Christians - What would you do if it were discovered Jesus never existed?

[Catholic_Lady]

I'd probably stop believing in God altogether. But I'd also be very confused and, due to past personal experiences, would start to question my own sanity.

I appreciate a straight forward answer to a hypothetical question.

Would you say this is more because you haven't had personal revelations toward other religions, but toward Christianity, and would start questioning those experiences and why they didn't guide you toward a different religion?  Or more because there's something about the other religions that you don't or can't believe?

You're very welcome. 

I'd say definitely both. If I HAD to pick which one it would be more, it would be the first. But yes, definitely both.

[Drich]

---

I unlike most of you, do not like others doing my thinking for me. I don't take an expert at his word, simply because he is deemed an 'expert.' An 'expert is so because generally speaking, they make their living doing what they do, and can be swayed with the right motivation. I would ask to the 'evidence' and make my own conclusions.

I would also have a lot of questions as in:

What does the evidence of someone not existing look like?

Any testimony can be dismissed, or cancled out by contrary testimony.

The lack of records would only be valid if ALL records of that time were accounted for.

---

So Im logically at a loss at how one can establish how a specific indivisual in the sea of human History can be proven to never existed. At the very best all that can be said is this person existence has not been confirmed. And if we are talking about Christ, then everyone else of that time frame is also suspect, because their is more data on Him and anyone of that period.

What nonsense.  There is not a single document mentioning Jesus that was originally written in his lifetime.  But there are documents mentioning important people of that era written during the time they were alive.  So the evidence for them is far greater than the evidence for Jesus.  Yet you ignore such facts now, so we can be pretty sure you will ignore facts in the future as well.

On a related note:

---

What nonsense.  I have posted on this before at:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34720-po...#pid993540

Here is some of it copied over:

Generally speaking, the more recent the person, the more evidence that there should be.  And generally speaking, the more important the person, the more evidence there should be.

In the case of Homer, I would not be confident that he was as described, but we can be sure that someone wrote The Illiad and someone wrote The Odyssey, or some group of people did.  But whether they were written by someone named "Homer" or not is not really known.  We don't have any proper documentation on that, but given the era in which he lived, that is hardly surprising.  So Homer is, at best, semi-mythical.  There is no real confidence that he actually existed, but he might have.  I am nearly a pure agnostic on Homer.

In the case of Socrates, we have the testimony of three contemporaries (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes), which puts him in an entirely different class than Homer.  We can be reasonably sure that he existed, and lived in Athens, and was a philosopher who inspired a play by one (which is not complimentary, and makes fun of him), and many of the writings of the others, and Socrates likely said some of the things in some of their writings (though not all of things which Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates).  What adds to the value of the testimony is that they do not attribute miraculous properties to Socrates.  So we have a rough idea about him, and can be reasonably certain he existed.

With Jesus, we are in a different situation still.  He is supposed to be supremely important, and yet we have nothing written during his lifetime.  And unlike the case of Socrates, the earliest writings are all propaganda pieces for a religion, in which miraculous things are attributed to him, which detracts from their value as testimony.  And we also have known cases of fraud, in which Christians have tried to alter texts to support the claim that Jesus existed, which further detracts from any trust one might have otherwise had in writings purporting to support his existence.  Some of the stories (in the Bible) seem like they are adapted from seeing magicians, but this does not tell us whether they are based on a particular one, or on having seen various magicians and making Jesus fit the type.  So we really have no good reason to believe that the stories of Jesus are really based on a particular person, and is, at the very best, semi-mythical, though given his supposed importance, one would expect better documentation if he were real.  I am inclined to think he did not exist at all, but, of course, such a thing isn't likely to ever be provable.  He might have existed, though certainly not as described, and we really don't have any good reason to believe he existed at all.

As for the fact that most people, who have addressed the question, believe Jesus existed, most who enter into the question do not do so without bias, as they generally start out with the belief he existed and conclude, after looking at the evidence, what they already believed before looking at the evidence.  I find this very unconvincing, and am not inclined to alter my opinion based on the opinions of others.


So, I would say that one of the three existed, and the others are uncertain at best, and likely did not exist at all.  Of course, one cannot prove they did not exist, at least not based on any evidence I have seen.


