Malachi151

What would be the nail in the coffin for Jesus historicity?

I was thinking about this, and I think that the thing that would certainly do the most damage would be irrefutable evidence of writings about "Jesus Christ" from before the 1st century CE.

Maybe such things don't exist, but this is pretty much the only thing I can think of that would really seal the case.

Others could argue that even if this were found people might argue that "Jesus" still existed, but the Gospels just go the story wrong, but I think this would be a pretty lethal blow.

Is there anything else anyone can think of?

TedM

If Jesus began as a mythical being, we have to ask "what kind of mythical being"?

IF the answer is "one that is portrayed as having lived on earth", then some pretty good proof that this being was mythical (ie, didn't really live on earth) might be the following:

1. Blatant misrepresentations of the culture and environment in which he is placed.
2. A lack of evidence (documents, archeology) reasonably expected given the description of him.
3. Evidence of either early understanding that such a character was understood or believed to have been mythical by some.


IF the mythical being was first represented as a god in the heavens, then pretty good proof would be:

1. A blatant lack of information about and evidence for earthly activities.
2. Concurrent in time with #1, a description of activities in the heavens.
3. Evidence of early understanding that such a character only resided in the heavens.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
A Signed confession from Jesus that he/He/she/they/it is Mythical or at least a Transubstantiation Revelation to Paul.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

I am of the opinion that the writings of Flavius Josephus, 'Wars of the Jews', 'Antiquities of the Jews' and 'The Life of Flavius Josephus' has completely destroyed the historicty of the so-called Jesus the Christ.

Josephus (b 37-100 CE) has, through silence, shown that there was no 'Jesus Movment', no new religous doctrine of the followers of Jesus the Christ challenging the Mosaic Laws, no followers of Jesus the Christ that were in constant opposition to the Pharisees, no prosecutions or persecution of followers of Jesus the Christ, no group or sect of Jesus the Christ that were miraculously raising the dead and healing all manner of diseases.

The most devastating statement to the historicity of Jesus the Christ comes from Flavius Josephus in 'The life of Flavius Josephus',

These passages from FJ have contradicted the book called Acts, and have demonstrated that Flavius Josephus, in his quest for religious experiences, never heard of any phenomena, with many thosands of followers, carrying out miracles in the middle of the street, and in constant conflict with the Pharisees, the very same sect that he was a part of.

We have the Jews under oppression during the life of Flavius Josephus, yet Josephus has no interaction, no discourse, no memorable event with respect to the the followers of the Messiah.

Could it be possible that an African American historian or writer born a few years after the death of Martin Luther King, writing on the history of the African Americal Civil Rights Movement and never mention the large marches and demonstrations organised by Martin Luther King when the historian himself was a member of a Civil Rights group? I think not.

Unless some other extra-biblical writing surfaces to contradict the 'works' of Flavius Josephus, then I consider the historicity of Jesus the Christ void. Jesus the Christ cannot be placed in history, he was fabricated from imagination.

Atheos

Not to sound flippant, but in my opinion it would be the same kind of evidence required to prove that Santa Claus never existed. It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.

Contradictions in the narratives (gospels) only demonstrate inconsistencies in the stories told about Jesus. It is possible to believe George Washington existed without believing that he chucked a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

The fact that there is no cooberating evidence of the more spectacular events allegedly ascribed to Jesus's life is a bit more compelling. It is reasonable to believe that many of these types of events would have left marks in history that could be verified. Such events include the "star" that led the wise men to the baby Jesus, the slaughter of the babies by Herod, the ridiculous decree that everyone migrate to the city of their ancestors to be counted for a census (which ancestral city do you have to migrate to?!?), the large hoardes of followers, the feeding of thousands of people with only a few morsels of food, the public trial, the crucifixion, the 3 hours of total darkness, the earthquake, the zombies walking around in Jerusalem, even the empty tomb itself. It is extremely unlikely that the first followers wouldn't have enshrined that tomb and marked it for all time. Yet none of these, or any number of other spectacular events left even the slightest trace of evidence that they happened.

Yet even in the face of all this, it is irresponsible to conclude that there never was a man behind the legends. It is only possible to debunk some (most) of the claims. Even if pre-1st century documents describing Jesus of Nazareth were to somehow be found it would only indicate that the dating of his life was in error. Apologists would quickly find other Herods, Pilates, etc., to account for the egregious anachronisms.

JMHO

Malachi151

aa5874: Good point, and thanks for bringing this passage, up, but how then do we explain Paul and Nero?

I think that the explanation here may be that "Christianity" developed in the diaspora and never had any roots in the area around Judea, the Judean roots just being a fabrication of the myth.

Sphincterboy

How about an authentic letter from the author of 'GMark' alluding to the fact that it was all purely allegorical. And maybe an admonition to not take it too seriously?

Mythra

How about if the gospel writers had included, in their accounts, outright physically impossible elements, and then attempted to pass them off as genuine events?

Oh, wait a minute. We already have those.

Nevermind.

