Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?

[Augustus]

I think its likely Jesus was a Roman invention designed to bring dissenters under control.

I can't imagine a less effective way of solving a problem...

"I shall spend my time and resources making an imaginary Messiah, so on the off chance he becomes popular several hundred years in the future, dissent will reduce for whoever is in charge then"

 

[Rival]

This thread needs more Bart Ehrman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread needs more Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman will say "Yes, of course he existed, but he was just a man."

 

[Rival]

Ehrman will say "Yes, of course he existed, but he was just a man."

Yes, but the OP seems to be denying he even existed. Such a denial is laughed out of scholarly circles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but the OP seems to be denying he even existed. Such a denial is laughed out of scholarly circles.

Not as much as you would do think. People are starting to reconsider. Richard Carrier is a bit fringe, but can support his beliefs.

 

[Rival]

Not as much as you would do think. People are starting to reconsider. Richard Carrier is a bit fringe, but can support his beliefs.

Either way, Jesus as a historical figure is mainstream, academically accepted and not hard to believe. I find it odd that the OP, a Baha'i, seems to be denying the existence of a figure whom his own religion tells him was an avatar of God. As well as the fact that there is good reason to believe in a historical Jesus, miracles and prophecies aside. OP has made several threads dissing Christianity/the NT and not accepting any evidence to the contrary even when it's reasonable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can't imagine a less effective way of solving a problem...

"I shall spend my time and resources making an imaginary Messiah, so on the off chance he becomes popular several hundred years in the future, dissent will reduce for whoever is in charge then"

Well you don't have to blame the Roman's for the future.

I think its more Constantine's fault for Christianity's endurance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Either way, Jesus as a historical figure is mainstream, academically accepted and not hard to believe. I find it odd that the OP, a Baha'i, seems to be denying the existence of a figure whom his own religion tells him was an avatar of God. As well as the fact that there is good reason to believe in a historical Jesus, miracles and prophecies aside. OP has made several threads dissing Christianity/the NT and not accepting any evidence to the contrary even when it's reasonable.

I have no trouble accepting a historical Jesus. But it can be interesting to learn that the evidence for him is nowhere near as strong as we were taught. And even though it is rather weak it appears to be sufficient.

 

[blü 2]

Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?
04-20-2022, 01:01 PM

Historians general accept that Jesus was a real figure that lived during time the NT describes, a rabbi? that taught a Messianic message, claimed to be the Kig of the Jews, was condemned in Roman Court of Rebellion against Rome by claiming to be the King of the Jews, and was crucified under Roman Law. The question arises what about the Biblical Jesus Christ that skeptics seriously question ever existed. The life and records of Philo are a witness to this problem of the existence of the Biblical Jesus Christ.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChr..._didnt_philo_of_alexandria_write_about_jesus/


Why didn't Philo of Alexandria write about Jesus or Christianity?

Philo of Alexandria was born: 25 BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. He died: 47-50 CE. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Jesus is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Jesus' miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. Philo spent time in Jerusalem where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. One of Alexander's sons (and Philo's nephews, Marcus) was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – Marcus ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. But nothing from Philo on Jesus, the other 'King of the Jews'.

Philo was there when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with an earthquake, daytime darkness, and resurrection of the dead 'saints' took place and when Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. He was there when Jesus ascended into heaven. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words by Philo are extant. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although Jesus, this Word incarnate, was walking around giving speeches and performing miracles, Philo wrote not one word about him or any of this.

© Copyright Original Source

There's room for skepticism about the historicity of Jesus for a number of reasons; perhaps the foremost is that the NT writings can be accounted for without an historical Jesus at all.

None of the gospel authors ever met an historical Jesus. Paul gives an earthly biography of Jesus that fits comfortably in two or three lines. The ONLY biography of Jesus of any note is the first one, Mark, written 45 or more years after the traditional date of the crucifixion; and the authors of Matthew and of Luke quite closely, and the author of John at a greater distance, use Mark as their template, adding, amending, omitting, as seemed best to them.

As a result we end up three incompatible models of Jesus in the NT ─ the ordinary Jew of Mark whose birth is not accompanied by portents or messages, and who only becomes Son of God by adoption following his baptism, and who isn't a descendant of David. And the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke who are the result of God's divine insemination of a virgin, and who have fake and mutually incompatible genealogies tracing the descent from David of Joseph, who in these tales is expressly NOT Jesus' father; and the gnostic Jesuses of Paul and of John, who each pre-existed with God in heaven, and who each created the material universe (regardless of what Genesis might say) and who each are said to be descended from David without their parents being identified.

I think it's slightly more likely than not that there was an historical Jesus; historiography's criterion of embarrassment would point to Jesus fighting with his family and being aggro towards his mother in all four gospels as perhaps reflecting a tale of a real human; and I see some strength in Bart Ehrman's point that none of Christianity's early opponents said Christianity's Jesus didn't even exist. But it also seems clear that if there was, we know very little about him at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Either way, Jesus as a historical figure is mainstream, academically accepted and not hard to believe. I find it odd that the OP, a Baha'i, seems to be denying the existence of a figure whom his own religion tells him was an avatar of God. As well as the fact that there is good reason to believe in a historical Jesus, miracles and prophecies aside. OP has made several threads dissing Christianity/the NT and not accepting any evidence to the contrary even when it's reasonable.