Edited to add:

I forgot to mention the fact that the oldest writings of Christianity are the most vague, and the later ones are more detailed, which strongly suggests that the details are all fiction.  This is obscured to many readers of the Bible, who falsely assume that the books of the New Testament appear in the order in which they are written.  But even most Christian scholars say that that is wrong, and that the earliest writings are ones that lack detail, just as I say.

---

I see a lot of empty and unsupported assertions concerning Christ and the historical paper trail surrounding him. Do you have anything to go on besides your word? You by not providing any citations or any other proof of any kinda means, that because you have access to anti Christian commentary we are supposed to simply take you at your 'expert' word. Maybe this is how it works where you are from, but for those who genuinely think for themselves you need to be able to provide some primary or secondary source material to support those otherwise empty words.

[vorlon13]

I'll cite how the Mormon's are handling their own problems with their church's history;

They release information in small dribbles at looooong intervals.  Clearly, if you dump too much truth about old conniving Joe Smith all at once, you're going to stir up a shit hemorrhage.  If that information dribbles out over 100 years, the church continues along just fine although there is a risk of outsiders (and the infrequent disgruntled insider)  keeping track of all the dirt and accumulating it, and releasing a large heap of it all at once.  Like the Tanners did.

You can discourage folks in  the pews from considering the implications of the released information too.  There is a phrase in Mormonism that keeps coming up in regards to church teachings, rules, dogma, strictures and edicts; the thinking has already been done.  See how easy that is?  Repeal permission to keep multiple wives, allow blacks to hold the priesthood, etc.  No one asks why there was a change, whether the church was in Error before, or if the church is in Error now simply because, obviously, all that has been worked out by the higher ups, already.

You can also 'indemnify' the pew warmers from the 'remote' possibility of official church 'Error'.  Just assure the sheeple if they follow a stricture, tenant or belief in good faith, God will allow for that if the church is actually promulgating a mistake.  God values the obedience more than perfection in observance of the actual rules.

Show trouble makers the door, but don't continue making a big deal of it.  For instance, many/most of the early witnesses to the Book of Mormon and various other issues were eventually excommunicated by the church hierarchy.  The church doesn't keep announcing so and so was excommunicated, but they will still keep listing him as a witness in the front of the Book of Mormon.  They can have it both ways by doing it this way.  Troublemaker is gone, and they are still apparently a witness to the gold plates, angels, miracles, whatever is needed.

Change the church history.  Inconveniently, Joe Smith made some incorrect prophecies, they are ignored or changed, and some prophecies that would have been really convincing had they been made prior to whatever an  event was, were simply written up later and back dated.

Trot out the apologists to say things like, "Well, if you could prove Joe Smith was convicted in the state of New York for money digging and swindling people, you would have disproved Mormonism".  And then when such proof is found, deemed incontrovertible, and presented to the church, the apologist never mentions that topic again. And the church continues.



So, if a Christian church was digging in a mid east archaeological site, or rooting around in their archive and found something or several somethings that disproved Christianity, I think it is clear, there would be many, many ways of handling the problem, and the members aren't ever going to get their panties in a knot.  The Mormons have conveniently issued more than enough paperwork over the years to easily have emptied their churches and caused the peons to rise up and burn all their edifices to the ground, but they have diluted it over 18 decades so far, and damn few in the church outside of the hierarchy have ever stood back and absorbed it all at once. Christians can control information in house as well as the Mormons can. And it's easy to blame outsiders for all manner of problems and motivations regardless of what they nail to the door of the church.

Here at AF, I note the christers get a pretty rough ride, and I accumulate all the arguments made against their positions.  The christers never look at the big picture, however.  You might get one to admit a minor defeat in a single skirmish, but they will never look over the entire mass of findings against them all at once, because if they do, they will come to our side.

It's how the game is played.

[Lemonvariable72]

I have Chritians stand strongly by their evidence of his existence. I'm curious how they can? Other than the bible can we find anything that points to this extremely important person in our world or is it all just overblown hero worship?

I know that the christian mind set wont ever change and they will stand on non proof instead of proof but still as an atheist i want to be sure that as of today there is no solid evidence of this figure.

Is there any proof that the Bible isn't just a well written historical fiction?

Is there proof that its well written?

