Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Aractus]

I don't see how that analogy is accurate.

Nobody is saying that never was any man named Jesus that inspired christianity. Just that the Jesus it was based on wasn't like the one described in the bible.

And the question of Jesus' historicity is irrelevant to the argument about the existence of a god.

I've asked multiple times why is this important, and the answer has always been that it isn't. This argument often seems to get disproportionately (to its importance) heated and I don't understand why.

Waffles anyone?  ._.

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth and he was like the one described in the Bible - what evidence do you have of a different character? Bear in mind that the Gospel of John does present a different point of view on his character when compared to Mark and the Synoptic gospels - if his character was purely mythical then it would be more consistently mythical. Note too the differences within the Synoptic gospels also; but also the fact that there are some things that all four gospels agree on - for instance the Last Supper is recorded in every gospel and in Corinthians also.

The thread topic isn't about the existence or non-existence of Jehovah - it's about the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Don't go claiming that this argument is irrelevant because it doesn't answer or address something else - that's disingenuous.

[Longhorn]

Well there was a Jesus of Nazareth and he was like the one described in the Bible - what evidence do you have of a different character? Bear in mind that the Gospel of John does present a different point of view on his character when compared to Mark and the Synoptic gospels - if his character was purely mythical then it would be more consistently mythical. Note too the differences within the Synoptic gospels also; but also the fact that there are some things that all four gospels agree on - for instance the Last Supper is recorded in every gospel and in Corinthians also.

Oh. So he rose from the dead, turned water into wine, resurrected a guy and walked on water too?

The thread topic isn't about the existence or non-existence of Jehovah - it's about the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Don't go claiming that this argument is irrelevant because it doesn't answer or address something else - that's disingenuous.

Then holy shit explain to me why is this relevant!

I've asked multiple times why this is important. The answer has always been that it isn't. So why is it relevant?

[Cato]

Note too the differences within the Synoptic gospels also; but also the fact that there are some things that all four gospels agree on - for instance the Last Supper is recorded in every gospel and in Corinthians also.

The consensus is that Mark was the original and that it was used as a boiler plate template for what followed. Ignoring this to register some amazement in the similarities of the accounts in order to say some of it must be true, 'why else would they tell the same story', is what's disingenuous. Maybe it will make better sense this way: almost every story of Santa Claus depicts him residing at the north pole; therefore, there must be an element of truth to it. This same argument will hopefully appear a bit more odd than your Jesus and the last supper example.

[Mr.wizard]

Why should we trust anything the gospels have to say anyway? Even if they all matched identically, it wouldn't tell us anything about their accuracy.

[Mudhammam]

That historical period is about 100 years later. Also the romans conducted several surveys to number the towns and people in their new land after they had a Roman govern take over. So if there is no archeological evidence of a town, and no record of a town, why should I think there was a town?

You mean there is no record apart from the couple of 1st century sources that you dismiss. Interestingly, the only noteworthy feature of this village according to those sources is that the village wasn't very noteworthy . . . Which is why I'm still confused as to what records you would expect to have, as if every single city, town, or village in the history of mankind has had its name conveniently preserved for our sake.

P.S. Apparently excavations in Nazareth that date to the 1st century haven't been as fruitless as you'd wish to believe: http://m.livescience.com/49997-jesus-hou...areth.html

[Lemonvariable72]

That historical period is about 100 years later. Also the romans conducted several surveys to number the towns and people in their new land after they had a Roman govern take over. So if there is no archeological evidence of a town, and no record of a town, why should I think there was a town?

You mean there is no record apart from the couple of 1st century sources that you dismiss. Interestingly, the only noteworthy feature of this village according to those sources is that the village wasn't very noteworthy . . . Which is why I'm still confused as to what records you would expect to have, as if every single city, town, or village in the history of mankind has had its name conveniently preserved for our sake.

P.S. Apparently excavations in Nazareth that date to the 1st century haven't been as fruitless as you'd wish to believe: http://m.livescience.com/49997-jesus-hou...areth.html

That is a interesting find, but really the house Jesus grew up in?

[Mudhammam]

That is a interesting find, but really the house Jesus grew up in?

That's apparently what the pious locals believed, though I agree it's unlikely.

[Secular Elf]

I have never claimed that a Jesus did not exist nor that this person wasn't the basis for the later myth. What I have stated is the this person's actual existence is irrelevant and understanding that the figure as portrayed in the Bible most assuredly did not exist and is mythological.

This is pretty much where I am.  There was no man walking on water and raising the dead named Jesus.  But there probably was a man behind the myth.  The problem is the myth is so much larger than the man that the man's actual doings are essentially irrelevant to Christianity.  What is most relevant to the development of Christianity is what Paul said about Jesus, and what Paul said was primarily doctrinal, not facts about Jesus.

The most interesting thing I have learned through my readings about Early Christianity is that Paul's view of Jesus, Pauline Christianity, was not the only view about Jesus's divinity that existed in the 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. The view that Jesus was the literal son of a god that came to save mankind from its sins at that time was only popular among Proto-orthodox Christians, and their theology did not gain favorability until the Proto-orthodox Christians were accepted and sanctioned by Constantine and his successors.

Among Early Christians that were adoptionist in theology, they viewed Jesus was divine by way God adopting him at his baptism. The Jewish Christians named Ebionites were the first group of Early Christians to represent this view. Most notable adherents of adoptionism during the 2nd Century CE were Theodotus of Byzantium and his followers.

Early Christians that were docetic in their theology viewed Jesus was only divine because his physical body was an illusion, and therefore Jesus was a pure spirit incapable of dying. That meant that the crucifixion was an illusion. Docetism was a prominent feature of dualistic gnostics.

Early Christians that were Gnostic in their theology viewed Jesus was divine because he was sent by the true God (not the demiurge, the evil creator god, who was the Jewish Yahweh) to liberate men's souls from the prison of the physical world (created by Yahweh, the Demiurge) through secret knowledge (gnosis) so that those liberated souls can return to the true God in the realm of light.

[Pizza]

You're barking up the wrong tree as we are essentially saying the same thing. I have never claimed that a Jesus did not exist nor that this person wasn't the basis for the later myth. What I have stated is the this person's actual existence is irrelevant and understanding that the figure as portrayed in the Bible most assuredly did not exist and is mythological.

That's not what mythicists claim though.

Which ones? I sure there are mythicists that claim that, but I know Robert Price is more agnostic about Jesus. Mythicists mostly disagree. Like Carrier hates that one guy who claims Jesus was invented by the Romans if I remember correctly.

[Justtristo]

That's not what mythicists claim though.

Which ones? I sure there are mythicists that claim that, but I know Robert Price is more agnostic about Jesus. Mythicists mostly disagree. Like Carrier hates that one guy who claims Jesus was invented by the Romans if I remember correctly.

Richard did criticize Joseph Atwill's work Caesar's Messiah, I don't think he hates him although.

Anyway I am one with Earl Doherty in that the Epistles do not assume that Jesus existed at least on this planet. Instead they assumed Jesus had lived and died in some sphere of the heavens, only later on in the Gospels he was historicised. So far, I have yet to encounter any successful refutation of Earl Doherty's hypothesis as outlined in "The Jesus Puzzle", that does not commit any logical fallacies.