Derek Spiewak

My $0.02...

There is only one source of information about Jesus the Christian figure: the Bible. So there's no point in arguing about the existence of this Jesus or that Jesus. There is only one Jesus.

The only suitable testimony description of Jesus comes from the 4 gospels, and would consist of only those facts upon which all 4 gospels concur, and that's not much information to go on. Furthermore, the Bible itself has two strikes going against it: not only is it unreliable as purely a source of information (here I cite the differences between the 4 gospels, and the notable historical and scientific errancy in the text), but it is also literature engineered specifically with the intent of proselytizing a religion based on Jesus -- i.e., it is purely propaganda, with no scholarly ambitions evident in the text. Furthermore, it's been demonstrated that a few of Jesus' core teachings are evident in earlier Jewish theology, and the more extraordinary claims about his life are evident in the myths of other regions under the control of Rome. This would actually give credence to the picture of Christianity as a plagiarized religion, engineered by committee, with specific intent to alter the political landscape of Rome (and thus putting the Christian mythical explanation at a natural disadvantage due to the principle of parsimony).

Aside from the Bible, there are no other texts that qualify as historical about Jesus. No other contemporary writers comment on Jesus. Nobody wrote about him in the time he was alive, and those that supposedly wrote about him in the years after his death either did so based on hearsay or were proven to be fraudulent (Josephus comes to mind), and therefore cannot qualify as evidence of Jesus' existence.

As rational people we must be in a position of non-belief about the existence of Jesus until it is suitably demonstrated otherwise.

Of course, you've probably all heard this before.

Not_Registered

I realize this, but I am not sure if this really says anything. This is one of the questions I had. I wonder if, at the time of Jesus' "supposed" existence, most people (other than kings or others of high importance) had records that proved their existence or if others were written about by their contemporaries. If not then the fact that there is no other text about Jesus from people of his time really isn't saying much. That would be like saying someone 20 years ago didn't have a cell phone. Well most people didn't have a cell phone then so emphasizing that one person didn't have one isn't saying much. I'm not sure though, it might be the opposite that most people have records of there existence from Jesus' time. If there are a few kings and people of high importance that have records that really isn't adequate amount of evidence because Jesus was just a carpenter, and (outside of a group of people) He was not someone of high importance. That is my opinion though. I am not sure on the records of people back than and if there is really any proof of many specific people at all, that lived during Jesus' time period. But, this is why I posted this thread. To acquire various information and knowledge on the topic.

Toto

Josephus wrote a history of the time that mentions people of no great signficance who caused disturbances in Jerusalem. You would expect to find a mention of Jesus there if Jesus had in fact created even a fraction of the impact that the gospels describe. For example, Josephus mentions several rebel leaders, and a nutcase also named Jesus who did nothing more than wail that Jerusalem would be destroyed.

But the longer reference to Jesus has clearly been either entirely forged or at least interpolated to the point where it is not reliable evidence; and a shorter reference is so brief it could be the result of a copying error on the part of a scribe or another forgery.

The references to Josephus are heavily debated because Christians need a reference there to maintain that there is a historical basis for Jesus that even secularists should recognize.

You can find a number of online references on Peter Kirby's page on Josephus

offa

Not_Registered
New User


Join Date: May 2004
Location: U.S.
Posts: 40 Jesus' existence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. -- And I'm talkin about reasons with substance. Not "because
someone told me" or "because I've never seen him". Also, this is about
Jesus' existence...NOT God's.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to www.amazon.com and look for "Jesus the Man."

This board (Internet Infidels) is very fundamentally sound. Doherty
is wrong on his basic assertion that Mark was written first,
when, in fact, John was written first. This inductive flaw of
his eliminates him as a credible source. In order to reach my
conclusions you have to invest in abstract thought. Get away from
fundamentalism. With abstract knowledge you can eliminate foolish
discussions such as the "Virgin birth", Noah's Flood, and "Moses in
Egypt". When you use abstract thought and throw away the junk, you
gain knowledge.

Jesus was born in 7 b.c.e., he was a Samaritan (but Samaria was
located between the Dead Sea and Jerusalem ... not north of
Jerusalem). Jesus used a solar calendar as opposed to a lunar
calendar (moon god Sin, sin no more). Jesus was crucified in 33 a.d.
because of his association with Simon Magus (Lazarus, i.e., Simon of
Cyrene). Jesus' spouse, Mary Magdalene, gave birth to a daughter a
few days after the crucifixion. She would later have a son and
another daughter. She would then leave him creating a divorce scandal.
Jesus will die before the Jewish War of 70 a.d. Since Simon Peter died
before Jesus it has been rumored that the bones of St. Peter are
actually Jesus' bones.


Offa

infinity

my opinion of a jesus in a biblical context is about the same as my opinion as christopher columbus in an american history textbook context.
columbus was not, as most schools would lead you suspect, some genius who sailed off from france searching for the new world, who then discovered a land no one had ever seen before and befriended its native savage population and joined it in peaceful unity with europe. columbus was, in fact, an opportunist who mostly rode on the ideas of other people, accidently bumbled into something he didn't expect, and directly lead to the subjugation, enslavement, and eventual near extinction of a culture.

in the same way, i would think that there was most likely some guy named jesus who either said a lot about his idea of god, or perhaps even claimed to be a messiah... who got a following enough that people wrote some fiction based loosely on events that may or may not have happened, and 2000 years of the elementary school game 'telephone' later, we have christianity

Dean Anderson

I've never heard the theory that John was written before Mark from any source until now.

Where does this theory come from - and what is the supporting evidence?

Where did you get this information? I am interested in reading your sources.

Rumoured by whom?

miata

A famous quote by John Maynard Keynes reads:

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."

Sven

If you phrase it this way - then, yes, it's very likely that one man named Jesus existed and preached around 2000 years ago. Why? I already explained this above: "There've been many preachers, and as far as I know, Yeshua (sp?) was a common name."
Now: So what?

CX

Our good friend Offa is a devotee of the illustrious Barbara Thiering who has some unconventional ideas with respect to biblical criticism. If you really don't have anything better to do you might read some of her work for the sheer entertainment value.

Not_Registered

I see there are many who lean more towards the possiblity of there not being a historical Jesus. I'm wondering, if so, why so many like yourself spend so much time become learned about the teachings, life, influence, etc. of a fictional being? Some people, not all but some, seem to know more than anyone I've ever came in contact with, including ministors and such, and yet don't even believe that the man which they know so much about even existed in the first place. Just seems like a lot of wasted time and energy to me. Not for all, but for the people who don't even believe Jesus ever existed.