Did Jesus really exist?

[Popol Vuh]

Or is he one of several mythological beings throughout ancient history who's story is nearly exactly the same as other mythological beings?

Here's a video excerpt I ripped from a DVD I have: Better to "right click and save as"

Viewing this time-line raises a lot of doubt with me to the validity of the Jesus story.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. It's pretty hard to find information

from folks who have no agenda one way or the other. I personally try and read both sides.

For me, I believe after a lot of reading and viewing, that the historical Jesus existed. Whether he was the Son of God is up to each individual heart and soul. I personally wouldn't dream of trying to affect someone's belief either way, because we are all accountable for our own lives, beliefs, etc. It's about the only privacy we have left!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Is it from "The God Who Wasn't There" ?

It's in my queue at Netflix, and it still says 'very long wait' :(

[Popol Vuh]

32. Yes

Sorry, I was in a rush to go pick up a friend when I posted this and forgot to post a pic of the DVD.


DVD

[patrice]

3. It doesn't matter.

Truth is inevitable by definition, in spite of Error. His Message was more important than He was. Yes, in this case the Messenger is/was the Message, so I think of him as a Physical Archetype, i.e. with genetically shared living Attributes, in the Family of Man. It's that living message that he points us toward, not himself specifically, and certainly not Exclusively!

[madrchsod]

4. yes he did

i`d compare him to Mandala,King,and Gandhi because each were a prophet in their own time and place.

[DeaconNoGood]

41. Martin Luther King.........

never claimed to be a "prophet". Who filled you head with this ah, ah, "knowledge"?

Martin Luther King was a Baptist preacher and preached Jesus Christ as savior, redeemer and Lord over all creation in accordance with the New Testament. Martin Luther King never compared himself to Jesus - never.

[davidinalameda]

48. go back and re-read the post

the poster never said that King was on the same level as Jesus

just said that he was a prophet on the same level as Gandhi and the others, which he was

he was a holy man who died because of his beliefs in equal rights for all God's children

[charlie]

51. Talking to a ghost, dwickham

Mr NoGood got nailed pretty quick.

[davidinalameda]

55. I thought I smelled that sweet odor of freeper burning

:nuke:

[InaneAnanity]

5. No, it's all complete crap

But people seem to need the comfort of religion, so how ridiculous it is, is irrelevant.

[Pharaoh]

6. Yes, It happened

That power is still here...........

as John lennon said: I am you and you are me and we are all together.........

[patrice]

7. In spite of errors, the Bible is True too, though not the only artifact

of Truth, it is not Truth itself.

The Real Message Lives.

[InaneAnanity]

9. Prove it.

Go.

[DeaconNoGood]

42. Disprove it.

Go.

[cdsilv]

13. Whether he did or did not exit doesn't really matter....

...its just like with all 'gods'. The message is what matters. Jesus told us to 'love one another', and to 'love our enemies'.

In other words, learn tolerance. Quit fighting amongst ourselves and realize that we are alot more alike than we are different.

It is the only way that the human race can continue - if we keep bitching and moaning that this group is worse/better than the other group we will end up killing each other. With
Nookyoooleeear weapons this a distinct possibility.

We really need to return to most ancient form of worship - worship of the 'earth mother' where matriarchial societies were venerated, as the woman is the fountain of life - men contribute a seed, but momma creates life. And we therefore venerate life and abhor death.

The rule of pasty white men needs to end. And, yes, I am a pasty white man. I use my brain to THINK not just BELIEVE.

And I am a father of daughters...Abu el Banat.

[patrice]

17. It is not only the only way the human race can continue, it's also

what CAN be a source of something greater than we are. You know, how the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts. What might "we" actually be if we Lived the Message with less Error?

[W_HAMILTON]

37. Well then...

...do you really need a book -- hundreds of pages long, about some person that didn't exist -- to tell you that you should be nice to everyone?

You can get the same moral from an 8-page Aesop's fable, in far more entertaining form. Even though it still would be shameful if someone needs to read something, or be told something to realize they should be nice to those around them.

