Jesus Christ Probably Did Not Exist

[Lemonvariable72]

I would say that there was A Jesus of nazereth actually. Just i think that he was a crazy rabi
The reason I think this is because of the obvious fakery around the birth story. Which leads me to the Question of if he was made up why the ridiculously overly complex and contradictory birth stories? No I think there was a Jesus that attracted a modest following, who was charismatic and suffered from a form sczihophrenia. Well the evidence for this is a touch thin (not non existent) but there is a plain precedent as we have observed this with even today with many modern Messiah's.
As for him being crucified that is unlikely, as the Romans practiced a huge degree of religious tolerance toward a large number of Jesus type characters that were very common at the time.

[Cyberman]

The one mentioned above is the false account. It's even contextually wrong, if I'm not mistaken. The second one mentions the brother of Jesus, so this could be about any old Joe from that time.

That second account, the Jamesian Reference, a partial interpolation itself, only ever gets trotted out because it rides on the coat-tails of the Testimonium Flavianum, which is an admitted and patently obvious forgery (partial or otherwise). So both references can be safely ruled out. Particularly since the Jesus that James is the brother of is the High Priest Jesus bar Damneus.

(Ref: here and here.)

I would say that there was A Jesus of nazereth actually. Just i think that he was a crazy rabi

Apart from the hisorical fact that there was no Nazareth until a couple of centuries later. A bit like saying Abraham Lincoln of Disneyland and with surprisingly close parallels. Except that Lincoln really existed, obviously.

[DeistPaladin]

The one mentioned above is the false account. It's even contextually wrong, if I'm not mistaken. The second one mentions the brother of Jesus, so this could be about any old Joe from that time.

In fact, the Jamesian Reference is to Jesus Bar Damneus.

[Lemonvariable72]

The one mentioned above is the false account. It's even contextually wrong, if I'm not mistaken. The second one mentions the brother of Jesus, so this could be about any old Joe from that time.

That second account, the Jamesian Reference, a partial interpolation itself, only ever gets trotted out because it rides on the coat-tails of the Testimonium Flavianum, which is an admitted and patently obvious forgery (partial or otherwise). So both references can be safely ruled out. Particularly since the Jesus that James is the brother of is the High Priest Jesus bar Damneus.

(Ref: here and here.)

I would say that there was A Jesus of nazereth actually. Just i think that he was a crazy rabi

Apart from the hisorical fact that there was no Nazareth until a couple of centuries later. A bit like saying Abraham Lincoln of Disneyland and with surprisingly close parallels. Except that Lincoln really existed, obviously.

Well what's surprising about a hamlet in a very backwards part of the world escaping mention. If the Jesus character is made up and they wanted people to believe, then why wouldn't they say Jesus of Bethlehem, instead of making a place that didn't exist and thus make the lie harder to believe

[Cyberman]

Don't swallow the xtian pill that says it's too fantastic not to be true. It's all rather involved and I'm sure DP and Min can fill in the gaps, but the name Nazareth probably derives from Netzer (iirc), meaning root or branch. Basically an offshoot of an earlier sect (the Essenes?) of religious ascetics. Something like that anyway.

By replacing 'city of Nazareth' with 'small obscure hamlet' or similar, you run smack into the wall of JC being an infamous rabble-rouser who pissed off the Romans to the exent they conspired with the Jewish elders to break their own sacred traditions and have him tried and executed on one of their most holy days - pause for breath - while at the same time he was obscure enough to have completely escaped the notice of history.

Apart from which, Josephus never mentions the place yet writes about precisely those tiny hamlets barely a few miles away from the modern city. Didn't he wage a campaign in the area as well? Seems he ought to have noticed.

[DeistPaladin]

Personally, I've come to regret the amount of time and energy I've spent on the Jesus Never Exited debate. It's not because I'm convinced there was some kind of poorly-defined "some religious leader named Yeshua" that was the basis for later deification and fanciful myths. Neither is it because I have now any less respect for Humphreys, Price and others who do champion that position. It's more a matter of time management.

I now focus my attention on the Bible and what a crock it is. After all, it really makes no difference to us whether or not there was "some guy named Yeshua". The real question is "Are the Gospels based on a true story?"

Bart Ehrman and all his "historists" are welcome to sit in their ivory towers chasing through dusty tomes after their precious "The Historical Jesus" for all I care. I shall not disturb their devotion.

