I'm surprised that scholar say Jesus existed given the minimal information there is about Him.
What is probable is that one or more preachers existed around that time whose preaching formed the basis of Christianity. It was a fairly common job in those times of uncertainty. What we can be fairly certain of is that anything that occurred before He started preaching is back story written to justify that He was the Messiah.
Uuuummmmmm that's precisely what the new testament is isn't it?! At some point people got around to documenting the life and work of Jesus from the various stories & sources most of which are likely to have been passed down orally until that point.
Why would people that were not interested in what he did bother documenting it?
but so few?..... just look at genesis, full of oral tradition about genealogy. jeses supposed to have preached to thousands and supposed to have performed miracles in front of thousands. surely there would then be thousands of different families passing down these stories that were witnessed by great uncle/granddad 'x' .
relying on a mere handful who have a vested interest some 30 years + after the events are nothing short of tenuous.
I don't think you understood where I'm coming from.
Something must of happened to kick start christianity.
what kickstarted arthur? or robin hood? or santa claus?... it simply is not evidence of anything.
Your right Paul could've made all this up but when you analyse it alongside the gospels and other source's independent to biblical writing in tacitus or Josephus - you can only conclude that it's very probable that he existed.
not true, tacitus and josephus existed long after 'jesus', their accounts are almost certainly a direct link to paul. in fact all accounts can be traced back to paul....
That probability IS the mainstream historical view - and it doesnt have much to do with Christian entrenchment in western society / culture.
The mainstream historical view is based on textual analysis and balance of probability.
In fact the view amongst historians that he probably existed is so mainstream that the POV that Jesus definitely didn't exist is viewed a somewhat left field and eccentric.
no one can say that jesus did, or didnt, exist. there is no evidence to support either pov... of course i cannot ever prove he didnt exist, in any form, but until theres concrete evidence that he was at least based on a character it has to be accepted that he may never have existed in any way shape or form.
How do you know there weren't oral accounts? Have you gone back in your time machine and listened to everything that was said around the time?
because non exist, out of possible thousands, dont you think that the 3000 that saw him perform the miracle of loaves and fishes wouldnt have spread that astounding story?
That's like saying "many people don't like the Labour party, therefore Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exist." The fact that there were multiple traditions at the time Paul was writing is evidence that Paul wasn't the sole inventor of Christianity.
that doesnt add up. we know jeremy corbyn exists, we can see him.
but there arent, it all traces back to paul.
So historians aren't allowed to critically study ancient texts now?
eh? how do arrive at that conclusion?... i said ancient texts only prove that ancient texts exist, it doesnt mean the content is factual. geoffrey of monmouths account of arthur being the prime example.
The scholarly thing to do is to treat Paul's letters in the same way you'd treat any other letter written by a first century religious leader. That means reading it sceptically, but it doesn't mean assuming it has no worth whatsoever.
talking of other first century leaders, how come no other mentions jesus? there were thousands of letters, writings, accounts written at the time, but despite his very high profile theres nothing.....
Most people in the ancient world were illiterate (even the wealthy would often use scribes). There was also no printing press meaning that books etc were very rare. As a result hardly anything was written down by ordinary people. Out of that small number of writings only a few of them are still around today as materials like papyrus don't tend to last thousands of years. What sort of contemporary writings are you expecting there to be?
there were a lot of accounts, census's, chronicles being kept at the time. its strange that this miracle worker who performed to thousands would go unnoticed.... then theres the oral tradition ive already mentioned in other posts.
Name me one scholar who doubts Jesus' existence? The nearest you'll find is Robert Price and Richard Carrier, neither of which teach in a university or publish in mainstream journals.
richard dawkins, hitchens, thousands of learned men. your scholars are the same as bollywoods - religious ones so are not neutral but biased.
Take somebody like Bart Ehrman. He's one of the leading scholars in the field of Biblical studies and known for his sceptical approach. He got so fed up of non-scholars disputing Jesus' existence that he took a break from attacking the Bible and decided to write a book explaining how historians know Jesus existed.
If Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity then whoever did start it left even less evidence behind!
thats not true.... NO ONE knows jesus existed, especially historians. people might think and [/i]believe[/i] he did.... but thats not knowing.
and thats the bottom line..... there is NO solid evidence that anyone called jesus existed, that the biblical character was real. the evidence there is is very tenuous and the elephant in the room is the lack of contemporary evidence, written or oral.
because non exist, out of possible thousands, dont you think that the 3000 that saw him perform the miracle of loaves and fishes wouldnt have spread that astounding story?
Firstly, that would only cast doubt on the feeding of the five thousand being historical, not the existence of Jesus.
