How I lost my Faith; through study of Early Christian History...

[Strong in Him]

I am a Human Jesus agnostic. In history all we can talk about is probabilities and the evidence says he probably didn't exist.

And then you quote references, from a book which you dismiss, which talk about this man who you say never exisited. Very logical. If he never existed, what does it matter what verbs or whatever the Greek uses to describe an event in his life?

It would be nice if we had some extrabiblical account of the events portrayed in the NT or some extrabiblical biographical information about the alleged Nazarene but we don't, instead all we have are superhero stories with a birth (and two different dates for that birth) and the hero then vanishes for some 20 plus years and magically reappears in the Gospels as a 30 something adult and he does all sorts of magic...sounds very historical indeed...

There are references to Jesus in one of Josephus' works. Yes, I know that one of the references has a few controversial words which may have been added later - this doesn't mean that the whole quote is worthless. Elsewhere, too, he refers to James as Jesus' brother. Apparently there are also some references in Tactitus' and Pliny's work; either to Jesus himself, or to the early Christians.

The Gospel writers - whoever they were - did not set out to write a biographical, historically detailed account of Jesus' life and work. They wanted to record that they had found the Jewish Messiah, the lamb of God who offered himself once and for all for the sins of the world. The early church were convinced that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, and they only started to write things down when it became clear that this was not going to happen. Jesus' earthly ministry, teachings, miracles, life and death were important and things which people needed to know about - accounts of how Jesus did at school, what his home life was like etc were not important to them, not relevant for Salvation and so they saw no pointy in including them. I'm pretty certain that if you sat down to write a book about someone, you'd also be pretty selective about which material to use, who to interview and generally the things to include in this book. So it was with them. It's the same with Paul's epistles, which were written before the Gospels. And they were written, incidentally, by a man who had been a strict Pharisee and persecuted members of the church, which he saw as a dangerous Jewish cult.

I guess if you have no faith that Jesus even existed as a person, far less that he was the Son of God, then you may call his miracles "magic." From my limited knowledge of the subject, I know of no magic trick that makes a blind man see, a leper made clean, a dead person raised to life. As for "superhero stories", how many superheroes do you know who cry, laugh, eat, get tired, get frustrated, struggle, get betrayed by one of thier own followers, denied by another and abandoned by the rest, captured by those who oppose them and die?

Like I said, people wjho don't want to believe in the Jesus of the Bible will always find a reason not to.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Indeed; evidence is needed; agnosticism is the only rational position we can have with regards to the Nazarene;

So what you are admitting is that there is no real "evidence" for or against the existence of Jesus. That should make a lot of Christians happy, because that means the theories behind the Jesus Myth has nothing to do with real evidence. The best that certain folks like Price can say is, "We just don't know."

So why even read about - or take seriously - anything concerning the Jesus Myth?

If no one can prove Jesus did not exist, and by logic everyone must admit the possibility that Jesus did exist, what is the point?


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Arrest and betrayal is being read into the Lord's Supper in Paul for he elsewhere uses the verb consistently in the mystic delivering sense. Most scholars see this passage as a literary, symbolic device, not an actual reference to a 'Gospel' event.

John is considered later than the synoptic Gospels. It is usually dated from 90-100 CE. That alone would make its authorship by an authentic apostle extremely doubtful; people didn't live that long back then.

Matthew 25:14, Mark 15:15, and Luke 23:25 all use the same Greek verb in reference to Jesus being handed over - given over to be crucified. So any claim based on this word of redaction editing from Paul into the Gospel of John just goes out the window.

The Gospel of John is dated from the AD 90s, but the testimony from the early church fathers say John the Apostle did live at least into the 90s.

No one knows who wrote the Gospel of John and the fact that it is the most miraculous, fantastical and exaggerated in its details makes its historical plausibility virtually zero. The fact is, no one really knows who wrote the Gospels; all they know is the liklihood of their dates of composition: Mark ca. 70 CE, Luke, Matthew 80-100 CE, John 90-100 CE.

One has to discount the internal evidence in John as well as the testimony of numerous early church fathers. Irenaeus (Ad 130-200) said "John published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia." (Against Heresies, 3:1). Theophilus of Antioch (AD 180), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, and Eusebius all say John wrote the Gospel of John.

So one has to ignore this body of evidence - all of these writers - in saying "no one really knows who wrote the Gospel of John."

LDG

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Matthew 25:14, Mark 15:15, and Luke 23:25 all use the same Greek verb in reference to Jesus being handed over - given over to be crucified. So any claim based on this word of redaction editing from Paul into the Gospel of John just goes out the window.

