Did Christ really exist ?

[Aupmanyav]

Fables are fables, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.
Yes, old fables affect new fables. Hindu fables were influenced by the IE-Aryan fables.

 

[YoursTrue]

The apostle Paul was a church planter.

He spoke to various groups, Jews and non-Jews among them. Some of them believed him, and thus became believers in Christ. It is also written that imposters would come in and take over, leading to false and unscriptural teachings.
Acts 20:28-30 brings this out clearly when the apostle Paul spoke to the Ephesian congregation, saying -- "Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood. 29I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them."

 

[Zaha Torte]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel".

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

The ‘Historians History of the World’ says: "The historical result of Jesus' activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth." Even calendars today are based on the year that Christ was born.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

I believe that He has always existed and always will.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fables are fables, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.
Now you have Bahai fables.
Yes, old fables affect new fables.

Years ago I spoke to a religious man. I was an atheist. But I wanted to know certain things. And he told me that only God can give me faith. I said, but I don't believe in God. And he repeated, only God can give you this gift of faith. And the conversation was ended. That night I prayed for the first time in years, asking God, "Oh God, if you're there, give me this gift of faith." And then a set of events happened where I studied the Bible and now I have faith in God. But, Aupmanyav, it took time for faith to grow. It is like a mustard seed.

 

[Skywalker]

Fables are fables, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu.
Now you have Bahai fables.
Yes, old fables affect new fables.

I don't believe Jesus turned clay into a bird. It doesn't make sense. What would be the purpose of that miracle? God does everything with an order and a purpose.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, Aupmanyav, it took time for faith to grow. It is like a mustard seed.

Yeah, this is not a new story. We hear that often from theists in forums. With me, it happened the other way. My faith decreased as the time went on till I abandoned Gods, Goddesses, soul, heaven, hell, etc. Atheism grew like a mustard seed.

It doesn't make sense. The apocryphal gospels influenced the stories of Jesus in the Koran.

And the scriptures of Judaism influenced Christianity. Perhaps Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, European paganism too. So what is new? But you do believe that Jesus walked on water and raised Lazarus from death or that he resurrected. That does not make any sense, whatsoever, to me.

It is also written that imposters would come in and take over, leading to false and unscriptural teachings.

Who knows if Paul himself was an imposter. Scholars say that Pauline Christianity differs from what Jesus taught.

 

[joelr]

The people who knew and were disciples of Jesus (and a couple of others) wrote about Him and you have to assume that was some sort of conspiracy of lies and even need third and fourth hand reports from historians just to show that Jesus existed. Or even if you think He existed I guess you want to ignore what those who knew Him said and find out what He was on about through others who disagree with the reports of those who knew Him.

YOu are talking about the gospels as if they are something they are not. Fundamentalists say what whatever will support their beliefs. I am interested in what historians in the field have to say.
To that effect the gospels are anonymous, not eyewitnesses, and the up to 90% of verbatim Greek copied into other gospels (the synoptic problem) we know the source gospel was Mark. So that's just one source.
The model for dying/rising savior demigods was already created and being used in most religions in the region. The author of Mark was highly educated and uses all literary styles and narratives that writers use when composing fiction. There was already a prophecy in the OT to follow and write a story that fulfills it.
Triadic ring structure and other devices are used, that is only used in fiction. The author also is taking narratives from the OT and transforming them into new stories about Jesus. Clearly fiction.

The idea that it's a "conspiracy of lies" isn't accurate. You know Lord Krishna, the Mormon angel Moroni or the Islamic angel Gabrielle or countless other religions are not conspiracy of lies. They are myth, using made-up divinities to explain wisdom, laws and teach lessons. They are all obviously not real but to say they are a conspiracy of lies would be to say every singe myth from every nation across all humanity was a conspiracy of lies. What it is, is that Christianity is just like all the others, made up by people. With intention of modernizing a religion that needs upgrading.

This blog post explains some of the ways we know it's myth writing:
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

"Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason."

 

[joelr]

Would you please elaborate on this?

It's unclear whether you are claiming that Josephus did not refer to Jesus, or simply that he did not refer to Jesus twice. Furthermore, "he definitely used the Gospels as the source for the references that he almost certainly did not make" strikes me as a curious claim.

It's saying that even if he did make the second quote, literary analysis of Josephus' writings conclude that he was copying a Christian source (a gospel) which makes the reference no different than sourcing a gospel and does not count as extra-biblical evidence.

Regarding the TF quote:

"Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly)."
Jesus in Josephus • Richard Carrier

and a paper on the other quote is believed not to be from Josephus either. The paper on that quote is:

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."

Project MUSE - Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, <i>Jewish Antiquities</i> 20.200

 

[joelr]

I believe Moses and Job and others in the Bible were NOT mythical figures. But I'd sure be curious as to what those holding to the Jewish faith here believe. Further, Moses as the one bringing the Ten Words, or commandments to the Israelites, did not negotiate them. God Almighty gave them to Moses directly. No negotiations. Yes, Moses did all the things he wrote about that he did.

Well sure, some people believe Joe Smith spoke to the angel Moroni and some believe Lord Krishna gave advice to his followers. They are still fictional stories.
Archaeology does not see anything to support the stories:

"
The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

But Thomas Thompson's work in the 70's really closed the case on Moses and the Patriarchs demonstrating they were not historical at all.
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...PXHD9J3QRX6&psc=1&refRID=EPA37JA9KPXHD9J3QRX6

"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted."

Yahweh started out with a Canaanite Goddess as his consort (we know Israelites came from Canaan), and both cultures had similar religions, laws, stories. But even the pre Persian material in the OT is Mesopotamian myths mixed with other cultures as well. Each culture had a "one true God" yet all were myths.