Secondly, this isn't as suspicious as you think. For example we know that Mount Vesuvius erupted around 79AD, covering Pompeii, because of the unprecedented archaeological evidence left behind. But how many people wrote about it? Surely a disaster that killed over two thousand people and wiped out a major city would have been written about all over the Roman Empire...yet the only surviving textual source to mention the eruption is Pliny the younger's written 25 years after the event. Why didn't more people write about the eruption of Vesuvius? The same reasons lots of people didn't write about Jesus (i.e. newspapers and Facebook didn't exist, few people could read and write and little of what was written has survived two thousand years).
Perhaps you could name a text from the first century that you think should have mentioned Jesus but didn't?
Where's your evidence for that? You complain about the lack of evidence for Jesus and then make claims, such as this one, that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever!
Why do you think Paul was putting so much effort into refuting 'false teachers' and arguing with other church leaders in his writings if these people didn't exist?
i said ancient texts only prove that ancient texts exist, it doesnt mean the content is factual
But you could literally dismiss any textual source with that line of reasoning. Historians don't just assume that every writer in the ancient world was a compulsive liar!
there were thousands of letters, writings, accounts written at the time, but despite his very high profile theres nothing.....
Thousands Where did you get that figure from? Wikipedia lists nine works of literature that date to the first century, one of which is the New Testament. Out of those nine first century works, Jesus is mentioned in three of them.
Maybe if you include engravings on buildings, most of which are only a few words long, then you could arrive at a figure of thousands.
Name one text written by somebody living near Jerusalem around 33AD?
richard dawkins, hitchens, thousands of learned men. your scholars are the same as bollywoods - religious ones so are not neutral but biased.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist with no background in first century history whatsoever, Christopher Hitchens was a journalist...if this is the best you can do then I rest my case.
You remind me of the young earth creationists who think that there's some conspiracy amongst scientists to suppress the truth. Suggesting that scholars such as Bart Ehrman or James Crossley are religious is as absurd as suggesting that every scientist who believes in evolution is a biased atheist!
thats not true.... NO ONE knows jesus existed, especially historians. people might think and [/i]believe[/i] he did.... but thats not knowing.
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
not true, tacitus and josephus existed long after 'jesus', their accounts are almost certainly a direct link to paul. in fact all accounts can be traced back to paul....
Josephus discusses James's death and describes him as Jesus's brother. Paul was imprisoned or martyred when James died and as far as I'm aware did not write about James's death - so Josephus must have had a different source and thus is an independent account to Paul.
no one can say that jesus did, or didnt, exist. there is no evidence to support either pov... of course i cannot ever prove he didnt exist, in any form, but until theres concrete evidence that he was at least based on a character it has to be accepted that he may never have existed in any way shape or form.
I can only reiterate the non theological, sceptical academic's who accept his existence.
This isn't to say the narrative is true or accurate but theirs enough circumstance to say he he probably existed.
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
Scientology, Mormons. Just because something - in your mind - doesn't make sense, doesn't prove that it was created the way you believe it.
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny. Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort.
Jesus won't have looked like the handsome man that you see in images and the statues that you see in churches all over Britain and beyond. He'll have most likely looked like the average man, or maybe even not that good looking. I think the Church has made him out to be an attractive man because they know that this will be appealing to a lot of females. I wonder how many females would be drawn to the statues if the handsome looks were replaced with his true looks? The same goes for Our Lady as well when it comes to men.
Jesus won't have looked like the handsome man that you see in images and the statues that you see in churches all over Britain and beyond. He'll have most likely looked like the average man, or maybe even not that good looking. I think the Church has made him out to be an attractive man because they know that this will be appealing to a lot of females. I wonder how many females would be drawn to the statues if the handsome looks were replaced with his true looks? The same goes for Our Lady as well when it comes to men.
Wine, candles, cushions - you can see why the church would be very appealing to women
Scientology, Mormons. Just because something - in your mind - doesn't make sense, doesn't prove that it was created the way you believe it.
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny. Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort.
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we're working with probabilities not absolute proof - the evidence we have points towards a certain direction taking into account the early sources that we have and the evidence we have for early Christianity.
Firstly, that would only cast doubt on the feeding of the five thousand being historical, not the existence of Jesus.
not sure how you could seperate the two... even if there was no mention of a miracle, surely someone preaching to thousands would have attracted attention.
besides, it was supposed to be the most important message of all time to mankind, how could this message be so shrouded in uncertainty and myth? just compare that message to the intricate and exact creation of earth. its clear the bible and 'creation' do not have the same author!
Secondly, this isn't as suspicious as you think. For example we know that Mount Vesuvius erupted around 79AD, covering Pompeii, because of the unprecedented archaeological evidence left behind. But how many people wrote about it? Surely a disaster that killed over two thousand people and wiped out a major city would have been written about all over the Roman Empire...yet the only surviving textual source to mention the eruption is Pliny the younger's written 25 years after the event. Why didn't more people write about the eruption of Vesuvius? The same reasons lots of people didn't write about Jesus (i.e. newspapers and Facebook didn't exist, few people could read and write and little of what was written has survived two thousand years).