[dyresand]

What nonsense.  There is not a single document mentioning Jesus that was originally written in his lifetime.  But there are documents mentioning important people of that era written during the time they were alive.  So the evidence for them is far greater than the evidence for Jesus.  Yet you ignore such facts now, so we can be pretty sure you will ignore facts in the future as well.

On a related note:

---

---

I see a lot of empty and unsupported assertions concerning Christ and the historical paper trail surrounding him. Do you have anything to go on besides your word? You by not providing any citations or any other proof of any kinda means, that because you have access to anti Christian commentary we are supposed to simply take you at your 'expert' word. Maybe this is how it works where you are from, but for those who genuinely think for themselves you need to be able to provide some primary or secondary source material to support those otherwise empty words.

Well lets see the historical evidence for a jesus figure really doesn't add up. The only time the jesus myth started to pop up was due to the council of Nicea. That being said Constantine had to create a religion for everyone to follow. This is the birth of christianity various myths compiled into one book I.E. the bible. And it worked because obvious you believe in said person existed. And if you had noticed look at the myths and christianity match up google Apollonius of Tayna even Krishna. Take a good look at Krishna because yahew the god you believe in is so heavily inspired by Krishna its not even funny. christianity really is modeled after the India's belief religion its not funny. The composite jesus the original jesus went to west india and had a family and bore a child through Mary Magdalene. That being said that jesus story was not very liked by the roman catholic church at all and was nearly destroyed but the jesus you believe in is different that one died the original lived. This is speaking from history christianity not original at all it is carbon copied except for jesus.

[loganonekenobi]

I'll cite how the Mormon's are handling their own problems with their church's history;

They release information in small dribbles at looooong intervals.  Clearly, if you dump too much truth about old conniving Joe Smith all at once, you're going to stir up a shit hemorrhage.  If that information dribbles out over 100 years, the church continues along just fine although there is a risk of outsiders (and the infrequent disgruntled insider)  keeping track of all the dirt and accumulating it, and releasing a large heap of it all at once.  Like the Tanners did.

You can discourage folks in  the pews from considering the implications of the released information too.  There is a phrase in Mormonism that keeps coming up in regards to church teachings, rules, dogma, strictures and edicts; the thinking has already been done.  See how easy that is?  Repeal permission to keep multiple wives, allow blacks to hold the priesthood, etc.  No one asks why there was a change, whether the church was in Error before, or if the church is in Error now simply because, obviously, all that has been worked out by the higher ups, already.

You can also 'indemnify' the pew warmers from the 'remote' possibility of official church 'Error'.  Just assure the sheeple if they follow a stricture, tenant or belief in good faith, God will allow for that if the church is actually promulgating a mistake.  God values the obedience more than perfection in observance of the actual rules.

Show trouble makers the door, but don't continue making a big deal of it.  For instance, many/most of the early witnesses to the Book of Mormon and various other issues were eventually excommunicated by the church hierarchy.  The church doesn't keep announcing so and so was excommunicated, but they will still keep listing him as a witness in the front of the Book of Mormon.  They can have it both ways by doing it this way.  Troublemaker is gone, and they are still apparently a witness to the gold plates, angels, miracles, whatever is needed.

Change the church history.  Inconveniently, Joe Smith made some incorrect prophecies, they are ignored or changed, and some prophecies that would have been really convincing had they been made prior to whatever an  event was, were simply written up later and back dated.

Trot out the apologists to say things like, "Well, if you could prove Joe Smith was convicted in the state of New York for money digging and swindling people, you would have disproved Mormonism".  And then when such proof is found, deemed incontrovertible, and presented to the church, the apologist never mentions that topic again. And the church continues.



So, if a Christian church was digging in a mid east archaeological site, or rooting around in their archive and found something or several somethings that disproved Christianity, I think it is clear, there would be many, many ways of handling the problem, and the members aren't ever going to get their panties in a knot.  The Mormons have conveniently issued more than enough paperwork over the years to easily have emptied their churches and caused the peons to rise up and burn all their edifices to the ground, but they have diluted it over 18 decades so far, and damn few in the church outside of the hierarchy have ever stood back and absorbed it all at once.  Christians can control information in house as well as the Mormons can.  And it's easy to blame outsiders for all manner of problems and motivations regardless of what they nail to the door of the church.