And I don't buy it to begin with, about it not mattering whether or not Jesus existed. Maybe not to some of the religious moderate types who actually get his message, but to the wacko fundy types out there, it matters alot. Having said that, God himself could hold a press conference in the sky for everyone in the world to see tomorrow, proclaiming that Jesus didn't exist, and the fundy-types would call him a liar anyway, so they're beyond hope I guess.

[Evoman]

35. Ha

John Lennon also said "Imagine no religion". If only.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. There is some historical support for the time of Jesus being

characterized by a number of itinerant Rabbis in various forms of "rebellion" against the Romans. In Jewish tradition this is "The Age of Hillel and Shammai" - see .

This was also the time when people really believed that "The End of Days" was imminent, and the Messiah would come in their lifetimes. (Even worse then what Bush has done to the world)

[fairfaxvadem]

10. I'd have to go with "Yes, but..."

I just can't reconcile myself to the official dogma that he did not have brothers and sisters, and a lot of the other "stuff" that has been built up around the historical Jesus. At least, from the Catholic perspective of who Jesus is/was, I have a lot of difficulty with, even as a young child. I dreaded Sundays and going to mass because I knew I didn't buy into all of it.

My parents would have been appalled if they knew....

[davidwparker]

12. After Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had children together.

James was a brother of Jesus for one.

[fairfaxvadem]

15. Oh, I know it says "James, brother of Jesus"

But my indoctrination was that he wasn't "really" his brother because you couldn't have Mary having carnal knowledge afterwards, once she was put on that pedestal, and to the extent that she was supposed to be pure and without sin, HER birth was also infused with the language of a "miracle".

It's the fact that these folks weren't left alone to be real persons, warts and all, that I had the biggest issue with.

[davidwparker]

11. Yes. Jewish historian Josephus mentions the crucifiction of Jesus.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. This should be a FAQ

:-)

[Dr.Phool]

16. Go to this site.

www.infidels.org

A wealth of information.

[DeaconNoGood]

40. after reviewing the site infidels.com I ask you......

the question - why go to the site?

It sucks.

[catbert836]

18. Ah, maybe this discussion will be more productive

the 14th time around. :sarcasm:

[cdsilv]

19. Read Anne Rice's new novel - Christ the Lord - out of Egypt...

and Christopher Moore's 'Lamb'.

Whether or not Yeshua existed doesn't matter. It's the message that does.

FWIW, that's my OPINION.

What do we really know about what happened before we individually started to perceive reality? We really know nothing, only what we are told.

And the victors in historical conflict write 'history'.

[catbert836]

20. That's exactly what I've been saying all this time.

Why should it matter to Christians whether or not it can be proven that Christ existed- as long as they have faith that he did?
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll be sure to check them out.
I'm not even a Christian, btw. But I still think Jesus' message matters a great deal, whether he rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of God, will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, or even existed.

[cdsilv]

22. and Faith by definition does not require Proof...

..I'm a 'somewhat' Christian, in that I believe in the message, but do not belive that I need (or want) to be told by organized religion HOW to believe.

I also accept the proposition that God is God. Whether he be Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Yahweh,
the curtain rod in the corner or whatever. The point is that we must get along with each other. All the rest is window dressing, ceremony and ways for the preachers to make money.

As a good friend of mine once said in response to a question about 'where he went to church', by a bunch of 'church going ladies' at a bidness lunch -- "Me and the ol' lady dance naked in the moonlight on Saturday nights to Beelzebub" -- in other words, none of your damn bizness.

[catbert836]

23. ROTFLMAO!!!

"Me and the ol' lady dance naked in the moonlight on Saturday nights to Beelzebub"
Priceless!

[WhollyHeretic]

21. That might be a rather low estimate

There is one maybe a dozen threads below this one. Do you want to have a nice 80-90 post argument? We could just cut and paste responses from the other threads on the subject, that would cut down on a lot of the work. :D

[cdsilv]

24. Yah, I agree this topic is overdone....

...however, maybe it needs to be overdone?

Perhaps we need to burn the religion discussions to a crisp?

I don't know.

All I really do know is that we have to get the radical wing of the GOP out of power.

I have no problem with the 'traditional GOP' - we have to have a loyal opposition.

It keeps us honest (as honest as politicians can be....).

But we can't have these megalomaniacs in power any longer.

