Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[robvalue]

I think of Historical Jesus like an air bubble under the wallpaper.

[Lemonvariable72]

I actually agree with Jenny here, this argument is largely irrelevant as the bible figure most certainly did not exist.

[robvalue]

Indeed. The character, as written, did not exist. To say otherwise is, in my opinion at least, ludicrous.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I happen to fall into camp Carrier. I think the most likely explanation of Jesus of Nazareth's origins is that he's a humanized telling of an extant mythical character whose story didn't originally take place on Earth at all. I've also heard the theory that "Yeshua" (however you want to spell or pronounce it) was a common preacher's title and that Jesus of Nazareth was an amalgam if different preachers, and...yeah, whatever. Maybe that's got some weight; I haven't really looked into it. I realize Christ Mythicism isn't mainstream, but that isn't necessarily a comment on its validity. Consensus =/= Truth.

Any way you slice it, in my mind if you're talking about "Jesus of Nazareth," you're talking about the one from the gospels. Whether he was based on a former god character, a bunch of preachers from the same period/area, or a real guy who was really named Jesus of Nazareth (even though Nazareth wasn't a thing when he was supposed to have lived, but whatever), the fact remains that the term "Jesus of Nazareth" most often refers to the existence of a guy with magic powers and the ability to rise from the dead, and there is most certainly zero evidence that any such thing existed.

[Minimalist]

Still waiting to see if Ken Humphreys jumps in on this.

Honestly, an HJ who couldn't do any magic tricks is about as useful to jesus-freaks as a pair of balls on a cow.

[Aractus]

True but the historical Jesus has never been proven either.
Was there one, maybe, but there is no more proof for an actual non-magical Jesus as there is for a non-magical Harry Potter.
So it comes down to a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

Neither has the historical Hitler. Nothing can be proven. What I've said consistently is that the weight of evidence makes it more likely than not that Jesus existed, and the weight of evidence is enough to convince the vast majority of Historians in the field to find that Jesus was a historical person. I didn't say it proves it outright.

And it's not just a matter of opinion any more than Hitler as a historical person is a 'matter of opinion'. As I said in my last post, why waste your time on crackpot nonsense like the Jesus Myth Theory instead of focusing on valid points that Christians can't dispute (for example the condoning of ancient slavery)?

And hey you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say "there's not enough evidence to establish that Jesus existed" and then also say "oh and the evidence shows that the Exodus never happened either", because then a Christian will just use your own argument against you and say "nup there's not enough evidence to show that the Exodus didn't happen"... and you know what that's precisely the argument they use even though they're misinformed. So if you use the same misinformed argument it just goes to show your bias and uninformed knowledge of history and what constitutes evidence on a historical level. Not only that, but it shows that you don't understand why that argument is wrong: because it's wrong in both cases for the same reason. The clear evidence that shows that Exodus didn't happen is just as clear as the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a human being and had a short ministry c. 30AD before being executed by crucifixion.

Not to mention that the only people who support this hypothesis are unqualified crackpots that are not real scholars. You have to appeal to people who are unqualified to make an assessment of historical evidence to support this argument! It just makes you guys look really stupid. If sceptical scholars like Bart Ehrman say that people who support Jesus Mythers are unqualified because they aren't real scholars - which by the way he says here:

http://youtu.be/WUQMJR2BP1w

Then why are you taking an argument - that's at best a really bad one that you can't support with real academic content or evidence? What's the point of making (or supporting) such terrible arguments??

[Minimalist]

What I've said consistently is that the weight of evidence makes it more likely than not that Jesus existed,

And...for the umpteenth time, Danny, that "evidence" is?   What?

In my opinion it is the self-serving bullshit of early believers.  Sort of like the Ancient Aliens crowd of today.

[Aractus]

The evidence is:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.

Does that mean that everything within those documents is true? OF COURSE NOT and that's a strawman argument I've seen YOU and others make on many occasions. No ancient document is ever taken to be literal truth. It doesn't need to be 100% true to be evidence. In fact what the New Testament and so-called heretical documents show you is what the early Christians' beliefs about Jesus were. They believed that he had risen from the dead and had appeared to the 12. Now, that's not to say that the 12 believed that - because we don't have any authentication writings from the original 12 that say it, but it says the next generation or the one after believed that. Just as people believed all kinds of farcical things about Ned Kelly just 20 or so years after his execution; and yet those same documents also tell us truths about the man. They not only tell us facts, for want of a better word, but they also tell us about what some of the rumours and folklore had started.