The existence of the person of Jesus was never a question in the topic of the thread. My religious beliefs are not an issue here in this thread.

As usual you fail to respond to the topic of the thread, You resort to the Three Stooges 'Duck, Bob and Weave' to avoid a coherent response on topic.

The Bold above is false,

 

[Augustus]

the ordinary Jew of Mark whose birth is not accompanied by portents or messages, and who only becomes Son of God by adoption following his baptism, and who isn't a descendant of David. And the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke who are the result of God's divine insemination of a virgin, and who have fake and mutually incompatible genealogies tracing the descent from David of Joseph, who in these tales is expressly NOT Jesus' father

Which, imo, are all very good evidence of a historical Jesus.

You create a fictional messiah, you don't need to come up with such convoluted ways of making him match prophecy. On the other hand if you are trying to create a hagiography of a real figure who is really a terrible fit for the messiah then you might need to.

- Let's create a Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
But he needs to be from Bethlehem
- Ok, let's make a story about a census so he can be from Nazareth and Bethlehem.
Why not just make him from Bethlehem?
- I SAID HE'S FROM NAZARETH AND WE ARE MAKING A STORY ABOUT A CENSUS....
Ok whatevs, but he's also supposed to be of the line of David
- Duuuuhhh, of course. We are going to make his dad, Joseph, a descendent of David obviously.
But Joseph isn't his dad really is he, so it doesn't work?
- I SAID WE ARE MAKING JOSEPH A DESCENDENT OF DAVID...

 

[shunyadragon]

Which, imo, are all very good evidence of a historical Jesus.

You create a fictional messiah, you don't need to come up with such convoluted ways of making him match prophecy. On the other hand if you are trying to create a hagiography of a real figure who is really a terrible fit for the messiah then you might need to.

- Let's create a Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
But he needs to be from Bethlehem
- Ok, let's make a story about a census so he can be from Nazareth and Bethlehem.
Why not just make him from Bethlehem?
- I SAID HE'S FROM NAZARETH AND WE ARE MAKING A STORY ABOUT A CENSUS....
Ok whatevs, but he's also supposed to be of the line of David
- Duuuuhhh, of course. We are going to make his dad, Joseph, a descendent of David obviously.
But Joseph isn't his dad really is he, so it doesn't work?
- I SAID WE ARE MAKING JOSEPH A DESCENDENT OF DAVID...

Sounds logical.

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread needs more Bart Ehrman.

Actually he may contribute to the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do people keep calling Jesus a Rabbi? Traditional Jews don't even acknowledge Jesus much less being a recognized Jew on top of it all. .
I think its likely Jesus was a Roman invention designed to bring dissenters under control.

I referenced him as Rabbi? with a question mark. He did appear to be educated in the scripture and debated effectively in the Temple. Apologetics is topic of Rabbi training,

 

[Twilight Hue]

I referenced him as Rabbi? with a question mark. He did appear to be educated in the scripture and debated effectively in the Temple. Apologetics is topic of Rabbi training,

The New Testament does.


What Jewish source aside from Messianic Jews states Jesus existed, much less taught at a Jewish temple?

 

[Rival]

The New Testament does.


What Jewish source aside from Messianic Jews states Jesus existed, much less taught at a Jewish temple?

There are Jews who believe the Talmud speaks of Jesus (not in a good way).

Other Jews believe it refers to other Jesuses.

 

[lukethethird]

This thread needs more Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman relies on non-existent hypothetical sources to conclude that Jesus existed. Read Did Jesus Exist?

 

[pearl]

I find this an interesting issue. I have heard that some folks suggest that Jesus traveled to India

There are several missing years between Jesus at age 13 to the time he began his ministry at 30?, depending on which Gospel. All that is said of these years is that Jesus grew in knowledge and stature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are several missing years between Jesus at age 13 to the time he began his ministry at 30?, depending on which Gospel. All that is said of these years is that Jesus grew in knowledge and stature.

There is more missing than that. False tales cannot be counted as being part of his life. Both Nativity myths fall flat on their faces when one analyzes them. The one in Luke is the worse of the two, but the one in Matthew makes some huge mistakes as well.

 

[pearl]

I think it's slightly more likely than not that there was an historical Jesus; historiography's criterion of embarrassment would point to Jesus fighting with his family and being aggro towards his mother in all four gospels may reflect a tale of a real human; and I see some strength in Bart Ehrman's point that none of Christianity's early opponents said Christianity's Jesus didn't even exist. But it also seems clear that if there was, we know very little about him at all.

I think these are statements clearly would not have been made of an imaginary Jesus.
There is also the charge made by early Judaism that Jesus was of illegitimate birth, answer by both evangelists by the explanation of a virgin birth.