[WhollyHeretic]

26. Even in R&T I think we can all agree on the need to get these maniacs out

of power :toast:

[catbert836]

25. Sounds good.

What side do you want? I'm not preferential.

[cdsilv]

27. Actually I'm on the side of my buddy, who once again said...

"Me and the ol' lady dance naked in the moonlight on Saturday nights to Beelzlebub"

In other words, my religious beliefs are my own and are not subject to the approval or
scrutiny of any one person, business or governmental entity.

None of yo' bidness. Or w's. Or the NSA's. If I want to worship a dirty sock, it is my choice. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

And my freedom to say so is what freedom of speech is all about.

Freedom - W wants to take the freedoms that the Ayrabs hate us for away from us. That way the Ayrabs won't hate us anymore and will sell us cheap oil. And make W and Dick alot more MONEY.

[WhollyHeretic]

28. Maybe I'll try a slightly altered angle and argue that Jesus was real but

that he was an alien come to earth to plant the seeds for MIHOP :tinfoilhat:

[catbert836]

30. What? How dare you?

We all know Jesus was sent down here to give the heathen what they deserve for not believing in his dad, and also to go Rambo on Satan.

[charlie]

31. Now you're getting it

Scriptural analysis in FundieVision...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit..."

He says we gotta go medieval on the gayboys.

"Blessed are they who mourn..."

Says his Dad's a Republican.

"Blessed are the meek..."

This is a tough one... something about America jumping the rails since it went off the Gold Standard.

[charlie]

29. Yes

His name is on the Levant Express receipts from the Last Supper. He was a good tipper.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. Wow. I should hang out in this forum more often...

you guys expand my brain.... :)

[applegrove]

34. Of course he did.

[A HERETIC I AM]

38. Of course he didnt.

certainly not a factual, historical person. The entire story of Jesus's life is little more than an allegorical tale of the movements of the sun and stars through the heavens. There are literally dozens of god-men that share similar stories or have similar traits that predate jesus by millenia. Almost every single aspect of the story of the life and actions of jesus are little more than stories meant to relate a motif describing celestial events. All this can be discovered by using Google. Enter "Jesus Myth" or "Savior Myths".

The concept of a god sent to save the world that is born of a virgin or a maiden in a cave or manger on or about the winter solstice is prevalent throughout history. The ancient Mexicans had a similar god, well removed from the middle east. It is all about the sun, NOT "THE SON" On December 25th the sun appears to rise at a slightly more southern point, when viewed from north of the equator, than it did for the previous 3 days thus the "Birth of the savior" and the "Light of the world". His crucifixion and death occur on or about the Spring Equinox when the the sun has risen to it's fullest height in the sky for the year thus the "He is risen" reflection. The numbers 3, 7, 30, 33, 40 and 72 are repeated over and over again in the bible and all of them have significance in middle eastern society and celestial observations. 3, for instance is the number of days the sun dwells at the solstices and the equinoxes. 40 is roughly the number of days it takes a seed of grain to burst through the surface after planting, thus the number 40 is always....ALWAYS used when referring to a time of uncertainty or despair. You plant then you have to wait 40 days to see if you are going to eat.

The short answer is no, there is not one single shred of verifiable evidence that supports the notion that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the Levant on or near the time of his supposed advent. Not one.

If jesus existed, then so did Apollo, Mithra, Horus, Set, Hercules, Athena, Zeus, Krishna and the hundreds of other gods mankind has invented.


(CUT AND PASTED FROM A PREVIOUS THREAD)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=49824#49921

[7MM]

43. not a shred? baloney, read this

<HREF="http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/>"Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources"
excerpt;

"Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements."
........ {snip} ........
"Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}"
......... {snip} .........

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}"
............ {snip} ............



My favorite, (below) as it is perhaps the most telling;



"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."
......... {snip} ........

And, last but not least , though I have skipped {snipped} much out, including but not limited to
Lucian's contributions, there is this;


"Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"



But you said,
"not a shred....certainly not a factual, historical person. The entire story of Jesus's life is little more than an allegorical tale..."

Still so certain???

