TedM

I won't pretend I don't believe there aren't sinister reasons why people here argue--sometimes in the most twisted and distorted ways--against existence of a historical Jesus. I think many would LOVE for Christians to discover that their "savior" never even walked this earth, revealing to them how dumb they are.

However, I also believe that others here sincerly are convinced by some actual evidence or lack thereof that Jesus probably never did walk this earth. It is to those that I pose this question:

What do you find to be the most compelling reasons to conclude that some preacher named Jesus never lived, never was crucified, and never was considered to have been resurrected by the early believers? A top 2 or three reasons would suffice.

ted

dog-on

Historical Jesus is a "made-up" character.

Paul's Christ is already quite divine, no case for a wandering rabbi there.

The "fictional/mythical" Jesus can agree with the gospel Jesus in every respect, no need to make up anybody.

Roman Mark simply adding a back story for the edification of Roman Paul's flock, or any of a myriad of other possibilities are just as likely as your story.


...

mountainman

Hi Ted,


RE: Fourth century invention

(1) The relational integrity of the ancient historical evidence.
(2) Knowing a tree - a top-down emperor cult - by its fruit
(intolerance and persecution of "other beliefs")
(3) The existence of political parody at Nag Hammadi by
ascetic priests dispossessed of their heritage (and lives).


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

TedM

That's not evidence.

That's not evidence against a historical Jesus either.

Ok.

That's not evidence.

Any evidence of that?


So, as I read you, you base this entirely on the writings of Paul, and prefer to interpret all of his references to a man, flesh and blood, with brothers as something other than what it literally reads like. Correct?

ted

TedM

Ie, you interpret a lack of integrity in some documents as evidence of specific creation of a historical Jesus? Isn't that quite a jump?

Isn't that quite general also? How does that reveal evidence against a historical Jesus?


I'll need some specific evidence showing how that argues against a historical Jesus.

Thanks,

ted

Headache

The correct question to ask is if there are any evidence to support a historical Jesus, not the other way around.

So, what should be asked is: "Do you have any evidence to support a historical Jesus?"

TedM

There is plenty more of that than the alternative, so I prefer my question, and will not change it. I just want to know what people have as evidence OTHER than objections to evidence for his existence.

For example, I have yet to see much at all in the way of evidence for the "creation" of a historical Jesus, which is what would have happened had Jesus not been historical.

ted

dog-on

You asked:

I may have been unclear, but I believe the sum total of my argument is that there is no evidence for the HJ you are describing. What you are doing is mining out the plausible from an otherwise implausible story. Fine, but these tid-bits, in themselves, do not serve as any kind of valid historical evidence for the HJ you are espousing.

My view requires no additional information. I take the gospels at face value, (to be the fiction that they obviously are). I do, as you indicate, have a more radical approach to the epistles, which I believe where originally Marcionite documents and were part of Marcion's canon which preached a different God then the Jewish one.

Geetarmoore

You can't have evidence for nothing.

You can only have evidence for something, and there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

What we do have are documents written by people who weren't eyewitnesses or even acquaintances, that look quite strange in the light of the astonishing lack of actual evidence.

I think we're dealing with probabilities of existence, and the probability isn't anywhere near 50/50 that a person who matches the gospel accounts of Jesus actually existed. As for there being a person who once said some of the things attributed to Jesus, but doesn't otherwise match the Gospel Jesus; Does this really qualify as 'the Jesus' that we're talking about? I say no.

dog-on

Evidence of what?

Whether both Mark and Paul were Romans?


Or that Mark's gospel is a back story?