Just in time for Christmas!

Anyway, belief in the divinity of Jesus is a matter of Christian faith, either you have it or you don't.

That isn't the question here.

The question here is a question that is new to me.

Is it new to you?

Is there hard evidence that Jesus the man actually even existed?

The concept that Jesus may not have existed even as a man kind of blows my mind, considering the impact of Christianity with its emphasis on Jesus.

Should it?

For the faithful, does it really matter if he existed as a MAN, or not?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.
...

In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

It matters, JT (Incarnation and Resurrection). Your link happily dismisses most of the evidence as fictional; that seems to be rather like deciding what answer you want to get and framing your approach accordingly.

Everyone has to make up their own mind whether to believe the Christian message or not. It is always going to be a matter of faith.

Once we have decided to accept the Christian message, we are going to be more concerned with making our lives live up to it insofar as we can. That's what I'm doing, so I shall not b e arguing on this thread.

Doubtless notmyself will have a lovely time, though! Since I have had his posts on IGNORE for some time, it won't worry me (I just couldn't be bothered with him.)

1st historical evidence I think was Josepheus, who wrote of a rumour of a man called Jesus. This was after his "death".

The greatest record keepers of the time the Romans had no record of a trial, despite him getting a Roman punishment. Wouldn't the Jews of the time have stoned him? Only the Gnostic gospels were written at the time he was said to be alive by people who knew him, and the early catholic church chose to ignore those writings, when deciding what to include in the NT.

I don't think the link is suggesting that there is hard evidence that Jesus the man never existed.

What it is saying is that there is no hard evidence that he DID exist.

That's just new to me.

Interesting.

The writer obviously didn't know about the ossuary of James with the inscription (translated) "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus".

I would say that is a piece of evidence for the pro-Jesus' existence argument.

That aside, the writer makes sensible, logical points.

Not surprised that member IB mentioned my name with regard to this specific subject as he knows it is a specialist subject of mine. Quite WHY the member would do so is beyond me since I'm being ignored but hey ho. Perhaps said member is clicking off and on the ignore button or something. Not sure how the function words as I have never put someone under 'ignore'. I think what people say should be allowed to stand on its own two feet. But that's me.

The historical figure of Jesus as depicted in the Bible never existed. The stories (that have not just been made up) are about two or perhaps up to four individuals. At that time there were hundreds of deluded Rabbis running around the region claiming to be the Messiah so some 'party tricks' could well have taken hold. The supposed census of which there no other record of show's that at least two individuals needed to be bludgeoned into one somehow.

I noticed member IB mentioned 'resurrection' as a need for a historical Jesus and he is quite right..... NOW ..... The resurrection narrative was added much much later between 120-200CE. Additional narrative was starting to appear in the Gospel of Mark which in the end was taken up.

There is zero, nada, zilch to suggest that the Jesus figure as depicted in the Bible existed so someone is using circular reasoning if claiming that the Bible proves it.

I get what the writer is saying. If it was a court of law or a committee of logicians, all the evidence (that he mentions) would be discarded as hearsay or unreliable.

But does the writer overlook other evidence?

The ossuary of James has been mentioned.

There is also the Hindu/Sanskrit accounts of a man named Iesu turning up in Cashmere.

Also some very interesting antiquities in Ethiopia.

I went with wifey today to the school she teaches at to watch a rehearsal of The Nativity.

It struck me as the story unfolded......what would an unwed mother-to-be and her fiance do if she got pregnant? Face criticism from society or make up a tale of immaculate conception? Especially if there had been prophesies going around, plus, just for good measure there happened to be a bright star on the night she gave birth.

I went with wifey today to the school she teaches at to watch a rehearsal of The Nativity.

It struck me as the story unfolded......what would an unwed mother-to-be and her fiance do if she got pregnant? Face criticism from society or make up a tale of immaculate conception?

You're assuming that society 2000 years ago held the same opinions about unwed mothers-to-be as society does today.

Yes....or stricter.

Personally, I think J the man existed. But, as the article points out, nobody really knows.

I'm not sure whether the Good Samaritan ever existed, but I don't that detracts from the relevance of the story.

SC

I'm not sure whether the Good Samaritan ever existed, but I don't that detracts from the relevance of the story.

SC

I think you nailed it there.

The implications of the historical Jesus being fabricated should be huge but in actual fact it would have very little impact at all. Even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that the chap never existed, people would still believe anyway as it is a faith based position. We do have an example of ignoring pertinent details; evolution. Darwin sat on his work for years before publishing because he knew full well the implications for Christianity. It dismisses 'the fall' which has the knock of effect of taking away the entire reason for the Jesus character. There are hundreds of millions of people who quite simply reject evolution from the get go because of its implications and certainly over a billion who accept evolution and just ignore the implications.