[panzerfaust]

46. Not exactly ...

Have to get off to work. Don't have time to go through all, but, briefly:

Josephus wrote about 100 CE. His passage long felt best, and earliest, evidence for actual existence of Christ. Many decades ago this passage was shown to be a late forgery by a Christian apologist. Even the most conservative scholars will admit that it is, at best, "changed somewhat" from the original.

Tacitus's is another reporting of hearsay "history". It was written about 120 CE. Not exactly contemporary.

Several in-depth books on the subject: The Jesus Mysteries (Gandy), Did Jesus Exist? (Wells), The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Wells), Jesus: Myth or History (Robertson), and, a classic, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer.

[7MM]

56. you are only half-right, which makes you "wrong"

Josephus records more than one mention of some of the details. I one not in dispute...

Actually, {from the posted link}there are FIVE different "secular", non-christian sources that were briefly quoted, all agreeing with at least one other text on some point, if not on several points.

They all find support amongst each other, on varyious specificalities---which, from an historical, dis-interested, scholarly view alone, make them difficult, to so easily call them so "flawed", as to be un-worthy of serious consideration. One source, a Jewish one, which could well be considered to being a "hostile" source, offers supporting evidence that, yes, there was this guy called "Yeshu" (or Yeshua), and he was killed for practicing sorcery, and leading the people into "apostasy".

Putting this various source data together, in one place, comparing them to one another, lends credence to the various texts singularly, and on specific points, collectively.

On the text supplied in my post, the particular passage attributed to Josephus, that is admittedly widely considered to have been tampered with---I did not include, due to lack of space considerations.
That passage was discussed on the "linked" page, and somewhat, basically dismissed there, it indeed having appeared to have been possibly tampered with, judging from the wording, and phrasing. So---out with that one.

The passage that I did post---has not been "dismissed", and the reasons why, are discussed.

You really should read through things before just dismissing them with casual waves of your hand---

Once again, the summary;

"Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!" (which at the time, was a "thing" a big deal, in and of itself)


More directly to you, (or more precisely other whom may read this);

You ignore also, the scripture itself, including those shepherds at Bethelehem, their wild sounding story, and what followed. Namely, Herod killing off hundreds, if not thaousands of newborn male children, under the age of two years...one would wonder, since the Jewish authorities would be trying to supress all this "Yeshua" stuff---why didn't they broadly publish, "hey, that didn't happen!"? Because they couldn't, since enough people at the time, and somewhat later, would have had knowledge of that, if not by their own experience, then even if it only, in the form of "my grandmother, grandfather, and great aunts & uncles told about it".

We see no form of denials from Jewish sources about Herods slaughter. (careful, there was more than "one Herod", in fact, there were a "few").

In other Jewish texts, there is mention of the Christ's followers having stolen the body...
a controversy continued for a while considering this missing body business.

In the scriptural, New Testament texts, we see claims that the risen Christ, appeared to THOUSANDS, over a period of days (40?). This is the type of thing which enabled those "followers" whom were, very cowardly, according to their very own records of the events, later have the resolve to suffer agonizing deaths, just for being christians. Would people do this, if they knew, first hand, that it was all a lie??? Would these craven cowards actually follow a condemned man, risking the same condemnation? If they had any, any reason to doubt?

(go ahead, explain it all away---I'm sure you will)


In Rome, in 60-70 A.D. or there-a-bouts, not really all that long after the crucifixion (of Christ, for there were many, many thousands of others {Jews} crucified by the Romans, previously, in Judea) christians were blamed for fires that burned much of Rome. Why didn't they run away? And why persist, then, during THAT time, unless the original WITNESSES hadn't been so convincing? Aah, one of the "original" was among them, too!
The apostle Peter, whom, when it came his own time to be crucified, demanded that he be nailed up-side down, claiming himself not worthy to be crucified exactly as Christ was. This was the same Peter, whom the christian's own book admit, denied that he even knew this Yeshua guy, and ran away, when this Yeshu was hung on a cross.

Peter didn't want to get nailed up, himself, at that time. Why would he more or less allow it to happen, some forty-fifty years later, if he knew it was all bullshit, that him and/or others some how fought off the Roman guard, or tricked them or something, rolled a large stone away
(large enough to deter grave robbers) then made off with the crucified carcass of this crazy jesus guy? It simply doesn't add up.