At 15:35 OT Professor Fransesca Stavrakopoulou talks about Ashera. at 31:30 she explains the mythical nature of Moses, abraham and so on.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou s currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's saying that even if he did make the second quote, literary analysis of Josephus' writings conclude that he was copying a Christian source (a gospel) which makes the reference no different than sourcing a gospel and does not count as extra-biblical evidence.

@joelr , I'm so pleased that you found Carrier but being a Carrier groupie is not the same as being informed.

I've been aware of Richard Carrier since my early days at iidb. He is a smart guy. He may even be correct. But he is also a strong proponent of a minority opinion. Rather than demonstrating an awareness of this fact you quote him as received truth. I'll leave you to your dogmatism.

 

[PureX]

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

Existed/not existed are not the logical options, here. The logical option is that someone existed, and that they did and/or said something to inspire humanity to generate the mythical, ideological being that we read about in scripture, today. Because that's how nearly all mythology begins: with real people and real events, that then get 'morphed' through the re-telling of their story to better represent their culture's significant ideals and understanding of life.

Someone and something happened in that time and place that sparked a new way of looking at God, and a new way of understanding humanity's relationship with God, and God's relationship with humanity. And the story of that person and those events have then been 'morphed' by their telling and re-telling, to better represent this new theological view of man's relationship to and with God.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, this is not a new story. We hear that often from theists in forums. With me, it happened the other way. My faith decreased as the time went on till I abandoned Gods, Goddesses, soul, heaven, hell, etc. Atheism grew like a mustard seed.
And the scriptures of Judaism influenced Christianity. Perhaps Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, European paganism too. So what is new? But you do believe that Jesus walked on water and raised Lazarus from death or that he resurrected. That does not make any sense, whatsoever, to me.Who knows if Paul himself was an imposter. Scholars say that Pauline Christianity differs from what Jesus taught.

Christianity is a gentile offshoot of New Testament Judaism.

 

[Augustus]

While it's well documented that the Christians of coming centuries showed remarkable enthusiasm for burning the books of classical Greece and Rome,

It's more of a myth. They didn't have a vastly different track record to the Pagan Romans in this regard: it happened at times, mostly texts linked to magic, divination and astrology or 'heretical' religion.

Might have gone up a bit, but had minimal impact on the transmission and preservation of the kind of texts we would find significant today. What was lost was mostly just natural atrophy of perishable products that could only be stored and copied at great expense.

The ones which do exist, exists because they were preserved by Christians.

 

[Skywalker]

It's more of a myth. They didn't have a vastly different track record to the Pagan Romans in this regard: it happened at times, mostly texts linked to magic, divination and astrology or 'heretical' religion.

Might have gone up a bit, but had minimal impact on the transmission and preservation of the kind of texts we would find significant today. What was lost was mostly just natural atrophy of perishable products that could only be stored and copied at great expense.

The ones which do exist, exists because they were preserved by Christians.

Unlike leaders of other faiths, Paul and Jesus didn't tear down pagan altars.

 

[1213]

...I don't know any historical basis for the claim that this was Jewish practice in 1st century Judea.

What evidence are you basing your remark on?

If they were persecuted as the Bible tells, then I think it is reasonable assumption. Do you think they were not persecuted?

 

[Milton Platt]

Some made the claim that Jesus never existed. Even many antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are mythologized history.

Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel".

Is it possible that a person who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?

The ‘Historians History of the World’ says: "The historical result of Jesus' activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth." Even calendars today are based on the year that Christ was born.

Critics however point out that all we know about Jesus is only found in the Bible and that no other records concerning him exist. For instance H.G. Wells wrote:" The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time. But...is this true?
No, its not.
Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "The independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The Encyclopedia Britannica stated" " Many a modern student have become so preoccupied with conflicting theories about Jesus and the Gospels that they have neglected to study these basic sources (the Gospels) by themselves."

What is true is that most that we know about Jesus was recorded by his first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the Gospels.

God himself commanded: "Listen to him".
Why would we want to listen to anyone else ?

There are scholars who think he did, and scholars who think he did not. Both have some compelling evidence. So the jury is still out. But it is one thing to say a name named Jesus existed, and quite another to prove the man walked on water, cast demons into pigs, and rose from the dead.

 

[Skywalker]

There are scholars who think he did, and scholars who think he did not. Both have some compelling evidence. So the jury is still out. But it is one thing to say a name named Jesus existed, and quite another to prove the man walked on water, cast demons into pigs, and rose from the dead.

The Apostle Paul saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. He had nothing to gain from saying he did. He was a persecutor of Christians but he changed. He could have recanted but he didn't. He never bragged about his past he just said what be needed to said about God could change a person if they let Him.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Apostle Paul saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. He had nothing to gain from saying he did. He was a persecutor of Christians but he changed. He could have recanted but he didn't. He never bragged about his past he just said what be needed to said about God could change a person if they let Him.

So the story goes. How do we verify it is true?

 

[Skywalker]

So the story goes. How do we verify it is true?

I believe Paul wasn't a false prophet because of his adherence to Jesus and his conversion story.

 

[blü 2]

It's more of a myth. They didn't have a vastly different track record to the Pagan Romans in this regard: it happened at times, mostly texts linked to magic, divination and astrology or 'heretical' religion.

Might have gone up a bit, but had minimal impact on the transmission and preservation of the kind of texts we would find significant today. What was lost was mostly just natural atrophy of perishable products that could only be stored and copied at great expense.

The ones which do exist, exists because they were preserved by Christians.

I was thinking of the systematic suppression of gnostic texts, which was very effective. It would perhaps fit your 'heretical' remark, since the gnostics lost. And book-banning was for many centuries a part of Christian practice, particularly RCC ─ the Index was not put aside till 1966.