Dutch_labrat

Nobody can know for sure, there just isn't any conclusive data. What we do miss is any concrete reason to assume he did. The existence of christianity proofs nothing, after all the existence of scientology is no proof Xenu ever was a real person.

If you look at how modern cults and religions came to be it seems that a large foloowing can indeed be build on absolutely nothing at all. There is much we cannot know about early christianity but there is no reason to postulate an actual Jesus Christ.

cgordon

If there was a singular person upon whom the Jesus legends are based, that individual (or more likely those individuals, as messiahs and such seem to have been a dime a dozen in those days) probably bore very little resemblance to the JC of the Bible (and that JC bears little resemblance to the picture most of his followers have of him in their heads).

show_no_mercy

Jesus is never called "Joshua" in the Talmud. It seems he's called the Hebrew-ized version of the Greek Iesou which would be Yesu.

motorhead

I would change the title of this thread to not include "Christ". As you may well know, Christ was not the last name of Jesus. Everyone knows it was Finklestein.

I am largely convinced there is a historical person behind the sayings and actions in the canonical gospels. How much of those sayings and actions (generally speaking, not as literally written) go back to the actual Jesus is up for debate.

Spanky

I voted strongly disagree. Myth is myth is myth.

Atheos

Did an angel named Moroni really lead Joseph Smith to find the golden plates he had buried in a hillside? If Moroni wasn't real how was Mormonism born?

If Hercules wasn't real how were all the legends about him born?

In my opinion this is just about the weakest argument for the historicity of Jesus.

I doubt there ever was a historical character at the core of the Jesus myth. I'm certain that if there was a historical person his story has been greatly exaggerated. There would be evidence of the odd circumstances surrounding his birth narrative (i.e., Herod ordering babies to be killed and Quirinius ordering everyone to migrate to the land of their ancestors to be counted for taxation purposes -- an absolutely absurd order). There would be some first hand evidence of the incredible feats he performed - like feeding thousands of people with five loaves and two fish. Yet not one scrap of evidence exists that anyone noticed these remarkable events when they supposedly happened.

I'm equally dubious that there were an actual set of "12 disciples".

Suggesting that christianity couldn't have been born without a historic "christ" carries about the same weight as suggesting Judaism couldn't have been born unless there was an actual 10 plagues of Egypt and an associated Exodus.

Vinnie

God made him Joe Christ's non-biological, biological son by using his seed to impregnate Mary with his own Son whom he then bestowed custody to Joe Christ. Pantera was the runner up. He got an extra hundred years of life and a paid trip for four to Rome where he met this guy named Celsus at a pub and made up a bunch of stories out of his bitterness.

Vinnie

Newfie

Why can't he be both: A living guy named Jesus that people have built a Christ myth around? Mythical and legendary elements are often attached to real people. To what degree, for example, was Davy Crockett king of the wild frontier? Did Davy really kill himself a bear when he was only three?

aa5874

The data is indeed conclusive that Jesus of the NT did not exist.

The authors of the NT and Church writers presented the data.

Look at the data.

1. Matthew 1.18--Now, the birth of Jesus was on this wise, when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

We have data about the birth of Jesus, and the data is conclusive that such a birth is implausible.

The implausible birth is internally attested by the author of gLuke.

2. Luke 1.34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the angel........ said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

There is conclusive data that Jesus of the NT was an implausible entity.

There is data about his transfiguration, an implausible event, internally attested multiple times.


Matthew 17:2 -
[u]And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Mark 9:2 -
And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

The data is conclusive, Jesus of the NT was implausible.


There is data about the resurrection, an implausible event, internally multiple-attested.

Mt 28:6 -
He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Mark 16:6 -
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified, he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:6 -
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee.

The data is conclusive. Jesus of the NT was implausible.

There is data about the ascension of Jesus, an implausible event, multiple-attested in the NT.

Mark 16.19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God

Luke 24:51 -
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Acts 1.9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight.

The data is conclusive. Jesus of the NT was implausible.

And then there is the Gospel of John with a revised and even more implausible description of Jesus.

John 1.1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus of the NT was implausible. He never did exist in the 1st century as described by the authors of the NT and the Church writers.

The data is conclusive.

Vinnie

So the Jesus of the NT did not exist, what about the Jesus behind the NT?

Vinnie