Interesting that member IB mentioned the resurrection. It would certainly show the resurrection never happened but that wouldn't change anything as Jesus would still have died for our sins. In fact, early versions of Mark (forget Matthew, Luke and John because they are copies of Mark, often verbatim, written long after) make no mention of a resurrection at all. That the resurrection story was inserted much later is not really in dispute but the reason for doing so is. Top of the list is that it was introduced to make Christianity more appealing to those holding other mostly Pagan beliefs. As it became evident that Jesus would not be returning within the lifetime of those who supposedly heard him on the mount, Christianity began to wane.

Christianity chopped and changed a great deal (virgin birth was also added) until it was adopted by Constantine as the 'state' religion (330CE) and forced on the population. Apparently he had a vision before a battle, won the battle and converted. Had he of lost the battle or even not had the vision it is very likely that Christianity would have gone the same way as countless other religions and died out.

Be all and end all is that outside of the Bible there is nothing. If the Bible itself is enough then you may as well believe in Spiderman because New York exists. Same logic.

There is a TTA podcast on this subject 11am central. Host Seth Andrews will be talking to Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald and Dr. Robert M. Price.

If anyone is interested in the subject I'm sure it will be enjoyable.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thethinkingatheist/2014/12/22/the-question-of-christ

There is a TTA podcast on this subject 11am central. Host Seth Andrews will be talking to Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald and Dr. Robert M. Price.

If anyone is interested in the subject I'm sure it will be enjoyable.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thethinkingatheist/2014/12/22/the-question-of-christ

The implications of the historical Jesus being fabricated should be huge but in actual fact it would have very little impact at all. Even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that the chap never existed, people would still believe anyway as it is a faith based position. We do have an example of ignoring pertinent details; evolution. Darwin sat on his work for years before publishing because he knew full well the implications for Christianity. It dismisses 'the fall' which has the knock of effect of taking away the entire reason for the Jesus character. There are hundreds of millions of people who quite simply reject evolution from the get go because of its implications and certainly over a billion who accept evolution and just ignore the implications.

Interesting that member IB mentioned the resurrection. It would certainly show the resurrection never happened but that wouldn't change anything as Jesus would still have died for our sins. In fact, early versions of Mark (forget Matthew, Luke and John because they are copies of Mark, often verbatim, written long after) make no mention of a resurrection at all. That the resurrection story was inserted much later is not really in dispute but the reason for doing so is. Top of the list is that it was introduced to make Christianity more appealing to those holding other mostly Pagan beliefs. As it became evident that Jesus would not be returning within the lifetime of those who supposedly heard him on the mount, Christianity began to wane.

Christianity chopped and changed a great deal (virgin birth was also added) until it was adopted by Constantine as the 'state' religion (330CE) and forced on the population. Apparently he had a vision before a battle, won the battle and converted. Had he of lost the battle or even not had the vision it is very likely that Christianity would have gone the same way as countless other religions and died out.

Be all and end all is that outside of the Bible there is nothing. If the Bible itself is enough then you may as well believe in Spiderman because New York exists. Same logic.

Read up on the Roman god Mithras if you want to know more about virgin birth and being born in a cave/stable.

Pick and choose, Mithras is only one among many. What IS interesting is that the virgin birth, resurrection etc. was common place for the countless Messiah's at the time but not exclusively. The resurrection narrative was certainly added much much later. That it was added is not really in dispute but the timing is. The range is between 120-280CE. In the past I've thought a fairly late date because of dissemination time but further research showed that there were very likely over 10,000 scribes copying the book over a large ish area. Getting a more accurate copy (?) would have been like upgrading your iPhone.

As for virgin birth...

23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/1-23.html

In Hebrew the word 'almah' means a young woman of marriageable age but this has been translated as a virgin. The word for a virgin is 'bethulah.'

Isaiah 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%207.14

in the tanach is 14;7 the word is not virgin, the word almah is used which means young girl who may or may not be a virgin. If the word betulah had been used it absolutely means virgin; seeing that the Christian translation in Matthew is virgin that is 100% wrong, one would think that is such an important verse the word betulah would have been used.

http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/2007/11/virgin-birth-messianic-prophecy-or.html

Certainly an error, huge error but perhaps just that. I've not really investigated 'Mary' as part of the Jesus narrative because she is only mentioned 4-5 times in the entire Bible and contributes nothing of interest to either myself or history.

