Jesus never existed

[SoulMonster]

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

I'll take his word over yours. Just sayin'.

There are numerous classical texts that refer to Roman dignitaies, politicians, lawyers, etc, and which also describe statesmen and people from other nations at the time of Jesus. These sources and then corroborated by contemporary texts from other countries, resulting in hundreds of people where we have more textual evidence for their existence than Jesus. I resally, really, really hope Bart Ehrman didn't say what you quoted, but that it was just another example of you being less than rigid with facts and quotes.

[DieselDaisy]

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

[Ace Nova]

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

I'll take his word over yours. Just sayin'.

There are numerous classical texts that refer to Roman dignitaies, politicians, lawyers, etc, and which also describe statesmen and people from other nations at the time of Jesus. These sources and then corroborated by contemporary texts from other countries, resulting in hundreds of people where we have more textual evidence for their existence than Jesus. I resally, really, really hope Bart Ehrman didn't say what you quoted, but that it was just another example of you being less than rigid with facts and quotes.

Watch the video and see for yourself.

[DieselDaisy]

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one? Why wait for the Messiah to come, yet lie about the birth, death, and Resurrection of a prior Messiah. I am sorry, Soul, but I am trying to find a motive here!!

Listen, the Pauline Epistles were composed, c.50 AD. So within twenty years of Jesus's death, we already have evidence of people in the Mediterranean world, following the word of a man called Jesus of Nazareth. This is fact. So if somebody is going to lie, that lie has to have been made, and gained support, strikingly early. It does not add up.

No, Jesus of Nazareth existed. Whether he was a madman, a charlatan or the Messiah is a question that can only be answered in regards to your faith, but, as a historical persona there is too much evidence.

[Ace Nova]

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one? Why wait for the Messiah to come, yet lie about the birth, death, and Resurrection of a prior Messiah. I am sorry, Soul, but I am trying to find a motive here!!

Listen, the Pauline Epistles were composed, c.50 AD. So within twenty years of Jesus's death, we already have evidence of people in the Mediterranean world, following the word of a man called Jesus of Nazareth. This is fact. So if somebody is going to lie, that lie has to have been made, and gained support, strikingly early. It does not add up.

No, Jesus of Nazareth existed. Whether he was a madman, a charlatan or the Messiah is a question that can only be answered in regards to your faith, but, as a historical persona there is too much evidence.

Exactly. Every conspiracy theory in relation to this is completely nonsensical. You might as well believe in lizard people.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Lithium]

Exactly. Every conspiracy theory in relation to this is completely nonsensical. You might as well believe in lizard people.

That's ironic

[Ace Nova]

Exactly. Every conspiracy theory in relation to this is completely nonsensical. You might as well believe in lizard people.

That's ironic

Not really....this has nothing to do with faith, it's about historical accuracy.

[Lithium]

Exactly. Every conspiracy theory in relation to this is completely nonsensical. You might as well believe in lizard people.

That's ironic

Not really....this has nothing to do with faith, it's about historical accuracy.

I meant it's ironic coming from someone who believes in the talking snake.

But thanks for the videos, I didn't know there was a general consensus among historians regarding Jesus as a historic person.

[Ace Nova]

Exactly. Every conspiracy theory in relation to this is completely nonsensical. You might as well believe in lizard people.

That's ironic

Not really....this has nothing to do with faith, it's about historical accuracy.

I meant it's ironic coming from someone who believes in the talking snake.

But thanks for the videos, I didn't know there was a general consensus among historians regarding Jesus as a historic person.

FYI, just because I have faith does not necessarily mean I believe in a "talking snake". I'm not going to get into this here, but there's a myriad of ways of interpreting the creation story.

[Lithium]

FYI, just because I have faith does not necessarily mean I believe in a "talking snake". I'm not going to get into this here, but there's a myriad of ways of interpreting the creation story.

But how do you feel about a US senator believing in the talking snake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thgVjw8kO4U&feature=youtu.be&t=3m52s

Edited October 3, 2014 by Lithium

[Ace Nova]

FYI, just because I have faith does not necessarily mean I believe in a "talking snake". I'm not going to get into this here, but there's a myriad of ways of interpreting the creation story.

But how do you feel about a US senator believing in the talking snake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thgVjw8kO4U&feature=youtu.be&t=3m52s

Seemed lik he was responding in a light-hearted fashion, even stating that " you don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the senate." I have a feeling there's a lot more to that interview than the 10 second clip shown. Either way, to each, their own.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Lithium]

FYI, just because I have faith does not necessarily mean I believe in a "talking snake". I'm not going to get into this here, but there's a myriad of ways of interpreting the creation story.

But how do you feel about a US senator believing in the talking snake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thgVjw8kO4U&feature=youtu.be&t=3m52s

Seemed lik he was responding in a light-hearted fashion, even stating that " you don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the senate." I have a feeling there's a lot more to that interview than the 10 second clip shown. Either way, to each, their own.

Yeah, of course it's been edited to seem more stupid, but even if you look away from all that, it's obvious that this man believes in the talking snake story. That's why I was worried about Mitt Romney winning the election in 2012 - here we have a man who sits around in his magic Mormon underwear and believes that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and that dark skin is a curse from God, running for the highest political office in the US.