Perhaps you could name a text from the first century that you think should have mentioned Jesus but didn't?
..... but doesnt explain why theres no oral tradition being passed down by the familes of the thousands who supposed to have witnessed his teachings.
Where's your evidence for that? You complain about the lack of evidence for Jesus and then make claims, such as this one, that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever!
Why do you think Paul was putting so much effort into refuting 'false teachers' and arguing with other church leaders in his writings if these people didn't exist?
who says they were 'false'?... to me that reads like paul was fighting to get his idea of what the new religion should be like. doesnt mean it was real.
But you could literally dismiss any textual source with that line of reasoning. Historians don't just assume that every writer in the ancient world was a compulsive liar!
yes, and you have too... just because its written doesnt make whats written a fact. no credible historian would think otherwise. and theres still no contemporary accounts of jesus anyway.
Thousands Where did you get that figure from? Wikipedia lists nine works of literature that date to the first century, one of which is the New Testament. Out of those nine first century works, Jesus is mentioned in three of them.
jesus is mentioned in 3 of them, but they all reference one source... paul. they are not 3 individual references. not 1 is contemporary to jesus life.
oh was that it? only 9?.... nobody else write anything then? we know from the vindalanda tablets that writing was common in roman times, they might not be big classical works like the new testiment or the apocrypha (and lets face it, the new testiment is only a gathering of writings used to support the agenda, out of thousands of such writings).
Name one text written by somebody living near Jerusalem around 33AD?
roman accounts. do you imagine there was no writing going on?... like ive just mentioned, the vindalanda tablets prove otherwise.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist with no background in first century history whatsoever, Christopher Hitchens was a journalist...if this is the best you can do then I rest my case.
yep biased againt the idea.... where as 'scholars' are biased for the case. they are coming from a point of assuming christ existed.
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
.......... so if you think that the rise of christianity makes sense because its probable that its real..... how come other religions have also risen? islam is younger and stronger.
yes there is an explaination as to why christianity took off. and it very nearly didnt... it was a tool for controling the people, they were deeply supersticious and christianity was forced on many....even here in the uk..
they hadnt the knowledge we have now, this new religion gave people an explanation for life, hope, and comfort. it took off because people wanted what it promised, and it was forced on others.
we have seen how other myths have become part of the british psyche, from arthur to robin hood. even in my lifetime ive seen people re-write history - michael jackson fans have been fed bullshit about how great he was and what he did for music. wildly exaggerated claims based on some truth. thats exactly how religions take off... a willingness to accept something they want based on faith not on fact.
Not sure about Arthur but santa claus was probably St Nicklaus. I'm not sure though
Josephus discusses James's death and describes him as Jesus's brother. Paul was imprisoned or martyred when James died and as far as I'm aware did not write about James's death - so Josephus must have had a different source and thus is an independent account to Paul.
I can only reiterate the non theological, sceptical academic's who accept his existence.
This isn't to say the narrative is true or accurate but theirs enough circumstance to say he he probably existed.
Not much more to add really!
true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
There is so much that is problematic within this article that it's hard to know where to begin. Much of it is an incoherent argument with quotes taken out of context.
"There is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed."
- Dan Barker
The BIB is certainly true. The question is why would anybody expect a contemporary historical mention? There's no contemporary historical mention of any non aristocratic person without any power - not one mention at all.
As far as I'm aware their aren't any contemporary mentions of Pontious Pilot - and he was the prefect of Judea - why would anybody expect a mention of a Jewish peasent carpenter? It's bizarre to suggest it casts doubt on anything.
The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. ......... This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.:
- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle
Again it would be odd to expect mentions of Jesus - a peasant carpenter. Doherty goes further to query why there is no mention of him if he performed all these miracles. He might not have performed any miracles - they are likely to be embellishments of the story. If they didn't happen - why would any body expect a mention of it?
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. ..... mentioned.": - Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pp55-56, 2001
Yet Ehrman, a man with much greater credentials than Doherty, is in no doubt that Jesus existed - he even wrote a book debunking 'mythacists'
The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be a form of 'Midrash', not historical documentation
Factually wrong. There are elements of Mathew and Luke that are independent to Mark
While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus" would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus. One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that the Jesus figure in those works would not attract the attention of men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca. It's an absurd contradiction.
The point is Historical Jesus is not dependent on the accuracy of the gospels; Historical Jesus is dependent on the source of the gospels - ie manuscripts lost to us and the oral tradition.
true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
It's not an assumption - it's based sound textual analysis of the writing we have from within 100 years of his death and conclusion based on probability.
