Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Minimalist]

The only evidence that the BJ or HJ crowd has are the self-serving...including edited/forged...writings of early believers.

That is worth next to nothing.

Well, not only is that false but you seem to have invented your own unscientific method for studying history. So, it's also ignorant.

Says the guy who fell, hook, line and sinker for Habermas' sophistry.  Sorry, Nestor.  You lost a lot of credibility with that one.

[kenhumphreys]

Well howdy doo folks!

My ears began to burn and I see some sweet-tongued critters are happily off-loading the predictable crapola of unsupported assertions, ad hominem attacks and infantile abuse. 
Such a joy!

Well, in the unlikely possibility that someone out there wants to engage in a rational discussion of the arguments both for and against the existence of the famed Jesus of Nazareth, I shall try very hard to find time over the next few weeks to drop into this thread and add my own 5 cents worth.

But if not, the children can continue to play and I'll retreat back into my cave.

You all have a good day now

Ken Humphreys

[robvalue]

Hello Ken

I think it's fairly significant that his name certainly wasn't Jesus, so there was no Jesus of Nazareth. This makes Jesus fictional instantly and we're already just looking for inspirations for his character.

I'm starting to think "Jesus of Nazareth" is about as poorly defined as "God", it means pretty much what anyone wants it to mean and so it's not a very meaningful general question. Was there some numb nuts who went around preaching and got executed for causing problems? Sure, hundreds of them probably.

Some people certainly seem to have an emotionally charged connection to this "Jesus" figure being somehow real (among atheists I mean) which I can't quite understand. To me it's an interesting historical point and nothing more. The evidence is so sparse and so poor that we have just about fuck all idea as far as I'm concerned.

[Aractus]

Well howdy doo folks!

My ears began to burn and I see some sweet-tongued critters are happily off-loading the predictable crapola of unsupported assertions, ad hominem attacks and infantile abuse. 
Such a joy!

Well, in the unlikely possibility that someone out there wants to engage in a rational discussion of the arguments both for and against the existence of the famed Jesus of Nazareth, I shall try very hard to find time over the next few weeks to drop into this thread and add my own 5 cents worth.

But if not, the children can continue to play and I'll retreat back into my cave.

You all have a good day now

Ken Humphreys

No thanks, you're a quack.

[Cyberman]

Yay, you made it! Great to see you, old friend! Pull up a theist and let's get this roasting started!

[robvalue]

Robvalue's personal checklist of doom

Let's see who agrees with me on these points.

1) Is Jesus of Nazareth, as written in the bible, a real person?

No.

2) Was there an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth who it could have been based on?

No.

3) Was there anyone alive at the appropriate time who could very roughly correlate on a few points of the story?

Most likely hundreds.

4) Did the gospel authors intend to write a historically accurate account?

No.

5) Did they intend to base the story, at least in part, on a single historical figure?

Unclear. It's certainly possible, and could be seen to add a certain amount of credibility.

5) a) If yes, could they be reasonably sure that the oral stories passed over several decades (however accurate) were about a single person and not several rolled into one?

No.

6) Were the gospel authors in the business of making things up and/or believing obviously mythical stories?

Yes.

7) In addition to any actual historical figure, did they draw inspiration from "Celestial Jesus"?

Unclear, but somewhat likely. The similarity between Jesus and many previous mythical figures is striking also.

8) How much of the biblical Jesus account is fiction/untrue/distorted into myth?

Unclear. The authors are so incredibly unreliable, and their sources so bad (not to mention the following years of errors and edits), that I'd put this as somewhere between 70% and 99%.

[Secular Elf]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

I did a video on this.

It simply puts a timeline on a chart.

But, since I am not allowed to post links until I have been here for 30 days ...
if anyone wants to see it they will have to search YouTube for:

"Was Jesus a myth" by Scott Savage.

I checked out your video Scott and I think it is well done.  So I will post it for you,  this should be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s

It is interesting how Early Christian literature did not start until the latter part of the 1st Century CE, well after the death of a supposed Jesus of Nazareth.  I wrote an essay about Early Christian History for myself to organize what I had read about the subject.  I did a cursory chart of all the extant Christian literature, tried to find it earlier but as of yet not put my hand on it.  Might have to do another one.  In any case I would like to post it in this thread.

John Romer's "Testament: The Bible and History" is a good source (the documentary vid and book) for how Judaism and Christianity evolved.  Here is a 12 minute clip from an episode about Christian literature:

Testament: The Bible And History, Episode 4 Gospel Truth? (part 2, 1 of 2):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQrUlj8Vz_c

Of course we should remember that there was a lot, a LOT of literature flying around the Early Christian communities of the Mediterranean during the latter part of the 1st and early part of the 2nd Centuries CE.  It was not until Marcion that an actual formal grouping, or canon, of any New Testament was ever organized (in 144 CE); he called it the Gospel of the Lord, we know it today as the Gospel of Marcion.  Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman Church for his efforts: Marcion of Sinope, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

[Aractus]

I checked out your video Scott and I think it is well done.  So I will post it for you,  this should be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s

It is interesting how Early Christian literature did not start until the latter part of the 1st Century CE, well after the death of a supposed Jesus of Nazareth.  I wrote an essay about Early Christian History for myself to organize what I had read about the subject.  I did a cursory chart of all the extant Christian literature, tried to find it earlier but as of yet not put my hand on it.  Might have to do another one.  In any case I would like to post it in this thread.