[Ace Nova]

Yeah, of course it's been edited to seem more stupid, but even if you look away from all that, it's obvious that this man believes in the talking snake story. That's why I was worried about Mitt Romney winning the election in 2012 - here we have a man who sits around in his magic Mormon underwear and believes that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and that dark skin is a curse from God, running for the highest political office in the US.

I hope dark skin isn't a curse from God, I'm fairly tanned myself. I doubt Mormons believe that, since a lot of their religion is based around Native Americans, etc....and they have rather dark skin themselves.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Lithium]

Yeah, of course it's been edited to seem more stupid, but even if you look away from all that, it's obvious that this man believes in the talking snake story. That's why I was worried about Mitt Romney winning the election in 2012 - here we have a man who sits around in his magic Mormon underwear and believes that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and that dark skin is a curse from God, running for the highest political office in the US.

I hope dark skin isn't a curse from God, I'm fairly tanned myself. Athough I doubt Mormons believe that, since a lot of their religion is based around Native Americans, etc....and they have rather dark skin themselves.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/mormon-church-dark-skin-sign-gods-curse-no-longer

[Ace Nova]

Yeah, of course it's been edited to seem more stupid, but even if you look away from all that, it's obvious that this man believes in the talking snake story. That's why I was worried about Mitt Romney winning the election in 2012 - here we have a man who sits around in his magic Mormon underwear and believes that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel and that dark skin is a curse from God, running for the highest political office in the US.

I hope dark skin isn't a curse from God, I'm fairly tanned myself. Athough I doubt Mormons believe that, since a lot of their religion is based around Native Americans, etc....and they have rather dark skin themselves.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/mormon-church-dark-skin-sign-gods-curse-no-longer

Well, at least they renounced it.

[SoulMonster]

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one?

We are talking about Pliny's reference to "Christus" which could be any Messiah figure at the time. Because nowhere in Pliny's letter to Trajan is "Jesus" mentioned. Hence it is evidence for a Christus cult but not evidence for Jesus' existence.

Edited October 4, 2014 by SoulMonster

[AdriftatSea]

Of course Jesus existed, and maybe he wasn't the result of a virgin birth, but a Roman solider who had his way with Mary and that might have traumatised her or, she and Joesph might have lied, for fear of the Romans. That's why he looked kind of white/European.

I think.

.

If you can explain how you came up with that without the reply being a load of bollocks i'll find you where you are today and give you a million quid

It makes more sense than immaculate conception

I forgot to add this:

Immaculate Conception - scaring 14 year old girls the world over for a million years. Making boys happy ~ just swallow honey and you won't get pregnant.

Edited October 4, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[SoulMonster]

I am sorry, Soul, but I am trying to find a motive here!!

Listen, the Pauline Epistles were composed, c.50 AD. So within twenty years of Jesus's death, we already have evidence of people in the Mediterranean world, following the word of a man called Jesus of Nazareth. This is fact. So if somebody is going to lie, that lie has to have been made, and gained support, strikingly early. It does not add up.

You are arguing as if I deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. I am not. Never have. Try to respond to what I am writing and not lump me in with those who refuse to accept thta Jesu of Nazareth ever lived. What I am is disagreeing with Kasanova's quote and the idea that Pliny's letter is evidence for Jesus' existence rather than evidence for the existence of a Messiaic cult. It's minor points in the overall debate which I have already stated is pointless when the important question is whether Jesus of Nazareth was a son of a god or not -- which amazingly many people seem to think even now in supposedly enlightened 2014.

[Ace Nova]

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

I think a lot of your gripe may be coming from not understanding American slang. "Just about anyone else" is American vernacular for "most people". So yes, there most likely is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for most of the people from his time period. "Most" = Majority...not all.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AdriftatSea]

And as Jesus hung there on the cross he looked up with his last dying breath and said, "What a heck of a way to spend Easter!"

[SoulMonster]

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

I think a lot of your gripe may be coming from not understanding American slang. "Just about anyone else" is American vernacular for "most people". So yes, there most likely is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for most of the people from his time period. "Most" = Majority...not all.

Hah, that may be. But OF COURSE we don't have evidence for the existence of "just about anyone else" from the 1st century, we don't even have the names of "just about anyone else" from that time period. Ehrman must have meant that Jesus was more or less the most documented person from that century and it can't be anything but a flippant and regretted comment. A quick google search shows that other have criticised him for that quote too.

[supercool]

historical jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

historicity of jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

However, virtually all scholars of various disciplines who have commented on the subject consider Jesus to have existed, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the parts of his life that have been recorded in the Gospels.

[AdriftatSea]

After the Crucifixion Jesus was placed in his tomb. Later that night they went to it, turned back the large rock, only to find it empty. Why Jesus was not there! What could that mean! Why that could only mean one thing! Six more weeks of winter!!

[SoulMonster]

I came to think of Hammurabi. Hammurabi's existence is documented through various stelea that commemorate his life and about 50 letters...that he wrote himself. And Hammurabi lived about 1700 years before Jesus. Of course Hammurabi is an outstanding example but it just gives one example of pre-historic people whose existence is very well documented. Again, these add up to hundreds, whereas for Jesus we have 3-4 texts that are all in various states of dispute as well as the gospels. Again, not denying that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I trust Tacitus, but to consider his existence more documented than "just about everyone else" from that time period, is a bit silly.

[wasted]

Don Draper existed.