I would like to ask them, "What, if anything, we can ever know about this guy and what do we base this knowledge on?".

Yeshua was a common name. Doomcriers and messiah wannabes were found on every street corner in Judea. I have little doubt that if your only criteria for "The Historical Jesus" are these traits during the 1st century CE, you could likely find several to fit the bill. To quote Thomas Paine, "it could be so, and what then?"

We have no writings from this guy, not even attributed unlike with "Paul" and "Moses" (though I also suspect pseudo-epigraphy in these cases but still, at least we have written works with the claim of their authorship). We have no way of knowing what his teachings were. Since we discard the miracles, we've pretty much gutted the Gospel stories. Since the supposed earth-shaking, popular, controversial and fabulously successful ministry generated no attention outside JC's following, it stands to reason that the ministry, if it existed, was in fact so small and insignificant as to escape anyone's notice. What's left?

But then I get caught up in the "scholars say" shuffle and wind up wasting a lot of time riding that predictable merry-go-round.

So fine, these "historists" insist there simply MUST be a "historical kernel" to be found in the Gospels but we just don't know what. It reminds me of the joke about the kid who gets a room full of horse manure for Christmas and excitedly tells everyone, "Santa got me a pony for Christmas. I just haven't found him yet." Let them have it. It seems to make them happy or something.

My focus is now on the Bible. The Christians have never told a coherent story. Their Jesus was born before 4 BCE AND after 6 CE. After his put-down of John the Baptist, he immediately went to the wilderness for 40 days AND stayed for a few days to gather disciples and attend a wedding. He was crucified in 28 CE (John), a year before JtB even started his ministry AND in 36 CE (synoptics). He rose up into the sky the day of his resurrection AND 8 days after his resurrection AND 40 days after his resurrection. The "whats", "whens" and "wheres" all vary wildly depending on which version of the story you read and yet none of them are wrong.

Ehrman can have his "mortal Jesus" who is an enigma wrapped in a mystery buried hopelessly under a mountain of myth. I am certain that Jesus Christ, the wonder-working godman, never existed, and that's what really matters.

[Cyberman]

I so get what you mean. It does get so disheartening when the same things keep jumping up again and again, no matter many times or how resoundingly one keeps smashing them down. It's like Whack-A-Mole from hell.

[DeistPaladin]

Well what's surprising about a hamlet in a very backwards part of the world escaping mention. If the Jesus character is made up and they wanted people to believe, then why wouldn't they say Jesus of Bethlehem, instead of making a place that didn't exist and thus make the lie harder to believe

Good question.

It's important to remember that nobody "just made up Jesus one day." The development of the story can be seen in the Bible itself if you read the NT books in the order in which they were written.

The choice of Nazareth may be a misunderstanding of the OT passage "he shall be a nazirite (pure, consecrated, holy) from birth", a reference to Sampson, who destroyed the Philistines with his strength. The Jews of the time were looking for their messiah who would similarly destroy the Romans. Some of the early ideas of Jesus may have been teased out of OT passages, as Paul himself claims in the much vaunted Creed of 1Cor 15 that he understood that Jesus had risen again, not because of recent history but "according to the scriptures".

OT scripture was mixed in with the "pagan" religions of the surrounding areas. A bit from Persia (Mithras) a bit from Egypt and a bit from Greece. Since Jesus was a strange brew of these different influences, there should be no surprise that odd elements appear in his story, elements that would have been omitted by someone writing a work of fiction.

[DeistPaladin]

I so get what you mean. It does get so disheartening when the same things keep jumping up again and again, no matter many times or how resoundingly one keeps smashing them down. It's like Whack-A-Mole from hell.

Especially when the moles are the "historists" like Ehrman who have been valuable to my education of the Bible and how much it's changed and been subject to pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation. Heck, I learned those very terms from Ehrman. But questioning if there's even a historical kernel to be found causes them to run to the side of the Fundies and defend their free ride.

So I now say, "Peace, I don't want to fight you. Here's your binky back. Now go play with your ancient parchments."

[AtheistCreed]

When Jesus ascended to heaven, all of the court records went up there with him.

God has power over all things.

God is also the master of hide and seek. If he doesn't want to be found, you will not find him.