish me to use if it describes what you are looking for. “Good” isn’t good enough. Until then I am going with “undeniable” evidence because it explains what you are actually looking for, while “good” doesn’t . And again I will gladly use your terminology if it is actually usable. I’m not going to use it if makes the conversation unable to be followed.

Uh, about the same percentage chance that everybody here, including both you and I, have picked up a bias about Jesus. I would say it is close to 100% probable that all of us that have heard about Jesus have a bias about him.

But most of the bias in my life has been very heavy on the pro-Christian side. To mention only some of the influence in my life would not be telling the whole story.

That didn’t answer my question. We are looking at the level of evidence you are expecting and why. What chance do you think you picked this up from biased sources?

A comparable example would be if I believed in the Bible being inerrant, you could ask if that comes from evidence or bias opinions like a preacher.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've never heard anyone posit a link between the Cynics and Q before, and I'm afraid that I just don't see it.

See, for instance:

Amazon.com: Cynics and Christian Origins (9780567096135): Francis Gerald Downing: Books#_

and

footnote #70 on page 154 of Jesus remembered - Google Books

 

[doubtingmerle]

Welcome aboard the thread Spirko. We covered a lot of this earlier, so I'll address this significant new point:

And contemporary secular historians wrote nothing about Jesus.

First of all, this isn't true. Josephus, Lucian, Pliny, Seutonius, and Tacitus were all secular historians who mentioned Jesus.

None of these historians are really contemporary, since they wrote somewhat after the time of Christ. Their basic testimony is that Christians were saying certain things. That is far different from the historian actually saying that Jesus lived and did certain things.

See Historicity Of Jesus FAQ .

 

[Spirko]

Welcome aboard the thread Spirko. We covered a lot of this earlier, so I'll address this significant new point:


None of these historians are really contemporary, since they wrote somewhat after the time of Christ.

How are you defining "contemporary"?

Their basic testimony is that Christians were saying certain things. That is far different from the historian actually saying that Jesus lived and did certain things.

Clearly, you've never read much history. Not only did they record that "Christians were saying certain things", they recorded biographical information about the one about whom those Christians were saying certain things.

This is precisely why I find such conversations with people like you to be fruitless. You're not sincere because you insist on holding the evidence to a standard that any historian would find ridiculously constraining, so much so as to define your standards so narrowly that they are virtually impossible to be met.

It's all a game to you and one that I'm not really interested in playing. You asked. I answered. Good night.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How are you defining "contemporary"?

Contemporary means "existing, occurring, or living at the same". Josephus is thought to have been born in 37 AD, approximately 7 years after Jesus is said to have died. He wrote The Antiquities of the Jews in 94 AD, which might be near-contemporary, but it is not exactly contemporary with Jesus.

Clearly, you've never read much history.

And so you begin with attacks on the person? Do you think that is a good way to start a conversation?

Not only did they record that "Christians were saying certain things", they recorded biographical information about the one about whom those Christians were saying certain things.

Please, what biographical information did they give? Did you read the link that quotes what they said?

You may be referring specifically to Josephus, who was discussed earlier on this thread. Much if not all of what he wrote about Jesus is regarded to be later insertion by later writers.

This is precisely why I find such conversations with people like you to be fruitless. You're not sincere because you insist on holding the evidence to a standard that any historian would find ridiculously constraining, so much so as to define your standards so narrowly that they are virtually impossible to be met.

It's all a game to you and one that I'm not really interested in playing. You asked. I answered. Good night.

Why do you insult me? I do not insult you.

What standard of evidence have I insisted on that is "ridiculously restraining"? All my words on this thread are a matter of public record. If I have said any words that are "ridiculously restraining", then please quote those words back. Thank you.