Your 'lazy' assumption has know basis in fact. In fact the assumption that he did not exist is the lazy one and is somewhat based on a tin foil hat conspiracy - such as the article you linked to
Scientology, Mormons. Just because something - in your mind - doesn't make sense, doesn't prove that it was created the way you believe it.
Scientology - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Ron Hubbard. I believe that Ron Hubbard existed. Mormonism - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Joseph Smith. I believe that Joseph Smith existed. Christianity - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Jesus. I believe that Jesus was a historical person.
The idea that a religion was started by the person it's original followers claim started it is not a massive leap of faith!
Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort.
That's not what I'm arguing. I've using the eruption of Vesuvius to illustrate how historians don't have many written accounts for even major events that took place during that period of history. If we don't have lots of written accounts of an event as big as an entire city being destroyed, is it reasonable to suddenly expect dozens of sources for a religious leader preaching a sermon?
not sure how you could seperate the two... even if there was no mention of a miracle, surely someone preaching to thousands would have attracted attention.
Of course you can separate the two - you seem to think that a historical source is either infallible and 100% true or completely made up and wrong in every possible way. Historians don't view their sources in such a black and white way.
besides, it was supposed to be the most important message of all time to mankind, how could this message be so shrouded in uncertainty and myth? just compare that message to the intricate and exact creation of earth. its clear the bible and 'creation' do not have the same author!
What has the creation story got to do with the historical existence of Jesus?
You are confusing two very different issues - whether the Bible is God's infallible word is a theological question with very little to do with this debate. Historians approach the Bible not as God's word but as a collection of documents written in the first century.
To understand how critical source analysis works think of it like this - I think that the Daily Mail is a load of rubbish. I treat the Daily Mail with a high amount of scepticism. That doesn't mean, however, that I assume that literally everything in it is made up. Even as a Daily Mail sceptic I can accept that some of the characters mentioned in it are real people and loosely inspired by real events. Sceptical historians can approach the Bible in a similar way.
There are 'interesting reads' available only a quick Google away showing how the moon landings were a hoax and Elvis is still alive. I'd rather get my history from professional historians than 'Freethoughtpedia'
..... to me that reads like paul was fighting to get his idea of what the new religion should be like.
Which is exactly my point. If Paul was having to battle to get his ideas heard it doesn't sound to me like Paul was the only leader within the early church or sole inventor of Christianity. In fact it comes across as if when Paul was writing the original founder was no longer around to put forward their vision and as a result there was a lot of infighting. But if that's the case, then Paul didn't invent Christianity.
..... theres still no contemporary accounts of jesus anyway.
So do you think that a historian should only believe things for which there are multiple contemporary accounts? You do realise that this would mean a lot of what we know about the ancient world would have to get thrown out the window.
..... nobody else write anything then? we know from the vindalanda tablets that writing was common in roman times
Why on earth do you think the Vindolanda tablets should have mentioned Jesus? They were written by soldiers posted on Hadrian's wall before Christianity had ever reached Britain.
..... like ive just mentioned, the vindalanda tablets prove otherwise.
The Vindolanda trust's own website decribes the tablets as 'rare' and 'the oldest surviving handwritten documents in Britain.' Museums don't have whole cabinets full of Roman letters and documents.
It doesn't matter how many letters were written around the time of Jesus - if hardly any of them survive and are still around today we have no idea whether or not they mentioned Jesus.
..... yep biased againt the idea.... where as 'scholars' are biased for the case. they are coming from a point of assuming christ existed.
Scholars believe Jesus existed because they've spent their lives studying the evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one with bias problems?
..... yes there is an explaination as to why christianity took off. and it very nearly didnt... it was a tool for controling the people, they were deeply supersticious and christianity was forced on many....even here in the uk..
The Romans tried to stamp Christianity out for its first few hundred years. This might explain why Christianity grew so quickly post-Constantine however is not a great explanation for where it came from in the first place.
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we're working with probabilities not absolute proof - the evidence we have points towards a certain direction taking into account the early sources that we have and the evidence we have for early Christianity.
What evidence points towards His existence? I'll accept that there was a preacher who, for the lack of another name, we can call Jesus. I'll accept that this Jesus preached for a few years then was killed for being a pain to the local authorities. I'll also accept that his followers wrote up some of his speeches.
I could accept that Jesus never existed and was the product of mythmakers
What evidence points towards His existence? I'll accept that there was a preacher who, for the lack of another name, we can call Jesus. I'll accept that this Jesus preached for a few years then was killed for being a pain to the local authorities. I'll also accept that his followers wrote up some of his speeches.
I could accept that Jesus never existed and was the product of mythmakers
Everything else is conjecture.
The evidence is derived from textual analysis of the gospels.