The Gospel of John is dated from the AD 90s, but the testimony from the early church fathers say John the Apostle did live at least into the 90s.



One has to discount the internal evidence in John as well as the testimony of numerous early church fathers. Irenaeus (Ad 130-200) said "John published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia." (Against Heresies, 3:1). Theophilus of Antioch (AD 180), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, and Eusebius all say John wrote the Gospel of John.

So one has to ignore this body of evidence - all of these writers - in saying "no one really knows who wrote the Gospel of John."

LDG

The point was that Paul uses the verb differently to that of the Gospels...

Anecdotal writings from Christians decades or centuries after the fact do not count..

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

So what you are admitting is that there is no real "evidence" for or against the existence of Jesus. That should make a lot of Christians happy, because that means the theories behind the Jesus Myth has nothing to do with real evidence. The best that certain folks like Price can say is, "We just don't know."

So why even read about - or take seriously - anything concerning the Jesus Myth?

If no one can prove Jesus did not exist, and by logic everyone must admit the possibility that Jesus did exist, what is the point?


LDG

AS I said before all we can do in history is speak of probabilities...and there isn't much probability for Jesus...

 

[Epiphoskei]

AS I said before all we can do in history is speak of probabilities...and there isn't much probability for Jesus...

And as we have been saying, that's incorrect. It's spewed by a noisy minority, but there exists no serious doubt that Jesus probably existed. Jesus is polarizing, and accordingly, people who are hostile to the idea feel they can throw out more sources than historians consider legitimate practice.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

And as we have been saying, that's incorrect. It's spewed by a noisy minority, but there exists no serious doubt that Jesus probably existed. Jesus is polarizing, and accordingly, people who are hostile to the idea feel they can throw out more sources than historians consider legitimate practice.

More doubt than Apollonius of Tyana; at least that god man wrote something himself!

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Price speaking...

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=100

 

[Strong in Him]

More doubt than Apollonius of Tyana; at least that god man wrote something himself!

So, to recap, you're saying that you don't KNOW that Jesus existed; although you DO know that all the things which speak of Jesus are wrong or not to be trusted? You don't trust the Gospels or Paul's epistles. You quote a website which argues about the date of Jesus' birth, which is obviously proof that the man never existed in the first place. You're ready to believe that the whole of Christendom is based on a fairy story; that people who have a relationship with Jesus, or who met him after the resurrection or who have seen visions of him since are all lying, and some are so powerfully influenced by this delusion that they gave, or would give, their lives for it.
In your original post you quoted some of Jesus' words; "the truth will set you free". If Jesus didn't exist, you must have made those up yourself. If Jesus didn't exist then some of our sayings, "Good Samaritan", "Prodigal son", "blind leading the blind", "man cannot live by bread alone", "let your light shine" etc etc, msut have been made up by someone. Strange then that we find all of these in the Gospels.

The whole basis for your argument seems to be; "well if Jesus had existed, he'd have written something. Or the books that were written about him would have been detailed biographies written by eye witnesses. Or there would be many other writings about Jesus to convince people like me who don't accept the Bible. Not all these things exist, and I don't accept those that do, so therefore Jesus didn't exist either."

That is not logical.

 

[billychum]

Hope it’s OK to jump in here with some of my own input. First, thanks to all for this debate. I find it to be very spiritually stimulating. I too, have studied some of church history as of late (only a couple of years ) and am probably not as informed as some of you. I try to read liberal as well as conservative views and find that both make very good arguments and for the most part, present what I would call ‘acceptable perspective evidence.’ Although at times during my studies I have found my faith being challenged in different ways, (church dogma, folk theology, historical accuracy, etc.), the idea that Jesus never existed at all has never been one of those ways. There seems to be too much evidence, either internal or external, to suggest otherwise. I’m not saying that any of the individual evidence is dead on enough to persuade one way or the other, but what I am suggesting is that all the evidence taken in its entirety, for or against the reality of Jesus, seems to strongly fall in favor of the idea that He did exist. I can see however where this position (that He didn’t exist) can be considered the ultimate strong hold of conclusion and am interested in seeing from some of you how this strong hold can, if at all possible, be breeched. Thanks again to everyone for the informed civil debate.
Billy <><

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

So, to recap, you're saying that you don't KNOW that Jesus existed; although you DO know that all the things which speak of Jesus are wrong or not to be trusted? You don't trust the Gospels or Paul's epistles. You quote a website which argues about the date of Jesus' birth, which is obviously proof that the man never existed in the first place. You're ready to believe that the whole of Christendom is based on a fairy story; that people who have a relationship with Jesus, or who met him after the resurrection or who have seen visions of him since are all lying, and some are so powerfully influenced by this delusion that they gave, or would give, their lives for it.
In your original post you quoted some of Jesus' words; "the truth will set you free". If Jesus didn't exist, you must have made those up yourself. If Jesus didn't exist then some of our sayings, "Good Samaritan", "Prodigal son", "blind leading the blind", "man cannot live by bread alone", "let your light shine" etc etc, msut have been made up by someone. Strange then that we find all of these in the Gospels.