As far as things being written in 120 A.D.-----
It's easy enough to spread things out, in cultural memory, for quite a while, particularly in cultures where many generations lived under the same roofs, or at least in the same communities, unlike today. Under today's living conditions, I've listened to my own grandparents tell me about the "Depression", "WW II", etc., which colors my perception of these events, particularly the parts of what they themselves, heard, saw with their own eyes, or did.
Most of our WW II vets, are passing on. But not that long ago, the oldest living Civil War veteran died...that guy made it to 117(?), was in that war as a boy. If he had been 8 years old,in 1865, that would have had him living well into the 1970's!!!

The year 120 A.D., would be less than one hundred years after the crucifixion. Not very long after, really, particlarly if you care to consider, what IF things like are spoken about in the Book of Acts, actually did occur? That would stretch DIRECT "memory" out a bit, wouldn't it?

And just HOW does one account for this "sect", this Christianity stuff spreading so fast, when it's plain to just about everybody (INCLUDING IT'S PRESENT DAY ADHERENTS), that the whole thing, just rubs one's fleshly being, mind, conscious, body (even!), the WRONG way?!?

man, you are in deep denial! but it's not all your fault...for you have been taught it...coming at you six ways from sunday---your entire frickin' life!

[Dogmudgeon]

36. This question pops up once a week

You'd think we'd have it figured out by now.

--p!

[MellowOne]

39. Many witnesses of his life wrote about him

So he did exist, the rest is a personal choice.

[panzerfaust]

45. Cite ONE

[papau]

47. All those early "followers" were liars-heck all Christians are still liars

right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Seriously, there aren't any writings from first hand witnesses of his life

Paul's vision doesn't count. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it is something to take into account when considering how reliable the stories and quotes are. With the gospels written 40 or more years after they say he died, we have to think how much the internal politics and successes of different approaches of churches in different areas affected the outlook of the writers.

[papau]

54. Mark is set at 55 to 65, Jesus dies30 to 40, early writers are those

around him day one.

What you are saying is that each church had its own oral history and written history which were not pulled together into a Gospel until 20 or more years after the cross. Were those early histories lies? Did the faithful allow what they had heard and known for last 30 years to be rewritten so as to make a better story? Who had rewrite authority since their were no Bishops and such at this time? By 50 we have churches everywhere with several thousand in Jerusalem under James. But the other churches are independent of James and do not bow to his wishes - in anything.

So how was this fraud pulled off again?

Jesus is as reliably real, and the details accurate as to his life, as any non-dictator of that era.

Atheist desires to write off his existence as colored or invented by internal politics and successes of different approaches of churches in different areas is a joke that only the non-logical atheist does not see.

Atheism is a religion based on faith - and it seems many in the atheist religion have this faith that Jesus is not historical. Whatever floats your boat and doesn't impact me is of no concern to me. Just do not expect a serious nod when the atheist says something as ridiculous as all early Christians were liars - or that the oral history that was written down was a fake, or that internal politics - before there even was a church structure and back when the only duty of the "leader" of a congregation was to stand in front and lead the prayer, and at the end of the service to take the offerings and distribute them to the poor - that some "internal politics" caused an invention of a "Jesus Myth" by a group that perhaps met for tea in the temple and wanted the "power" that giving away money to the poor in the name of Jesus could bring.

LOL

whatever floats your boat. :-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. I think you're answering most of your own questions

Though you're pushing your dates, according to most scholars. Jesus died around AD 30 (Luke says he was about 30 when he started to preach; but he says he was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC); Mark is generally given a date of around 65 to 75. None of the writers of the gospels are thought to have known Jesus, so they didn't "know him from day one".

Yes, the early oral stories probably weren't very accurate; you only have to look at how written 'facts' can get distorted on the internet to know that details don't get passed accurately from one person to another - and when it's done orally, the potential for change is greater still. The differences in the accounts of Jesus's birth are an example. The differing accounts of who found what at his tomb are another.

I'm surprised you talk about "rewrite authority"; the early church was in a state of flux, with disagreements about how gentiles should become christians, and clearly didn't have an official scribe. This is the point - you don't need 'fraud', it's that there were many people who considered different things important, and would tell the story they heard in their own way.