I'm not sure what your accepting. Do you think he existed or do you not?
Of course you can separate the two - you seem to think that a historical source is either infallible and 100% true or completely made up and wrong in every possible way. Historians don't view their sources in such a black and white way.
no..... historians view things based upon available data, not hearsay, not stories, but on what the current proven facts are telling them. there is nothing to suggest jesus existed other then some dubious, unproved, writings.
What has the creation story got to do with the historical existence of Jesus?
didnt say the creation story had anything to do with jesus.
i was making a comparison between nature/creation, something we can see and understand - the intricacy, the perfection, the huge intertwined web, that supports a wide variety of life on earth..... and the bible, which is diametrically the opposite. i suggest the creator of the two, are not the same. hence the bible is completely discredited as a source from 'god'.
To understand how critical source analysis works think of it like this - I think that the Daily Mail is a load of rubbish. I treat the Daily Mail with a high amount of scepticism. That doesn't mean, however, that I assume that literally everything in it is made up. Even as a Daily Mail sceptic I can accept that some of the characters mentioned in it are real people and loosely inspired by real events. Sceptical historians can approach the Bible in a similar way.
poor comparison. we can check to see if characters mentioned in the mail are real. we cannot do that with biblical characters so easily, except those who where prominent. and guess what?... yep, no sign of jesus who MUST have been a noteable character IF he ever existed.
How do you know that there weren't any oral traditions? This it the key question you keep on ignoring.
where are they?..... thats the answer you keep ignoring! jesus supposed to have performed miracles to 5000 people.... oh i believe thats 'men' not including women and children, . if he performed miracles in front of these....or even just preached, how come all these people didnt pass down their story to their decendants? who eventually wrote it down? that 5000 would be 40,000 in 100 years . surely such a person existing would be something you would ignore/forget? after all, that was his very mission!
There are 'interesting reads' available only a quick Google away showing how the moon landings were a hoax and Elvis is still alive. I'd rather get my history from professional historians than 'Freethoughtpedia'
but those can be instantly disproven, you cannot disprove the fact that theres no contemporary evidence for jesus existence.
That's why I put false teachers in inverted commas. Paul believed them to be false.
and they think paul was false..... who says he wasnt? only him because he 'won'.
Which is exactly my point. If Paul was having to battle to get his ideas heard it doesn't sound to me like Paul was the only leader within the early church or sole inventor of Christianity. In fact it comes across as if when Paul was writing the original founder was no longer around to put forward their vision and as a result there was a lot of infighting. But if that's the case, then Paul didn't invent Christianity.
paul was fighting to get HIS ideas heard?.. exactly what id expect if someone was creating a religion.
So do you think that a historian should only believe things for which there are multiple contemporary accounts? You do realise that this would mean a lot of what we know about the ancient world would have to get thrown out the window.
no... how do you get that?... a historian should only believe things based on current evidence and what that suggests is right based on known facts. they certainly should not 'believe' anything based on hearsay, unsupported/unproven/unsubstantiated writings.
Why on earth do you think the Vindolanda tablets should have mentioned Jesus? They were written by soldiers posted on Hadrian's wall before Christianity had ever reached Britain.
i didnt say nor suggest they should..... i was highlighting the fact that writing, even in the most remotest part of the roman empire, was alive and well. therefore why shouldnt writing be commonplace in the holy land at the same time?
It doesn't matter how many letters were written around the time of Jesus - if hardly any of them survive and are still around today we have no idea whether or not they mentioned Jesus.
of course they would! letters/writings mentioning jesus would be gathered by the early believers and kept safe. thats how they created the bible, gathering what they saw as relevant, ignoring the thousands that were not.
Scholars believe Jesus existed because they've spent their lives studying the evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one with bias problems?
oh the whole 'eat shit, a million flies cant be wrong' attitude?... if they have spent there lives studying the evidence, then why can they not present their findings to prove he existed? my bias can be easily refuted, by providing the evidence that proves me wrong.
have you ever thought you might be wrong?
The Romans tried to stamp Christianity out for its first few hundred years. This might explain why Christianity grew so quickly post-Constantine however is not a great explanation for where it came from in the first place.
you duck the point i made about other religions.
the spread of christianity does not prove its real... as that could be applied to every other religion before and since. the very fact that other religions exist makes a mockery of religion. but hey ho, god must want them to exist otherwise he would have permitted them in the first place.