Ideologist

Nothing, really. Any evidence could have a logical counter-argument; this is why it's so difficult to demonstrate a negative.

But then one could argue that it's a different one, just as people frequently argue that "Chrestus" is not necessarily Jesus Christ. Similarly, one could argue that the basic events of the Bible occurred, just with the wrong dates. Or, if one is spiritually inclined, one could say it is evidence that Jesus was prophetically foreshadowed.

See what I mean?

I don't think so; we already have many Christians who reject most of the Bible: I don't see why "having the dates different" would do much to them.

Again, certainly not proof that he didn't exist. This is, however, evidence that the text in question is in error.

What evidence would we expect given the description of him?

The basic things generally ascribed to Jesus are relatively common; a carpenter leading a millennialist cult with a few thousand (realistically) followers, who was crucified after stirring controversy and the like.

Now, since we're talking about questioning whether Jesus existed at all, I don't think it's too unreasonable for you to say that the Gospels may have been exaggerated in some respects (like the "many thousands of followers" in the Acts) and others may have been left out. This leaves us with, in all respects, a fairly minor figure.

Now, the relevant texts surviving from within a century of Christ are universally of three types;

- General histories, such as those of Tacitus and Josephus
- Fragmentary and incomplete Roman records, with little rhyme or reason for having survived
- Apologetic works by Christian authors

Now, of these, only the third indisputably contains mention of Jesus, with the first type possibly supporting Jesus' historicity (but that is another thread). The second, while not mentioning Jesus, does not mention very much at all. And since I know that most of you reject the apologetic works offhand, we're left with the question "why don't the other two mention Jesus?"

Again, I don't think the lack of surviving Roman records mentioning Jesus is substantial evidence for or against the existence of Jesus, because these records prove precious little. And I don't think there is a compelling reason for why they should have been preserved; a record saying "Jesus the heretic was crucified" is not terribly significant theologically, nor a good place to invest precious time compared to other works.

Now, the fact that no histories unambiguously reference Jesus is a problem, but this is not proof that Jesus does not exist; it is simply evidence that if he did exist, he was not viewed as significant enough to be included. So, I think the question that really has to be asked is "How significant was Jesus, and how significant would he need to be for inclusion?"

Why would this be proof? All it proves is that some did not believe him to have existed. Now, if it was demonstrated that a majority believed him to be allegorical there would be a case to be made, but I don't think that a small minority believing this would be proof any more than the small groups believing in Gnostic Christianity is proof that the original Christianity was Gnostic.

Again, lack of evidence does not prove anything; it proves that there is no evidence.

Is this a joke? If Jesus was doing anything, he must be something, which would mean that he exists in some form.

*yawn*

Or, at least, that it was sufficiently minor to not warrant mention.

Or, at least, that it was sufficiently minor to not warrant mention.

Or, at least, that it was sufficiently minor to not warrant mention.

Or, at least, that it was sufficiently minor to not warrant mention.

Or, at least, that it was sufficiently minor to not warrant mention.

He doesn't mention the Imperial Cult, either.

I once read a theory that Banos was a Christian ; I mean, I don't put much credence in it. But it's out there.

Nor, for that matter, does he mention what are assuredly many other Messianic cults in the region, nor the mystery religions we can find. This does not mean that they didn't exist.

This is a completely false analogy, for several reasons;

- Jesus was not leader of the "anti-Roman movement"
- Jesus was not followed by the vast majority in that movement
- Jesus' aim was not directly the overthrow of Rome

A more fair analogy would be "Is it possible that an African-American historian or writer born a few years after the founding of the Black Panthers, writing on the history of the African American Civil Rights Movement, never mentions the Black Panthers' actions?" The answer is yes; I've read such a history.

I don't think this is at all fair. You can't say that a figure is definitively fake simply because you don't have any contemporary evidence for him; you need some sort of evidence that he is fake. Otherwise, you're committing a logical fallacy; the fact that something has not been proven does not make it automatically false.

Et tu, brute?

Wait, Caesar is also said to have stated "kai su, teknon?" And also, "tu quoque, fili mi?"

Caesar must be false.

Moral: Contradictions are not proof that none are true.

You'd think, but not a lot of anything survived.

There's the speculation that it was a comet recorded by Chinese and Korean astronomers in 5 BC.

Josephus is regarded by some to have been biased toward Herod because of Nicholas of Damascus.

You mean the census mentioned by Josephus?

Exaggeration?

Where would this be recorded, again?

Who would have recorded this, again? You think Pontius Pilate would erect a monument saying I KILLED JESUS?

Not mentioned in John, though speculation includes that it was just a dust storm.

Lazarus, you mean?

Intentionally obscured by Jesus.

Notable how to Josephus?

...the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Which was a site of veneration until a Temple of Venus was built over it?

Thank you.

aa5874

You could not be refering to the 'Banos' in The life of Flavius Josephus. Banos was not described as a Christian.

There are theories that Jesus the Christ was fabricated from the writings of Flavius Josephus and I am begining to put credence to those theories.