Here at AF, I note the christers get a pretty rough ride, and I accumulate all the arguments made against their positions.  The christers never look at the big picture, however.  You might get one to admit a minor defeat in a single skirmish, but they will never look over the entire mass of findings against them all at once, because if they do, they will come to our side.

It's how the game is played.

It is said that it is the best selling book in the world. Not to say It's a compleling book to me but it must be to a lot of other people.

[robvalue]

The problem with trying to prove Jesus didn't exist is that even the gospel authors didn't actually know who they were writing about. They couldn't have picked him out of a beardy leper-molesting line up. They just had a bunch of oral stories. So if even they didn't actually know which historical figure the "real" Jesus was, there's no way any of us can. We'd have to disprove every dribbly apocalyptic preacher within 100 years and 100 miles.

So Jesus rides that wave of the argument from ignorance into the sunset of... some other cool thing.

[Regina]

I think it's something that's too far back in history to categorically prove he "didn't" exist.

You can prove someone or something did exist through archealogical evidence, but you can't prove something didn't exist. All you can do is assume they didn't through lack of evidence, which is how I feel about Jesus.

That said, I could be brought around to the idea that there was a Jesus-like figure in Roman Judea, who rose up pacifistically against Roman rule, and was put to death for getting too popular. If such a person existed, their story was clearly twisted and exaggerated such that they eventually became "Jesus, son of God". However, even if this were true you'd think the Romans, as a literate culture, would have had some record of it.

[Drich]

I see a lot of empty and unsupported assertions concerning Christ and the historical paper trail surrounding him. Do you have anything to go on besides your word? You by not providing any citations or any other proof of any kinda means, that because you have access to anti Christian commentary we are supposed to simply take you at your 'expert' word. Maybe this is how it works where you are from, but for those who genuinely think for themselves you need to be able to provide some primary or secondary source material to support those otherwise empty words.

Well lets see the historical evidence for a jesus figure really doesn't add up. The only time the jesus myth started to pop up was due to the council of Nicea. That being said Constantine had to create a religion for everyone to follow. This is the birth of christianity various myths compiled into one book I.E. the bible. And it worked because obvious you believe in said person existed. And if you had noticed look at the myths and christianity match up google Apollonius of Tayna even Krishna. Take a good look at Krishna because yahew the god you believe in is so heavily inspired by Krishna its not even funny. christianity really is modeled after the India's belief religion its not funny. The composite jesus the original jesus went to west india and had a family and bore a child through Mary Magdalene. That being said that jesus story was not very liked by the roman catholic church at all and was nearly destroyed but the jesus you believe in is different that one died the original lived. This is speaking from history christianity not original at all it is carbon copied except for jesus.

ah.. no.

the commentary you plagerized is wrong sandy.

In the post you referenced I asked for source material from the person I was talking to. Do you not understand what this means? Maybe for someone like you (someone who lets other decide and think for them) more commentary is 'source material'. Because that is the primary source in which you get your information.

When I however ask for source material I want proof that their is or isn't anything available in this case before the nicea council. Like for instance you would start with when that council came to gether and provide supporting information like for example"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
The above link shows when the council met in 325 AD

So then the question becomes are their any extra biblical records before this Council? The answer like it or not is Yes. Below is a link to a list with links to the actual transcribed works:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesu...l#josephus

You see sandy when you take ALL of your information from commentaries, and not actual source material you are literally letting someone tell you/program you on how and what to think on a given topic. I know you LOVE youtube and think it is akin to the library of Congress with 'truth against God.' But in reality at best you are selling control of your mind to the person who can 'tickle your ears' just right, and has the best production value.

Do you see how what I did works, and what you did failed?? I provided links to actual historical texts that show your plagerized commentary to be at best inaccurate. Does truth not concern you? if it is at all important then why not seek it? why waist your time with all the crap commentaries you are constantly referencing?

[robvalue]

The prostate apologists barely manage to scrape together a half assed case for Jesus the Nobody, then switch in his powered up super Pokemon card and expect sceptics not to notice. Well, we notice.

Right. The idea that he made so little impact that no one wrote anything about him is very good evidence that there wasn't anything worth writing about. Ages later, all of a sudden people who never met him "remember" what happened and start writing it down.