Comments
What is probable is that one or more preachers existed around that time whose preaching formed the basis of Christianity. It was a fairly common job in those times of uncertainty. What we can be fairly certain of is that anything that occurred before He started preaching is back story written to justify that He was the Messiah.
but so few?..... just look at genesis, full of oral tradition about genealogy. jeses supposed to have preached to thousands and supposed to have performed miracles in front of thousands. surely there would then be thousands of different families passing down these stories that were witnessed by great uncle/granddad 'x' .
relying on a mere handful who have a vested interest some 30 years + after the events are nothing short of tenuous.
what kickstarted arthur? or robin hood? or santa claus?... it simply is not evidence of anything.
not true, tacitus and josephus existed long after 'jesus', their accounts are almost certainly a direct link to paul. in fact all accounts can be traced back to paul....
no one can say that jesus did, or didnt, exist. there is no evidence to support either pov... of course i cannot ever prove he didnt exist, in any form, but until theres concrete evidence that he was at least based on a character it has to be accepted that he may never have existed in any way shape or form.
because non exist, out of possible thousands, dont you think that the 3000 that saw him perform the miracle of loaves and fishes wouldnt have spread that astounding story?
that doesnt add up. we know jeremy corbyn exists, we can see him.
but there arent, it all traces back to paul.
eh? how do arrive at that conclusion?... i said ancient texts only prove that ancient texts exist, it doesnt mean the content is factual. geoffrey of monmouths account of arthur being the prime example.
talking of other first century leaders, how come no other mentions jesus? there were thousands of letters, writings, accounts written at the time, but despite his very high profile theres nothing.....
there were a lot of accounts, census's, chronicles being kept at the time. its strange that this miracle worker who performed to thousands would go unnoticed.... then theres the oral tradition ive already mentioned in other posts.
richard dawkins, hitchens, thousands of learned men. your scholars are the same as bollywoods - religious ones so are not neutral but biased.
thats not true.... NO ONE knows jesus existed, especially historians. people might think and [/i]believe[/i] he did.... but thats not knowing.
and thats the bottom line..... there is NO solid evidence that anyone called jesus existed, that the biblical character was real. the evidence there is is very tenuous and the elephant in the room is the lack of contemporary evidence, written or oral.
Secondly, this isn't as suspicious as you think. For example we know that Mount Vesuvius erupted around 79AD, covering Pompeii, because of the unprecedented archaeological evidence left behind. But how many people wrote about it? Surely a disaster that killed over two thousand people and wiped out a major city would have been written about all over the Roman Empire...yet the only surviving textual source to mention the eruption is Pliny the younger's written 25 years after the event. Why didn't more people write about the eruption of Vesuvius? The same reasons lots of people didn't write about Jesus (i.e. newspapers and Facebook didn't exist, few people could read and write and little of what was written has survived two thousand years).
Perhaps you could name a text from the first century that you think should have mentioned Jesus but didn't?
Where's your evidence for that? You complain about the lack of evidence for Jesus and then make claims, such as this one, that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever!
Why do you think Paul was putting so much effort into refuting 'false teachers' and arguing with other church leaders in his writings if these people didn't exist?
But you could literally dismiss any textual source with that line of reasoning. Historians don't just assume that every writer in the ancient world was a compulsive liar!
Thousands
Maybe if you include engravings on buildings, most of which are only a few words long, then you could arrive at a figure of thousands.
Name one text written by somebody living near Jerusalem around 33AD?
Richard Dawkins is a scientist with no background in first century history whatsoever, Christopher Hitchens was a journalist...if this is the best you can do then I rest my case.
You remind me of the young earth creationists who think that there's some conspiracy amongst scientists to suppress the truth. Suggesting that scholars such as Bart Ehrman or James Crossley are religious is as absurd as suggesting that every scientist who believes in evolution is a biased atheist!
That's being pedantic. Obviously historians work with probabilities, but no other explanation for the rise of Christianity makes any sense, based upon the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle the have survied. Writing the words 'NO EVIDENCE' in capital letters doesn't automatically make it true.
Not sure about Arthur but santa claus was probably St Nicklaus. I'm not sure though
Josephus discusses James's death and describes him as Jesus's brother. Paul was imprisoned or martyred when James died and as far as I'm aware did not write about James's death - so Josephus must have had a different source and thus is an independent account to Paul.
happy to be proved wrong here.
I can only reiterate the non theological, sceptical academic's who accept his existence.
This isn't to say the narrative is true or accurate but theirs enough circumstance to say he he probably existed.
Not much more to add really!
BTW there are other sources to the eruption of Vesuvius, not just Pliny. Claiming that Jesus existed because there are few sources to the eruption of Vesuvius is dodgy history of the highest sort.
Jesus won't have looked like the handsome man that you see in images and the statues that you see in churches all over Britain and beyond. He'll have most likely looked like the average man, or maybe even not that good looking. I think the Church has made him out to be an attractive man because they know that this will be appealing to a lot of females. I wonder how many females would be drawn to the statues if the handsome looks were replaced with his true looks? The same goes for Our Lady as well when it comes to men.
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we're working with probabilities not absolute proof - the evidence we have points towards a certain direction taking into account the early sources that we have and the evidence we have for early Christianity.
