Jesus never existed

[DieselDaisy]

Really? I find it quite interesting, ascertaining a 'historical' Jesus Christ.

[SoulMonster]

The details about messiac jews in pre-history is interesting to anyone interested in judaism and history, and understanding the simple origins of what would later become Christianity is also interested to many, including people interested in the geneis and development of religions and comparative religion, but all this dwarfs compared to the much more significant idea that a son of a god lived among humans on earth, worked miracles, got killed by his own father for what can only be described as cryptic reasons, ressurected and returned to heaven. Not saying one can't be interested in the former -- I am! -- just that it is of much less interest to most humans and to humanity in general.

[ManetsBR]

Jesus Christ was the first communist.

Edited October 2, 2014 by ManetsBR

[Bards]

Really? I find it quite interesting, ascertaining a 'historical' Jesus Christ.

I find that more interesting than any of the goofy son of a god stuff.

[wasted]

They crucified so many people for the same thing. It's like when Hair metal bible is written Vince Rose will be a huge figure and be in band called Motely Roses. Izzy Sixx had a stroke and played drums with one arm.

[Johnny Drama]

All I know is that my faith is based on that of the Apostles. Not one of them pussed out when faced with death. And to me something that's bollocks ain't worth it. Fair point?

[estrangedtwat]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

[wasted]

I saw Jesus today outside McDonald's. homeless sponger. Get a job!

[Johnny Drama]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

Being Catholic aside my counter point to that is always the question "and what evidence is there for any other ordinary Jewish bloke existing in Judaea at that time?"

[Dazey]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

Being Catholic aside my counter point to that is always the question "and what evidence is there for any other ordinary Jewish bloke existing in Judaea at that time?"

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus. There's also plenty of evidence for the existence of my nan. So what? There's also about the same amount of evidence to support either one of them as the son of God though my nan was a little harsher in her opinions of blacks and homos. Edited October 3, 2014 by Dazey

[Johnny Drama]

And rightfully so.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

That's 100% historically inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence that he existed.....to the point that about 99% of historians agree that he existed.

[SoulMonster]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

That's 100% historically inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence that he existed.....to the point that about 99% of historians agree that he existed.

This is figurativelly the absolute worst use of percentages I have ever read!

[Lithium]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

That's 100% historically inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence that he existed.....to the point that about 99% of historians agree that he existed.

Could you provide us with a poll on the matter wherein 99% of the historians asked have answered that they believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Lithium

[Bards]

Are there any historical (read: non-biblical) records that show an existence of jesus of nazareth?

For the person that cited Tacitus, historians have said that his works were tampered with.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Tacitus

[SoulMonster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

[DieselDaisy]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

We - me and others - have already provided you with the evidence in this very thread. By saying there is 'no evidence he existed' you are discounting two pagan sources (Tacitus and Suetonius) and a Judaic-Romano source (Josephus). Why would a pagan historian of the Roman elite, writing c. 116 AD, indifferent if not hostile to an obscure poverty stricken Jewish sect in the east, mention 'Christus'? You are also disregarding the fact that there is archaeological evidence for the Prefecture of Pontius Pilate during a period (the reign of Tiberius), approximating the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Here is the stone itself:

Pontius Pilate is also mentioned in that aforementioned passage by Tacitus by the way. We also have a broader context of Judea at the time, producing 'messiah' like figures, opposing the Sanhedrin (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls). Lastly, we have the Gospels themselves which, let's not forget, show a broad amount of chronological historicism. I left these last for the reason that atheists and anti-Christians are naturally going to denounce them, but they cannot be completely disregarded as documents considering the earliest of them (Matthew and Mark) were probably written, 50-70 AD, i.e. well before Christianity had proliferated. They are very interesting documents and owe, at least as much to the historical narrative approach of koine Greek culture, as they do to, Hebraic proselytizing.

[CheapJon]

Raptor Jesus is real.

Indeed, and he plays for the Dallas Stars.

The Jesus was very real as well

.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not going to say 100% for certain that Jesus never existed, but I will say there is no evidence he ever existed.

That's 100% historically inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence that he existed.....to the point that about 99% of historians agree that he existed.

Could you provide us with a poll on the matter wherein 99% of the historians asked have answered that they believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

I doubt there's any polls out there. I remember reading that the vast majority of "experts/scholars" of the time believe he existed. So translate that any way you wish.

[Lio]

That's 100% historically inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence that he existed.....to the point that about 99% of historians agree that he existed.

Could you provide us with a poll on the matter wherein 99% of the historians asked have answered that they believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

I doubt there's any polls out there.

That's a pity. I bet Lith wanted to incorporate it in his class.

[Ace Nova]

Bart Erhman, the leading historian on the subject, who also happens to be agnostic, states the Jesus did exist and he (more or less) trumps every conspiracy theory in his book.

Bart Ehrman: "I don't know any serious scholars that doubt the existence of Jesus".

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

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kasanova King

[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).

Assuming Jesus Christ was invented. It cannot therefore be a ''medievalsm''. The lie had to be impregnated very early in history to make the tradition, antique. The fabricators also had the foresight to make sure the dates of Christ's ministry corrosponded with the prefecture of a historical individual, Pontius Pilate. They did not merely pull a random Roman name out of a bag in other words and got their dates, roughly corresponding. They also put mentions into the accounts of Pagan authors; they were subtle and clever enough to maintain the anti-Christianism of those said authors however.

Clearly these myth makers are geniuses!!

But ultimately, why lie? There must have been a 'first Christian', religions are not born out of a vacuum, and Jesus of Nazareth seems as good a 'first christian' as anyone. Looking on it from an objective aspect, he seems historical, a messianic figure from obscurity, preaching a renewed Covenant while criticising the Sanhedrin. This basically corresponds with, what we know about Judea during this period.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Jesus was never called Jesus, he real name was Yeshua. Translates to Joshua.

Whether not he existed is besides the point. Somehow in Judea a separate branch of Judaism formed, centered around a figure that eventually took the empire by storm. We don't know how this person lived, died or if any miracles occurred. The Crucifixion is a big part of the Christian faith but the Muslims do not believe he was crucified. He simply ascended to heaven.

[SoulMonster]

"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.

[Ace Nova]

"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'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman (born 5 October 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a leading scholar in his field, having written and edited over 25 books, including three college textbooks, and has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.

Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible and its original languages at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.^[3] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelors degree. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.^[4]

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kasanova King