I just watched that video, as I expected it's incorrect. The non-historicity of the nativity does not negate the historicity of Jesus's ministry for one thing. For another, You do not know exact dates when any of the writings were made, and this is especially true for the Gospels. Claiming they all came after all of Paul's letters is wrong - it's conjecture. There's no mention that the Epistle of James could well pre-date any of Paul's epistles - and almost certainly predates the First Jerusalem Council in AD49 (Acts 15), seeing as how Jewish the epistle is. While I agree that Mark comes after Galations, I do not agree at all that it comes after Paul's last epistle. In fact the biggest problem with dating the synoptic gospels is determining whether Mark came first or whether Matthew came first. The fact that some 97% of Mark is found in Matthew seems to indicate that it came first, but if this is the case then why is Matthew so much more Jewish? It's a question that plagues all serious scholars to this day.

The book of Acts could have been written as late as 65AD. The last event in Acts happens in 61 AD and the book from chapter 13 to the end is contemporary - so the author experienced some of the events dating from AD49-61AD first-hand. People have proposed dates for the book ranging from 60AD right through to 150AD.

Many scholars make the argument that the 70AD siege of Jerusalem prophesied by Jesus TWICE in Luke prove that the Luke was written sometime after 70AD. This pushes the authorship of Acts to around 80-90AD. But the problem with this theory then becomes the fact that the Author is writing clearly about events in 49AD as a contemporary, and providing the detail that goes with it. Now as you mention in your video there are certainly historical inaccuracies here and there in the gospels - for instance Luke places Jesus's nativity during a census that happened in 6AD because he has mistakenly believed the census to have happened earlier. Matthew and Acts describe two different fates for Judas and the Field of Blood. This is consistent with the Author relying on other information to reconstruct historical events. Nothing from Acts 13 on however is contradicted by other historical findings - completely consistent with a contemporary author who was writing about recent events that they themselves had memory of. But once you push the authorship to 80-90AD then you are saying the events in Acts 13-28 happened 19-41 years before the book was written, and specifically that the events of Acts 15 happened 31-41 years before it was written. Acts ends in 61AD with Paul under house arrest, if it was really written in 80-90AD then why did it stop there? The outcome of Paul's earlier legal troubles are mentioned in detail in Acts. Also, why is there no mention of the mid-60's persecution under Nero? Why is there no mention of the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD? Why is there no mention of the deaths of James, Peter, or Paul? Noting of course that Josephus recounts the death of James just a couple of years later if you favour the later death, and that Acts does indeed record the deaths and martyrdom of other Christians.

Furthermore the date can't be pushed beyond 90AD either because then there's the question of why did the Author not mention Paul's epistles?

I remain convinced that Acts is written sometime between 61-65AD as it fits the internal and external evidence best. You well know my answer to Jesus's prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem - he made the prophecy and it came to pass. But, his prophecy was just saying the same thing that had happened before would happen again, and others have pointed out, Jerusalem was a walled city - it would only ever be taken either by siege or by burning it to the ground, and the Roman army would not have burned it. If it hadn't been destroyed in 70AD it would have been in 135AD which was the next time the Romans took the city by siege. Had the 70AD one never occurred than there would no one who could claim today that the gospels were written after the siege had already happened. As far as prophecies go this one is not even a lucky guess - it was more likely than not to have happened sometime in the future when Jesus said it. If Jesus had specifically said when it was going to happen then it would have been a really impressive prophecy that would re-convince me of his divinity - however he didn't give this detail. If the gospels were written after 70AD they could have included that detail, but they didn't.

So here are my reasons to believe that Jesus made the prophecy: 1. He makes it twice not once. 2. It is not an addition to the text, it's a genuine part of each of the three synoptic gospels. 3. He claimed to be the Messiah so it'd be very likely that he would have made prophetic claims as a part of his ministry. 4. It did not require him to be genuinely prophetic to make the prophecy.

So you cannot claim to know specifically when the books were written (aside from Paul's epistles which can be quite reliably dated). Even though I prefer an early date - I have to admit a later date is also possible and can't be ruled out entirely. Just as scholars who prefer a later date cannot rule out an earlier one. That's why there is debate and why there isn't a consensus view - not even close to one. What you commonly hear is that the 80-90 AD date is preferred by a majority of critical scholars, and that appears to be true - it's preferred they don't claim it to be a firm answer at this point. If Acts was written in around 61-65AD then it could have been written before some of Paul's later epistles. So much for the theory about everything being based on Paul's writings.

[GrandizerII]

I checked out your video Scott and I think it is well done.  So I will post it for you,  this should be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s

It is interesting how Early Christian literature did not start until the latter part of the 1st Century CE, well after the death of a supposed Jesus of Nazareth.  I wrote an essay about Early Christian History for myself to organize what I had read about the subject.  I did a cursory chart of all the extant Christian literature, tried to find it earlier but as of yet not put my hand on it.  Might have to do another one.  In any case I would like to post it in this thread.

The non-historicity of the nativity does not negate the historicity of Jesus's ministry for one thing.

In fact, the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke point to a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Each of the account goes out of its way to make Jesus as being born in Bethlehem to fulfill the Micah prophecy and yet end up being raised in Nazareth out of all the villages. Why not keep him in Bethlehem if Jesus was nothing but a myth?
Mythicists do not seriously consider questions like this one from what I keep seeing.

[robvalue]

To those sort of questions, I would respond that they may have done so simply to give the illusion of truth. People can be sneaky. Analyzing their motivations is a choppy business. (I don't feel the need to identity as anything, I simply have my own conclusions as per my checklist.)

Wow, I thought my checklist was going to cause a shitstorm