Did he turn down Judas?
Well I don't think he ever bottomed for anyone, let's put it that way.
Teehee
Took one for the team!
not sure how you could seperate the two... even if there was no mention of a miracle, surely someone preaching to thousands would have attracted attention.
besides, it was supposed to be the most important message of all time to mankind, how could this message be so shrouded in uncertainty and myth? just compare that message to the intricate and exact creation of earth. its clear the bible and 'creation' do not have the same author!
..... but doesnt explain why theres no oral tradition being passed down by the familes of the thousands who supposed to have witnessed his teachings.
interesting read here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams
who says they were 'false'?... to me that reads like paul was fighting to get his idea of what the new religion should be like. doesnt mean it was real.
yes, and you have too... just because its written doesnt make whats written a fact. no credible historian would think otherwise. and theres still no contemporary accounts of jesus anyway.
jesus is mentioned in 3 of them, but they all reference one source... paul. they are not 3 individual references. not 1 is contemporary to jesus life.
oh was that it? only 9?.... nobody else write anything then? we know from the vindalanda tablets that writing was common in roman times, they might not be big classical works like the new testiment or the apocrypha (and lets face it, the new testiment is only a gathering of writings used to support the agenda, out of thousands of such writings).
roman accounts. do you imagine there was no writing going on?... like ive just mentioned, the vindalanda tablets prove otherwise.
yep biased againt the idea.... where as 'scholars' are biased for the case. they are coming from a point of assuming christ existed.
.......... so if you think that the rise of christianity makes sense because its probable that its real..... how come other religions have also risen? islam is younger and stronger.
yes there is an explaination as to why christianity took off. and it very nearly didnt... it was a tool for controling the people, they were deeply supersticious and christianity was forced on many....even here in the uk..
they hadnt the knowledge we have now, this new religion gave people an explanation for life, hope, and comfort. it took off because people wanted what it promised, and it was forced on others.
we have seen how other myths have become part of the british psyche, from arthur to robin hood. even in my lifetime ive seen people re-write history - michael jackson fans have been fed bullshit about how great he was and what he did for music. wildly exaggerated claims based on some truth. thats exactly how religions take off... a willingness to accept something they want based on faith not on fact.
somwhere in here should answer that
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams
true, but i think its lazy. we all seem to think 'oh he must have existed, probably based on some rebel or preacher' ..... its just an assumption, and as that its fine....the biblical character could be based on a real person, but equally he might be a complete construct.
There is so much that is problematic within this article that it's hard to know where to begin. Much of it is an incoherent argument with quotes taken out of context.
The BIB is certainly true. The question is why would anybody expect a contemporary historical mention? There's no contemporary historical mention of any non aristocratic person without any power - not one mention at all.
As far as I'm aware their aren't any contemporary mentions of Pontious Pilot - and he was the prefect of Judea - why would anybody expect a mention of a Jewish peasent carpenter? It's bizarre to suggest it casts doubt on anything.
Again it would be odd to expect mentions of Jesus - a peasant carpenter. Doherty goes further to query why there is no mention of him if he performed all these miracles. He might not have performed any miracles - they are likely to be embellishments of the story. If they didn't happen - why would any body expect a mention of it?
Yet Ehrman, a man with much greater credentials than Doherty, is in no doubt that Jesus existed - he even wrote a book debunking 'mythacists'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)
Factually wrong. There are elements of Mathew and Luke that are independent to Mark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
Beyopnd Q-Source there is also L and M source that indicate distinct and independent sources to Luke and Mathew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Source
The point is Historical Jesus is not dependent on the accuracy of the gospels; Historical Jesus is dependent on the source of the gospels - ie manuscripts lost to us and the oral tradition.
It's not an assumption - it's based sound textual analysis of the writing we have from within 100 years of his death and conclusion based on probability.
Your 'lazy' assumption has know basis in fact. In fact the assumption that he did not exist is the lazy one and is somewhat based on a tin foil hat conspiracy - such as the article you linked to
Mormonism - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Joseph Smith. I believe that Joseph Smith existed.
Christianity - earliest sources suggest that it was started by a man named Jesus. I believe that Jesus was a historical person.
The idea that a religion was started by the person it's original followers claim started it is not a massive leap of faith!
Could you name one of these written sources, other than Pliny, that mention the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii?
That's not what I'm arguing. I've using the eruption of Vesuvius to illustrate how historians don't have many written accounts for even major events that took place during that period of history. If we don't have lots of written accounts of an event as big as an entire city being destroyed, is it reasonable to suddenly expect dozens of sources for a religious leader preaching a sermon?
Of course you can separate the two - you seem to think that a historical source is either infallible and 100% true or completely made up and wrong in every possible way. Historians don't view their sources in such a black and white way. What has the creation story got to do with the historical existence of Jesus?