The whole basis for your argument seems to be; "well if Jesus had existed, he'd have written something. Or the books that were written about him would have been detailed biographies written by eye witnesses. Or there would be many other writings about Jesus to convince people like me who don't accept the Bible. Not all these things exist, and I don't accept those that do, so therefore Jesus didn't exist either."

That is not logical.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

Listen to former fundy talking about his book 'Misquoting Jesus'. He mentions how many changes have taken place including the stories of Jesus that the Gospel writers invented....

Your other point is moot; Islamists die for their faith and is founded on fairy tales; the Archeangel Gabriel dictated the Koran to an illiterate merchant in a cave?! Not likely...

Probabilities...as I said all we have are wonder stories about this guy; we have wonder stories about Caesar Augustus too but we also have real human testimony about a real human being, never mind him being essential to Roman history for the inception of the principate...

There is nothing in the bible so unique that mere mortals cannot have said it; Do unto others was preached centuries before the alleged Jesus of Nazareth in India and China...

All religions are based on fairy stories; we call this mythology; there is Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, and so on...

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Hope it&#8217;s OK to jump in here with some of my own input. First, thanks to all for this debate. I find it to be very spiritually stimulating. I too, have studied some of church history as of late (only a couple of years ) and am probably not as informed as some of you. I try to read liberal as well as conservative views and find that both make very good arguments and for the most part, present what I would call &#8216;acceptable perspective evidence.&#8217; Although at times during my studies I have found my faith being challenged in different ways, (church dogma, folk theology, historical accuracy, etc.), the idea that Jesus never existed at all has never been one of those ways. There seems to be too much evidence, either internal or external, to suggest otherwise. I&#8217;m not saying that any of the individual evidence is dead on enough to persuade one way or the other, but what I am suggesting is that all the evidence taken in its entirety, for or against the reality of Jesus, seems to strongly fall in favor of the idea that He did exist. I can see however where this position (that He didn&#8217;t exist) can be considered the ultimate strong hold of conclusion and am interested in seeing from some of you how this strong hold can, if at all possible, be breeched. Thanks again to everyone for the informed civil debate.
Billy <><

Where is the external evidence for the Nazarene?

 

[Strong in Him]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

Listen to former fundy talking about his book 'Misquoting Jesus'. He mentions how many changes have taken place including the stories of Jesus that the Gospel writers invented....

Your other point is moot; Islamists die for their faith and is founded on fairy tales; the Archeangel Gabriel dictated the Koran to an illiterate merchant in a cave?! Not likely...

Probabilities...as I said all we have are wonder stories about this guy; we have wonder stories about Caesar Augustus too but we also have real human testimony about a real human being, never mind him being essential to Roman history for the inception of the principate...

There is nothing in the bible so unique that mere mortals cannot have said it; Do unto others was preached centuries before the alleged Jesus of Nazareth in India and China...

All religions are based on fairy stories; we call this mythology; there is Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, and so on...

Well I wish you well in your new found unbelief then. For myself, I know Jesus lived, died and lives today. He helps me live my life, gives me peace, joy, strength, forgiveness and assurance of heaven when I die. You may have decided these things aren't important to you.
At some point I may return to this academic debate, but I have no need to, and it sounds like you have made up your mind anyway. It still sounds to me as if you have no good reason for dismissing biblical stories and accounts, you do so mainly because you've decided you want no more to do with religion. Fine.

God bless.

 

[Trento]

Hail to All,

I was once a liberal Christian for a fair bit of time in my life yet knew very little about the inception of the Bible, the religion and Christian history proper. I began studying the subject in complete innocence some ten years ago, something that eventually led me away from Christianity to Agnosticism/Apatheism, simply by researching history...it is true; in some ways ignorance IS bliss...

To begin with I started reading about the Gospel writers, who, it is taught were 'eyewitnesses' to Jesus of Nazareth's career on earth. After reading genuine scholarship, this notion was quickly dispelled. Anonymous writers, writing decades after the 'fact' with Mark being the first around 70 CE and all the others copying him in the 80's, 90's CE and later. Studying Paul's epistles and other writings I searched in vain for the Gospel events described by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. He doesn't even talk about a man who lived on earth recently; no Mary, Joseph, Herod, Pilate, Temptation, etc...