All this goes back to earlier where I stated that even if Jesus were 100% known to not exist it wouldn't matter a jot, people will still believe it anyway. The Jesus figure as depicted in the Bible must have been so awesome because he managed to fulfil even mistranslated prophecies. C'mon, no thinking person can believe this stuff.

OK, on a related topic.

Egypt has banned the movie Exodus with one reason being historical inaccuracy that Jews did not help build the pyramids.

Now I am not religious and see Bible stories as myths but I had always thought it was a known historical fact that Jews were slaves of the Egyptians during the time of building the pyramids.

True or not?

About the movie, I did see it, it is really not very good, the cartoon version was MUCH better, but it's hilarious to me that anyone viewing the movie would take it the the filmmakers even INTENDED to present a film based on historical FACTS.

OK, on a related topic.

Egypt has banned the movie Exodus with one reason being historical inaccuracy that Jews did not help build the pyramids.

Now I am not religious and see Bible stories as myths but I had always thought it was a known historical fact that Jews were slaves of the Egyptians during the time of building the pyramids.

True or not?

Not seen the film and don't know exactly the wording of the complaint. Egypt was super powerful at the time and would no doubt have had slaves from all over the place. If the film depicts that only Jews or that no Jews were involved in the building then it would be inaccurate but like you say, it's a movie, not a documentary.

I guess from the movie the slaves building the pyramids were characterized as Hebrews. I don't recall other groups being mentioned as slaves in the film. My take was the Egyptian government had some kind of objection to the idea that they needed Jewish help to build these temples of their glorious past. Sounds to me more about anti-Israeli modern politics than history.

They also objected to the scene in the movie about crossing the parting waters. Of course in the bible it is depicted as a divine miracle. In the film it is rather shown as a natural tidal event.

I'm surprised they didn't make a much bigger stink about God being depicted as a young boy. The weirdest part of the movie by far. I kind of get why they did that ... that's really the main thing people will remember from that movie ...

Of course the three Abrahamic religions are closely related, which is tragically funny considering history.

I guess from the movie the slaves building the pyramids were characterized as Hebrews. I don't recall other groups being mentioned as slaves in the film. My take was the Egyptian government had some kind of objection to the idea that they needed Jewish help to build these temples of their glorious past. Sounds to me more about anti-Israeli modern politics than history.

They also objected to the scene in the movie about crossing the parting waters. Of course in the bible it is depicted as a divine miracle. In the film it is rather shown as a natural tidal event.

I'm surprised they didn't make a much bigger stink about God being depicted as a young boy. The weirdest part of the movie by far. I kind of get why they did that ... that's really the main thing people will remember from that movie ...

Of course the three Abrahamic religions are closely related, which is tragically funny considering history.

I think it was banned because it 'might' contain something that could send the people into a frenzy. Given the situation it's perhaps a wise move.

Morocco has apparently also banned the movie but no reason has been given.

Probably too Jew positive for that region.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The implications of the historical Jesus being fabricated should be huge but in actual fact it would have very little impact at all. Even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that the chap never existed, people would still believe anyway as it is a faith based position. We do have an example of ignoring pertinent details; evolution. Darwin sat on his work for years before publishing because he knew full well the implications for Christianity. It dismisses 'the fall' which has the knock of effect of taking away the entire reason for the Jesus character. There are hundreds of millions of people who quite simply reject evolution from the get go because of its implications and certainly over a billion who accept evolution and just ignore the implications.

Interesting that member IB mentioned the resurrection. It would certainly show the resurrection never happened but that wouldn't change anything as Jesus would still have died for our sins. In fact, early versions of Mark (forget Matthew, Luke and John because they are copies of Mark, often verbatim, written long after) make no mention of a resurrection at all. That the resurrection story was inserted much later is not really in dispute but the reason for doing so is. Top of the list is that it was introduced to make Christianity more appealing to those holding other mostly Pagan beliefs. As it became evident that Jesus would not be returning within the lifetime of those who supposedly heard him on the mount, Christianity began to wane.

Christianity chopped and changed a great deal (virgin birth was also added) until it was adopted by Constantine as the 'state' religion (330CE) and forced on the population. Apparently he had a vision before a battle, won the battle and converted. Had he of lost the battle or even not had the vision it is very likely that Christianity would have gone the same way as countless other religions and died out.

Be all and end all is that outside of the Bible there is nothing. If the Bible itself is enough then you may as well believe in Spiderman because New York exists. Same logic.

Even if you could prove without doubt there will sadly always be "believers"

I can never understand belief, science certainly doesnt have all the answers but religion tells you it does..whats the point in living if everything is already known.

I guess from the movie the slaves building the pyramids were characterized as Hebrews. I don't recall other groups being mentioned as slaves in the film. My take was the Egyptian government had some kind of objection to the idea that they needed Jewish help to build these temples of their glorious past. Sounds to me more about anti-Israeli modern politics than history.