My personal opinion is that Jesus did exist, and preached, around 30 AD; and was probably executed by the Roman authorities. No, you can't expect great detail about his life, given his position in society; but the point is that you shouldn't base your life on assuming the details in books written well after his death are accurate. I'd draw you back to what started this sub-thread - MellowOne claimed "many witnesses of his life wrote about him"; panzerfaust challenged him to point one out (which he hasn't tried to do, so far); and I pointed out that there weren't any witnesses to his life who wrote about him - the books came well after, and the authors don't claim to have ever met Jesus.

You are wittering on about atheists saying Jesus wasn't historical - certainly not what I have claimed. If, by 'liar', you mean I think some of them made some things up about Jesus, then, yes, I do think some of them were liars - otherwise we wouldn't have incompatible details in the gospels. We have to bear this in mind, when deciding whether something in the gospels is likely to be an accurate telling of an event, or Jesus's words, from a couple of years of preaching, or whether it has been changed, or made up, in the decades that followed. You, however, think there is an accusation of "all early Christians were liars" (I presume you are talking about an accusation about lying about what they were told about Jesus; I think every single adult in the world has told a lie at some time in their life, but I doubt you're talking about their whole lives). I never said that a whole 'myth' was invented. The internal politics, as recorded by Christians in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles, show that there was significant disagreement about what Christianity actually was, before the gospels were written. Take a look at what has been written on DU about the Dubai ports affair, and you'll see that in a few days, with most people working from written sources, half-truths and mis-statements (perhaps even lies) can start in a community like DU where we have a similar outlook.

[papau]

58. Thanks for a reasoned response -but you value oral history's truthfullness

less than I do.

Judas has two endings - so obviously one, at least, is in error.

But the idea of political purpose motivating the telling of oral history - and the eventual writing down of that history - in a distorted manner to advance the lie of Jesus - is as I said the atheist dream. It has no basis other than wishful conjecture.

To show disagreements existed, and were recorded, says nothing about the facts - as recorded - of his life.

I am amused by those that base their life on assuming the details in books "written" (meaning reduced to paper where that paper is agreed as the true copy of the oral history by whomever is overseering the writing) well after his death are inaccurate. Faith is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Not just "wishful conjecture"

As we have agreed, there are points on which there are known discrepancies. So we know there are errors, and therefore a mechanism that introduced errors. We also know that the early Christians disagreed on important points, such as whether they were all subject to the traditional Jewish laws or not. For some of them, it was important to be a continuing part of the Jewish tradition. So there are 2 different ancestries of Joseph given, in an attempt to show he was descended from David. The killing of babies by Herod, documented nowhere else (despite long lists of criticisms of him), looks like a reference to the Exodus story of killing all male Hebrew babies. It only appears in one gospel; if it were a reliable event, you'd think it would be notable enough that they all would consider it significant. It would only be significant to Jews; gentiles would not see any reference. You can either think these things were made up at random, just for a laugh, or for a reason - because the people writing the gospels down, or the line of people they got the stories from, had points to make about how they saw Jesus.

What people need to do is read the New Testament with a critical eye - it's not plain history from a disinterested party; it's not the writing down of oral history as told by experienced story tellers who had years of practice in remembering stories told to them as accurately as possible. It's the beliefs of evangelicals, trying to strengthen the faith of their fellow Christians, or convince new converts.

I not only base my life on assuming there are inaccuracies in the New Testament; I also base it on assuming there are inaccuracies in the old one too, and the Koran, the Rigveda, the Book of Mormon, and so on. You can't believe all holy books are completely accurate.

[papau]

60. As to exact words and "inaccuracies" we are in agreement - has that

changing anything - or the need to assume more than innocent error - we disagree . And, no, it was not for laughs that error works its way in.

I posit that there was no motive, good or bad.

As to the known discrepancies, such as the lack of documentation of a specific killing of male children, we know there were such killings - many times - albeit local. Are we surprised they were not all recorded?

And we agree that a tie back to the OT is a common thread. I guarantee you two or more histories of my linage depending on which cousin you are talking too.

The subject to Jewish laws question was not a question under James - they were a Jewish sect. And why this is on point is beyond me, except to note that we know of many disagreements.

The killing of babies by Herod - as in a an areawide death order, is indeed documented nowhere else.