Then I looked at the external evidence, that is extra-biblical evidence for the Gospel story and Jesus Christ. I was shocked at how paucidly the Jesus of Nazareth figure was attested outside of the NT and the that the various events weren't attested at all, such as the slaughter of innocents by Herod, seemingly derived straight from the OT book of Exodus, the trial of Jesus and all of these other 'events'. All the pagan and Jewish witness that does mention Jesus, inevitably comes decades after his 'time', all of which suffering from tampering by Christian interpolation.

After several years of further study I lost my faith. The loss became even more cemented by reading modern science, in particular modern cosmology, about which Christianity had/has nothing to say.

I can honestly say that I am happier now with the knowledge I have acquired than I was when I was living in 'faith' to things that were simply beaten into me as a child and I accepted on no good grounds.

This is a message of hope for those who are going through this process brought about by enquiry. Life DOES continue after you lose faith and it can be even better than it was with it...

The truth will set you free...in more ways than one...

The works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus who were instructed by the Apostles offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith. They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, they record a history and depository of divine revelation and martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and they stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[billychum]

Where is the external evidence for the Nazarene?

Sorry, I should have chosen my words better. What I meant by “external evidence” was the ripple effect or impact that Jesus has had and is still having on human history. There just seems to be to much of it to ignore or disregard.

Billy <><

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

For myself, I know Jesus lived, died and lives today. He helps me live my life, gives me peace, joy, strength, forgiveness and assurance of heaven when I die. You may have decided these things aren't important to you.

Your subjective feelings and emotions do not represent objective evidence for the tenets of Christianity and certainly not any attestation to a historical Jesus of Nazareth;

Critical scholars, though generally of the opinion that there was SOME kind of human Jesus dismiss the Gospels as fairy tales...

I think the enlarged part is the primary reason why religion/ancient mythology continues to thrive in the 21st century; we fear death and non-existence. However the fact that many of us do (not all) does not mean that religious mythology is true...

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Sorry, I should have chosen my words better. What I meant by “external evidence” was the ripple effect or impact that Jesus has had and is still having on human history. There just seems to be to much of it to ignore or disregard.

Billy <><

Like William Tell and the founding of the Swiss Federation?

Historicity debate
François Guillimann, a statesman of Fribourg and later historian and advisor of the Habsburg emperor Rudolph II, wrote to Melchior Goldast in 1607: "I followed popular belief by reporting certain details in my Swiss antiquities [published in 1598], but when I examine them closely the whole story seems to me to be pure fable.". In 1760, Simeon Uriel Freudenberger from Luzern anonymously published a tract arguing that the legend of Tell in all likelihood was based on the Danish saga of Palnatoke. (A French edition of his book, written by Gottlieb Emmanuel von Haller, was burnt in Altdorf.)
This view remained very unpopular, however. Friedrich von Schiller used Tschudi's version as the basis for his play Wilhelm Tell in 1804, interpreting Tell as a glorified patriot assassin. This interpretation became very popular especially in Switzerland, where the Tell figure was instrumentalized in the early 19th century as a "national hero" and identification figure in the new Helvetic Republic and also later on in the beginnings of the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, the modern democratic federal state that developed then. When the historian Joseph Eutych Kopp in the 1830s dared to question the reality of the legend, an effigy of him was burnt on the Rütli, the meadow above Lake Lucerne where&#8212;according to the legend&#8212;the oath was sworn that concluded the original alliance between the founding cantons of the Swiss confederacy.
Historians continued to argue over the saga until well into the 20th century. Wilhelm Öchsli published in 1891 a scientific account of the founding of the confederacy (commissioned by the government for the celebration of the first National holiday of Switzerland on August 1, 1891), and clearly dismissed the story as a saga. Yet 50 years later, in 1941, a time where Tell again had become national identification figure, the historian Karl Meyer tried to connect the events of the saga with known places and events. Modern historians generally consider the saga just that, as neither Tell's nor Gessler's existence can be proven. The legend also tells of the Burgenbruch, a coordinated uprising including the slighting of many forts; however, archeological evidence shows that many of these forts were abandoned and destroyed already long before 1307/08.
In spite of all this, William Tell lives on as a "real" hero in popular culture. He is still a powerful identification figure, and according to a recent survey, 60% of the Swiss believe that he really lived.[citation needed]
A possible historical nucleus of the legend was suggested by Schärer (1986). He identified one Wilhelm Gorkeit of Tellikon (modern Dällikon in the Canton of Zurich). "Gorkeit" is explained as a version of the surname Armbruster (crossbow maker). Historians were not convinced by Schärer's hypothesis, but it is still referred to by the nationalistic right sometimes, denouncing its rejection by academia as an "internationalist" conspiracy[3].