Finally got time to watch it. Not the best copy... picture was good but the echo sounded like it had been recorded in a well. Perhaps a poisoned one.

It portrays Hebrews as being the only slaves even outside of temple building. In this respect the movie certainly misrepresents historical facts [sic].

My take was the Egyptian government had some kind of objection to the idea that they needed Jewish help to build these temples of their glorious past.

Egypt has somewhat of a love/ hate relationship with that era. They acknowledge that some great things happened of which some were good and some were bad for the Egyptian people. Morsi would likely have agreed with your idea that the objection is on the basis that Hebrew help being required at all to build said temples but the present government would not. Wow, that is an ugly sentence! The present government and people know that very many Egyptians died in slavery to make the temples so a film that simply erased their plight would be deemed offensive.

Sod it, let's have a late night and open a beer.

Imagine a movie that encompassed WWII but omitted completely the extermination of Jews in Europe. Different scales obviously but the point is, something very important is being omitted. A movie such as this would not go down well outside of the middle east and would not be made in any case unless it was financed by private individuals. Think 'The passion of Christ'.

Of cause, the entire thing 'exodus' has been shown to be a complete fabrication so the idea that certain parts of it are inaccurate is laughable.

Speaking of exodus...

The implications of the historical Jesus being fabricated should be huge but in actual fact it would have very little impact at all. Even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that the chap never existed, people would still believe anyway as it is a faith based position. We do have an example of ignoring pertinent details; evolution. Darwin sat on his work for years before publishing because he knew full well the implications for Christianity. It dismisses 'the fall' which has the knock of effect of taking away the entire reason for the Jesus character. There are hundreds of millions of people who quite simply reject evolution from the get go because of its implications and certainly over a billion who accept evolution and just ignore the implications.

Interesting that member IB mentioned the resurrection. It would certainly show the resurrection never happened but that wouldn't change anything as Jesus would still have died for our sins. In fact, early versions of Mark (forget Matthew, Luke and John because they are copies of Mark, often verbatim, written long after) make no mention of a resurrection at all. That the resurrection story was inserted much later is not really in dispute but the reason for doing so is. Top of the list is that it was introduced to make Christianity more appealing to those holding other mostly Pagan beliefs. As it became evident that Jesus would not be returning within the lifetime of those who supposedly heard him on the mount, Christianity began to wane.

Christianity chopped and changed a great deal (virgin birth was also added) until it was adopted by Constantine as the 'state' religion (330CE) and forced on the population. Apparently he had a vision before a battle, won the battle and converted. Had he of lost the battle or even not had the vision it is very likely that Christianity would have gone the same way as countless other religions and died out.

Be all and end all is that outside of the Bible there is nothing. If the Bible itself is enough then you may as well believe in Spiderman because New York exists. Same logic.

Even if you could prove without doubt there will sadly always be "believers"

I can never understand belief, science certainly doesnt have all the answers but religion tells you it does..whats the point in living if everything is already known.

I read one of those mildly viral Facebook quotes today...forget who it was attributed too;

"There are two ways you can be fooled; If you believe something that is not true, or to refuse to believe something that is true."

Speaking of Facebook quotes, I follow Neil De Grasse-Tyson and his Xmas Day message was a good one. He copped some flack for it too!

"On this day, December 25th, a long time ago, a man was born, who by the time he was 30, would change the world. Happy birthday Sir Isaac Newton."

I guess from the movie the slaves building the pyramids were characterized as Hebrews. I don't recall other groups being mentioned as slaves in the film. My take was the Egyptian government had some kind of objection to the idea that they needed Jewish help to build these temples of their glorious past. Sounds to me more about anti-Israeli modern politics than history.

They also objected to the scene in the movie about crossing the parting waters. Of course in the bible it is depicted as a divine miracle. In the film it is rather shown as a natural tidal event.

I'm surprised they didn't make a much bigger stink about God being depicted as a young boy. The weirdest part of the movie by far. I kind of get why they did that ... that's really the main thing people will remember from that movie ...

Of course the three Abrahamic religions are closely related, which is tragically funny considering history.

Archaeologists believe Egypt's large pyramids are the work of the Old Kingdom society that rose to prominence in the Nile Valley after 3000 B.C. Historical analysis tells us that the Egyptians built the Giza Pyramids in a span of 85 years between 2589 and 2504 BC.

The Hebrews are thought to have been there for 200 years and left in around 1446 BC

The human race needs to shed itself of the chains of religion and move forward into the future.

The human race needs to shed itself of the chains of religion and move forward into the future.