You are confusing two very different issues - whether the Bible is God's infallible word is a theological question with very little to do with this debate. Historians approach the Bible not as God's word but as a collection of documents written in the first century.
To understand how critical source analysis works think of it like this - I think that the Daily Mail is a load of rubbish. I treat the Daily Mail with a high amount of scepticism. That doesn't mean, however, that I assume that literally everything in it is made up. Even as a Daily Mail sceptic I can accept that some of the characters mentioned in it are real people and loosely inspired by real events. Sceptical historians can approach the Bible in a similar way.
How do you know that there weren't any oral traditions? This it the key question you keep on ignoring.
There are 'interesting reads' available only a quick Google away showing how the moon landings were a hoax and Elvis is still alive. I'd rather get my history from professional historians than 'Freethoughtpedia'
That's why I put false teachers in inverted commas. Paul believed them to be false.
Which is exactly my point. If Paul was having to battle to get his ideas heard it doesn't sound to me like Paul was the only leader within the early church or sole inventor of Christianity. In fact it comes across as if when Paul was writing the original founder was no longer around to put forward their vision and as a result there was a lot of infighting. But if that's the case, then Paul didn't invent Christianity.
So do you think that a historian should only believe things for which there are multiple contemporary accounts? You do realise that this would mean a lot of what we know about the ancient world would have to get thrown out the window.
Why on earth do you think the Vindolanda tablets should have mentioned Jesus? They were written by soldiers posted on Hadrian's wall before Christianity had ever reached Britain.
The Vindolanda trust's own website decribes the tablets as 'rare' and 'the oldest surviving handwritten documents in Britain.' Museums don't have whole cabinets full of Roman letters and documents.
It doesn't matter how many letters were written around the time of Jesus - if hardly any of them survive and are still around today we have no idea whether or not they mentioned Jesus.
Scholars believe Jesus existed because they've spent their lives studying the evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the one with bias problems?
I believe that Muhammad was a historical person.
The Romans tried to stamp Christianity out for its first few hundred years. This might explain why Christianity grew so quickly post-Constantine however is not a great explanation for where it came from in the first place.
I could accept that Jesus never existed and was the product of mythmakers
Everything else is conjecture.
The evidence is derived from textual analysis of the gospels.
I'm not sure what your accepting. Do you think he existed or do you not?
no..... historians view things based upon available data, not hearsay, not stories, but on what the current proven facts are telling them. there is nothing to suggest jesus existed other then some dubious, unproved, writings.
didnt say the creation story had anything to do with jesus.
i was making a comparison between nature/creation, something we can see and understand - the intricacy, the perfection, the huge intertwined web, that supports a wide variety of life on earth..... and the bible, which is diametrically the opposite. i suggest the creator of the two, are not the same. hence the bible is completely discredited as a source from 'god'.
poor comparison. we can check to see if characters mentioned in the mail are real. we cannot do that with biblical characters so easily, except those who where prominent. and guess what?... yep, no sign of jesus who MUST have been a noteable character IF he ever existed.
where are they?..... thats the answer you keep ignoring! jesus supposed to have performed miracles to 5000 people.... oh i believe thats 'men' not including women and children, . if he performed miracles in front of these....or even just preached, how come all these people didnt pass down their story to their decendants? who eventually wrote it down? that 5000 would be 40,000 in 100 years . surely such a person existing would be something you would ignore/forget? after all, that was his very mission!
but those can be instantly disproven, you cannot disprove the fact that theres no contemporary evidence for jesus existence.
and they think paul was false..... who says he wasnt? only him because he 'won'.
paul was fighting to get HIS ideas heard?.. exactly what id expect if someone was creating a religion.
no... how do you get that?... a historian should only believe things based on current evidence and what that suggests is right based on known facts. they certainly should not 'believe' anything based on hearsay, unsupported/unproven/unsubstantiated writings.
i didnt say nor suggest they should..... i was highlighting the fact that writing, even in the most remotest part of the roman empire, was alive and well. therefore why shouldnt writing be commonplace in the holy land at the same time?
of course they would! letters/writings mentioning jesus would be gathered by the early believers and kept safe. thats how they created the bible, gathering what they saw as relevant, ignoring the thousands that were not.
oh the whole 'eat shit, a million flies cant be wrong' attitude?... if they have spent there lives studying the evidence, then why can they not present their findings to prove he existed? my bias can be easily refuted, by providing the evidence that proves me wrong.
have you ever thought you might be wrong?
you duck the point i made about other religions.
the spread of christianity does not prove its real... as that could be applied to every other religion before and since. the very fact that other religions exist makes a mockery of religion. but hey ho, god must want them to exist otherwise he would have permitted them in the first place.