But being in only one Gospel simply reflects what that Church deemed important to remember - it does not comment on accuracy.

Your "had points to make" may well be my "what was important to remember" - and again there is no reason to question accuracy of the reduced to writing histories we have now - even if innocent errors are obvious and to the credit of the early fathers the two or more versions were not suppressed.

Convincing new converts, as in what the atheists try do on DU 24/7/365, does indeed lead to errors of false fact being stated as truth. And I do not doubt that such errors were made by the early Christians.

But the the thrust of the writings is true - in my eyes - and I see no reason to doubt that thrust being true.

Using a critical eye - as with Carl Sagan taking highly unlikely interpretations of data so as to advance his atheism - is always interesting reading - but it is for the reader to decide the truth of anything. The fact that I think logic works to prove my religion true, and that those that disagree agree with me are silly illogical folks that are afraid of being held accountable for their actions in life, certainly it does not mean the atheist on DU should abandon their faith in their logic, as however they define it, or of their certain solid belief/faith in atheism.

We agree on the idea that exact history written down without error is not to be expected. But I still see truth in the writings and am brought to that feeling by logic. Logic does not conflict with my faith. It is by faith we are saved - it is by faith that we believe - anything, or at least that is my belief :-).


:toast:

[panzerfaust]

44. Did not then. Does not now. All the Killing for Christ has been in VAIN.

Interesting lawsuit in Italy on the question of his existence.

Here is a good discussion on a Believer's blog.

[papau]

49. The atheist case was tossed by the court. The Church won - Christ really

is/was/will be!

And now it is in the legal record!
From your URL:
1. The Christians are supposed to provide "proof" that Cascioli will accept only if it meets a standard that he himself could never hope to meet in all of his own "demonstrations."

2. Like most atheists, his fulminations are stuffed with question-begging, value-judging epithets ("envious," "proud," "authoritarian" -- this from a guy trying to use the power of the law to force Christians to mouth his beliefs instead of affirming their own -- "liberty," "social emancipation"); all while he is engaged in destroying any rational basis for assuming that the values implied by those epithets have an any rationally non-arbitrary basis.

3. His appeals to authority are quite hilariously absurd. To take just one example, it's been decades since I read De Rerum Natura (a lamentable time lapse the extreme duration of which is implied by the fact that the last time I read it, I could still read it in the original Latin), but I'm pretty confident that poor ol' Lucretius was spectacularly wrong in his physics. So, a guy who turns out to have been wrong in these of his propositions that are subject to empirical verification, is to be taken as infallibly authoritative in the area of theology...yeah, that's compelling.

4. Dr. Carret, Epicurus...join the club, guys, of narcissists who have said, "There is a particular way for a Deity to behave that would meet with my approval; but if any Deity exists, that Deity has not chosen to behave in such a way; and therefore it is inconceivable that Deity actually exists." Wow, that one's compelling, too. Indeed, one can hardly understand how it's possible that anyone has remained a Christian in the face of such toweringly conclusive evidence that the world is not designed in accordance with the omnisciently infallible tastes of the moralizing atheist.

[moobu2]

50. Yes he did….I’m an atheist

I think Jesus lived, around the time the Christian Bible say’s he did (give or take a few decades), he just wasn’t divine in any way though.

[Inland]

52. There's about as much evidence as one would expect

about a supposed personage who lived in a backwater corner of an empire in that time and was executed like a common criminal, that is, not much either way. So it's impossible to say yes or no.

61. the reality of Jesus never penetrated into

my mind until I took art history in college. And there you will find images of Jesus through the ages. This was more to me than the "believe this because the bible says it", notion that was how I perceived people's version of Jesus. I think if you have a knowledge of history, it is heavy evidence that Jesus existed. And I think he would have felt much more aligned with the democrats and our real compassion, then with the fako republicans and the Christian right piety and hypocrisy.

[Ready4Change]

62. I think SOMETHING happened 2k years ago or so.

I seriously doubt it all happened as claimed by the bible and christian sects say it did.

However, I think something did happen around that time. I suspect that one guy came up with a rather Ghandi like form of resistance, got some support, got crucified for it, and then suffered the fate of distortion through martyrdom.