Or the cults of many long dead gods who throve for thousands of years...

 

[Strong in Him]

Your subjective feelings and emotions do not represent objective evidence for the tenets of Christianity and certainly not any attestation to a historical Jesus of Nazareth;

I have faith in the Son of God, the Jesus who is written about and portrayed in the Gospels. So I trust what he says. These are not subjective feelings and emotions, they are experiences shared by millions of Christians today and throughout the ages. I suppose one way to absolutely prove to yourself whether there is life after death, is to wait until you die and see what happens. It might be too late for you by then, but at least you'll know - and have eternity to reflect on your choice.

Critical scholars, though generally of the opinion that there was SOME kind of human Jesus dismiss the Gospels as fairy tales...

So you've now changed your tune and admit that most scholars believe Jesus did exist? Well that's a start. As to the Gospels being "fairy tales"; do you mean that you don't believe anything in them, even things backed up by archeology etc, or you're not interested in anything Jesus said or did unless it can be proved by other written accounts?

A lot of Christianity is about a relationship with God through faith. If you demand evidence for absolutely everything, it's not faith, as no one needs faith to believe what is in front of their eyes.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnceUponAChristian
Your subjective feelings and emotions do not represent objective evidence for the tenets of Christianity and certainly not any attestation to a historical Jesus of Nazareth;

I have faith in the Son of God, the Jesus who is written about and portrayed in the Gospels. So I trust what he says. These are not subjective feelings and emotions, they are experiences shared by millions of Christians today and throughout the ages. I suppose one way to absolutely prove to yourself whether there is life after death, is to wait until you die and see what happens. It might be too late for you by then, but at least you'll know - and have eternity to reflect on your choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OnceUponAChristian
Critical scholars, though generally of the opinion that there was SOME kind of human Jesus dismiss the Gospels as fairy tales...

So you've now changed your tune and admit that most scholars believe Jesus did exist? Well that's a start. As to the Gospels being "fairy tales"; do you mean that you don't believe anything in them, even things backed up by archeology etc, or you're not interested in anything Jesus said or did unless it can be proved by other written accounts?

A lot of Christianity is about a relationship with God through faith. If you demand evidence for absolutely everything, it's not faith, as no one needs faith to believe what is in front of their eyes.

Read some neuroscience. There is no evidence whatsoever that our consciousness survives he physical destruction of the brain or that there is some such thing as a disembodied 'soul' which floats free of matter. When a certain part of the brain is damaged people suffer debilitation, for example when part of Broca's area is damaged one can suffer from aphasia or the inability to produce or comprehend language among other things. Throufh MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) many emotions, decision and other 'soul based' things have been observed and documented. In short the evidence is that our consciousness is entirely anchored to the physical matter of our brain and when it goes, we go too. Where do we go? We simply cease to be. Difficult as it is to imagine, it isn't really; neither of us were present during the Norman Conquest of 1066 or the American War of Independence or the last Ice Age. We simply did not exist; I am currently in Korea and you are in the UK; each of us essentially does not exist in the other place and people go about their business wholly oblivious to our individual existence in Buenos Aires and Rekjavik. There is no evidence whatsoever for a soul or a life after death; it is extremely, extremely probable that this one is the only one we get. Near death experiences have been reproduced in controlled experiments with people exposed to g-forces, forcing unconsciousness. Thereafter subjects talked about 'out of body' experiences...the wish for disembodied eternal life is the worst and most obvious form of wishful thinking...that's why we have such words...

As for scholars, sure most think there was some kind of human Jesus but that is all they think and I have yet to see them refute Jesus mythicism with convincing arguments. The Gospels are literature, not history and I don't know what archaeology you are talking about? Maybe the fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of 'Jesus' and is only mentioned some three centuries later?!

You are right of course; faith is belief without evidence, belief for belief's sake or because it makes you feel good. If there were good objective reasons to believe the things you claim to believe, most everyone would....alas, they do not...

 

[Mobiosity]

An yet none of the Gospel story details is contained in the epistles of Paul, although they date much earlier. He makes no mention of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph or any of the other events. The way he describes Christ is 'Christ Jesus', not Jesus of Nazareth, an actual historical person who lived in recent times. Surely if Paul knew of all the details of the Gospel story of a human Jesus he would have provided them. If you look at the choice of verbs in the Greek it also hints at a Cosmic Son of God not an historical figure who was tried and crucified by Pilate.

Paul was writing what he experienced, not what he heard from others.