On the one hand, I agree with you.

On the other, I believe religion can serve a very useful purpose within society, and that is to impose rules that help society....do not kill, do not steal, respect your parents etc.

On the other, I believe religion can serve a very useful purpose within society, and that is to impose rules that help society....do not kill, do not steal, respect your parents etc.

You think such qualities are not innate?

I am not christian but have always been fascinated by early judeochristianity; this was a consequence of my skepticism in my early years. (I had actually considered writing my thesis on the Gnostic and Slavonic Gospels).

Flavius Josephus is someone I have occasionally written about but his patron was of course the future emperor, Vespasian. While a man with some obvious ethical challenges, Josephus does make mention of yeshoa ben joseph/jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. "As I recall," Josephus was at Masada. When all the men elected to commit suicide, and he was the last man alive during the roman siege, he choose life instead the honor of his word (as his dead comrades lie all around him, at least one having been killed by him personally). Before his execution to the Romans, he noted the military commander, Vespasian, was who the Jews considered the Star Prophecy to be about. He stated Flavius would be emperor- an unlikelihood during the first revolt but this excited the commander enough that he took him into his household as a slave and told him he would either latter live, or die, by his words. Against all odds, he became emperor following or around the final sacking of Jerusalem 69/70CE, and Josephus was granted roman citizenship. This is why Josephus carries the Falvius name. His population and target audience were Romans. He has little credibility for jews, (IMO), as he was a zealot traitor. He would not enter info into the historical record which would impugn or defame his new host, Rome. That the name of Jesus is even mentioned briefly strongly suggests its validity; to me. I am not surprised the record would be sparse. In many ways, this was a backwater outpost and what happened locally could very easily be managed in records.

I believe it is beyond dispute that jesus lived. The many competing players from Pharisees to Sadducees required a sort of revising of history as they went; they liked things just the way they were in the Second Temple period after return from exile- the status quo was vital to many elites. Moreover, the king was not even jewish, he was imudean/edom, which pretty much means semite, but arab- hardly a valid claim to kingship (but was a useful proxy puppet of Rome). That Pilate was rumored to have said "I wash my hands of this" is suggestive that records may indeed have been compromised, leaving the debacle to the jews. His wife admired the Jew and I suspect this was his motivation, not recognition of divinity. Yehsua ben joseph is ostensibly a valid descendent of two lines, Judah and Levy; thus actually making him both a valid claimant to the crown, and the priesthood. These lines crossed with Mary and Joseph. It is my deepest opinion that Jesus' threat lie not with him bearing a new dispensation as a prophet or living god, rather as a legitimate claimant to the throne or Levite Priesthood. This is my opinion and I have long ago forgotten the influences that led me to this assertion.

The complexities and players with special interests are enormous at this historical pivot; it is really only modern deconstruction and reductionism that we apply such tools to savage historical personalities. Indeed, these arguments exist for the existence of the Islamic Prophet as an amalgam. The deconstruction of religious icons is not new, and it is not actually historical fact. The investigators begin with a premise, search the data, muse, then reach the conclusion they sought. Lastly, the evidence for their being a historical Isa/Jesus/Yeshoa ben Joseph, is suggestive from multiple cultures, and later descendent narratives from the [arguable] brothers of Jesus. Yes, he lived. I will not provide any links. This is simply my conclusion. (I would add an example of a valid deconstruction of a historical personality lie with the Yellow Emperor. The title "Yellow Emperor" exists as both a valid personality and as a Chinese archetype of the earliest age, the first Emperor, and his great contributions to nearly... everything; example: Nei Jing. The Yellow Emperor is likely both a personality and an amalgamation. The mythos to apply such a template to Jesus simply does not exist. He presented contrary to the status quo. The very absurdity of his presence is highly suggestive of its validity).

What is mythological or legendary is the immediate christian, and later, mythos that spread in the first century CE. There were early battles in the "Jerusalem Church" for the meaning, legacy, and inheritance of Jesus. Brother James was tossed to his death from the Anatolia Wall, Peter loathed Mary, Mary felt Peter "did not get it," and Saul pretty much hijacked the entire church and Romanized it by rebuilding it as a very familiar dead and rising god tale. The Roman world would have been familiar, at this time, with dead and rising gods. Jesus was shoehorned into this narrative and of course it is this very palatable, Romanized, sterilized, version of Jesus' legacy that could spread through the Roman world. The Church Peter wanted, Petra-Rock- would never have survived outside the desert. Saul/Paul gave it life by hijacking the narrative and insinuating divinity and miracles and considerable other worldliness into the storyline. This is my take. Thank you for allowing me to post this afternoon.