Herodotus convinced historians that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slaves for over 2000 years - that was their only evidence. Does that mean we throw out every other peice of writing he made because of one monumental cock-up? NO.

[Aractus]

But oh please tell me about how Kenneth Humphreys is knows better than actual qualified historians. Perhaps while you're at it you can tell me all about how Ron Wyatt knows better than the likes of Israel Finkelstein and that the Egyptian chariot wheels from the Exodus are just waiting for someone to go and fish them out of the Red Sea, and not to mention that the Ark is in Turkey just waiting to be formally identified. Like I said you can't have it both ways, either Humphreys knows better than modern biblical scholars AND Wyatt knows better than modern archaeologists; OR they're both unqualified crackpots that don't know anything substantial about what they blabber on about.

Do you seriously not comprehend how monumentally absurd, stupid, irrational, nonsensical and hypocritical you sound when you pick and choose which unqualified idiot to listen to instead of the experts in the field?

And watch this everyone: Min - where's your evidence that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist?

[Redbeard The Pink]

The evidence is:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.

Does that mean that everything within those documents is true? OF COURSE NOT and that's a strawman argument I've seen YOU and others make on many occasions. No ancient document is ever taken to be literal truth. It doesn't need to be 100% true to be evidence. In fact what the New Testament and so-called heretical documents show you is what the early Christians' beliefs about Jesus were. They believed that he had risen from the dead and had appeared to the 12. Now, that's not to say that the 12 believed that - because we don't have any authentication writings from the original 12 that say it, but it says the next generation or the one after believed that. Just as people believed all kinds of farcical things about Ned Kelly just 20 or so years after his execution; and yet those same documents also tell us truths about the man. They not only tell us facts, for want of a better word, but they also tell us about what some of the rumours and folklore had started.

Herodotus convinced historians that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slaves for over 2000 years - that was their only evidence. Does that mean we throw out every other peice of writing he made because of one monumental cock-up? NO.

Ok, see, here's why Christ Mythers get so pissy with people who think he was historical: we get accused of having terrible arguments and terrible evidence, and yet mainstream historians have arguments and evidence of roughly the same caliber that we have. The only advantages they have in an argument arena are the fact that they're the consensus. That's it.

Mythicist historians like Carrier (of which there are admittedly few) can use the exact same evidence you just described to convincingly argue that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist without having to resort to conspiracy theory gymnastics and without having to misinterpret anything. Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s. Tacitus is pretty hotly disputed as well, and I've seen the language he uses; it's entirely reasonable to assume that the brief information he mentions about Christians was for the purpose of describing them and their beliefs, and not necessarily to record their beliefs as historical facts. He may have been documenting the existence of the Christians themselves, and in so doing had occasion to briefly describe their beliefs for anyone reading the text who didn't know already who the Christians were. This is, of course, entirely ignoring the camp that thinks he originally wrote "Chrestians" and that all the stuff about Jesus is forged.

As for the rest of that list, those are primarily scriptures of one brand or another that would have had occasion to mention Jesus and get parts of his known story right even if he were a totally fictional character. How many writings and stories are there about Odin? How many of those agree on various points of his story? Does that mean Odin was based on a real person, too?

Paul is especially interesting because if you take the writings of his that aren't forged and the one that was probably written by someone who knew him personally (Hebrews), there really is no definite mention of a human story for Jesus. He's only ever said to appear to anyone after his death and resurrection have already taken place, and the few vague passages that might mention his family could also be interpreted to mean his followers instead.

Evidence that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist? Am I reading that right? You do realize where the burden of proof is in this scenario, right? I do think there's some evidence that the character we know as Jesus of Nazareth is entirely fictional (some of which I've just described), but regardless of which claim is more accepted or even more likely, it is always up to the positive claim to prove itself because the nonexistence of something is basically unprovable unless you can demonstrate the object in question to be somehow impossible (like, for instance, a guy with magic powers who rises from the dead and grew up in a town that purportedly didn't exist until well after he was dead...or ascended to heeeven...or whatever). You're already calling us crackpots and arguing from popularity, and now this? Come on, man.