The Existence of Jesus Christ

Greetings,

quote:

---

By the way, one reason for the tone of some of my comments is I am a serious person interested in real discussion,

---

Hmmm..
Is calling people ignorant, and using words like "bullshit" what you mean?

quote:

---

and it is disheartening to have spend pages upon pages on something which should not even be debated.

---

You think these things "should not" be debated?
Why?
Because they contradict your religious views?Essentially what you seem to be saying is -
"my views are fixed, I believe they are true, I will not discus them and do not want anybody else to be able to discuss them - I want everybody else to accept my religious views are true without question"Well, of course, we don't accept your religious views.
Just as you reject the Qur'an.

quote:

---

There's no real debate as to what most scholars believe on this. The vast majority accept that Jesus the man really did live.

---

This vast majority you speak of is largely made up of faithful Christian believers.
I want to SEE your NUMBERS please randman.You so often say the numbers are on your side - well, I want to see your numbers - you must have all the figures right at your fingertips to be so confident.Tell us -
HOW MANY scholars believe Jesus was historical?
HOW MANY do not?Furthermore, how many of those who believe in a historical Jesus are faithful Christians?
Of course we have to exclude those "scholars" - anyone who has taken a VOW to BELIEVE in Jesus as a God can obviously not be trusted to give a fair opinion on his existance.So randman, tell us the numbers you so often invoke as support -
HOW MANY non-Christian scholars believe Jesus existed?
HOW MANY non-Christian scholars believe Jesus never existed?I look forward to seeing and evaluating your figures on this matter, as they will be quite instructive I would think.Of course for best results, we would sample scholars equally from all faiths - Hindu, Jewish, Jain, Buddhist, Pagan, Animist, Muslim, Asatru, The Nations.Now we all know you don't really have any figureas, but if you did have those figures just discussed, I think we can be pretty confident it would be not be a large majority in favour of Jesus. (Do you believe Lao Tzu was real, randman? Buddha Gautama? Krishna? Thor? Odysseus? Osiris? Kwan Yin?)I trust you begin to see the point - claiming the numbers are on your side may make you feel better, but its not much of an argument, even if right. Not long ago everyone agreed the world was the centre of the universe, and that the world was created 6000 years ago by divine fiat - we know better now.If you wish to stand on others laurels and go no further than claim "the majority agree with me", then ok - go ahead - but the debate, (such as it is) is then over - and no-one learns anything.You say you are a serious person looking for real debate - well, did you expect everyone would agree with you and that you would set the agenda for all discusion?If you are so serious, and your claims are so rock solid, it SHOULD BE EASY for you to prove -1) Jesus existed
or
2) a NT book was by an eye-witnessBut you have to marshall an argument, cite some books, list some names, refer to some dates - anything more than quoting some other believer that agrees with you.Because, to be frank, thats the standard model we get from believers -
1) preaching of the believers beliefs,
2) a quote of a another believer who belives what the poster believes
3) attack, swear, insult, ridiculeSo, please randman,
please feel free to present your arguments.Iasion

Greetings,While randman prepares the list of non-Christian scholars who believe (or not) that Jesus existed, I thought readers may be interested in a list of historical authors who argued Jesus did not exist (dating from when the church started to lose its grip on power) :C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus — A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus ChristThis shows that the argument about Jesus being a myth has been around for quite a while.More recent works include :Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle
HTTP 429Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of ManAlvin Boyd Kuhn's Who is This King of Glory?.
Who is thisTimothy Freke and Peter Gandy - The Jesus Mysteries
Sabbatarian.comJesus Never Existed:
Welcome to Enlightenment! — Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth HumphreysYes, it's a minority view, but it's growing, and I think it's true, as do many others.When I started looking into this maybe 7 years ago - it was a fringe idea, few supporters, little exposure, a few books, 1 or 2 web sites - now it's grown a great deal to many books web sites and fora discussing this idea.An idea whose time has come.Jesus was a myth.Iasion

"You think these things "should not" be debated?"No, I think the thread can be debated, but debating over facts that are universally acknowledged is not helpful in the debate, and I specifically mentioned the fact of what most scholars believe, namely that Jesus existed. The fact most scholars believe Jesus existed does not make it true, but how can we proceed very far, if even something like this, which you know to be true, namely that most scholars believe Jesus existed, is not quickly acknowledged.We cannot, as this last post indicates. You seem now to be backing off this earlier admission, but to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, I will ask you what you meant by the following."This vast majority you speak of is largely made up of faithful Christian believers."Are you suggesting that being a Christian scholar means you are too biased to be intellecually honest?If so, what about the non-Christian scholar who nevertheless feels he or she wants to spend their lives studying the New Testament? Are they any less biased, more biased, or what?Likewise, are you attempting to weaken the effect of acknowledging that most scholars do think Jesus actually lived? Earlier you admitted that only a minority of scholars feel as you do on this subject, but appear to be insinuating that perhaps the original tone, as I read it, in mentioning "scholars say" indeed was meant to convey most valid scholars or perhaps most authoritative scholars or some such.I am asking so as not to misunderstand you."Of course we have to exclude those "scholars" - anyone who has taken a VOW to BELIEVE in Jesus as a God can obviously not be trusted to give a fair opinion on his existance."OK, I hadn't read that far. That is your answer.My question then is: Are we going to trust guys that feel Jesus never existed but have such an axe to grind that they spend their life's work getting an MDiv (very lengthy masters program), and go on to Phd, post-grad, etc,..and teach, all about Jesus, the Bible, etc,.., and yet they don't even believe he rvrn existed.What type of individual does that?As you can see, it is easy to cast suspicions on people's motives.Moving on....I think you are grossly misreading my posts, or maybe just misrepresenting them. I am not claiming we should not consider the arguments that Jesus never existed, or whatever else you are suggesting. I am claiming that agreed-upon facts, by everyone, should be admitted to early so we don't waste pages on pages going over them.In fact, I do not even claim the fact most scholars think Jesus existed is indicative that they are correct, as you falsely suggest I do.I am merely trying to correct what I thought was a false appeal to scholars by you. You admitted that your view was the minority view, and I thought we could move on, but apparently not based on your last post.If you want to discuss specifics of why you think Jesus did not exist, or a late date for the New Testament, make your argument, and I will be glad to join in.And btw, I really don't consider BS as the use of the full term, as you suggest. Maybe that's wrong, but over the years, it seems to me that the abbreviation has come to mean not so much it's literal meaning, somewhat profane, but more a synonymn for false. I apologize if it's use offended your sensibilities.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 01:36 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 01:41 AM

Iason, while you are free to disbelieve in Jesus, not even acknowledging his existence, don't kid yourself as far as the idea he is a myth is growing. As you cite, there have always been plenty of people that wanted to argue he is a myth, and going back much later than your list, but that doesn't really mean much.It's a big world. In fact, back in the early 70s, I think I heard a similar angle about the death of God, and that maybe Jesus never existed. If anything, it seems that more conservative scholarship has grown, in quality, research, numbers, and acceptance.Certainly in the general public, belief in Jesus has grown world-wide.What has occurred over the past 7 years is the tremendous growth in the internet and the numbers of people with high speed connections so that like-minded people can more easily transmit their ideas. Btw, I only looked at one of your sites thus far, but it didn't look that impressive from a scholarly angle, more like a political or conspiracy site, and hey, I tend to think some of these conspiracies are true, but still touting some of that stuff as serious scholarship seems a stretch to me.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 01:52 AM

Deut. 32.8, I found your post to be rather interesting.What do you make of various Christian groups that link themselves to others besides Paul in the spread of the gospel? I have read where some were dismissive of their claims, but I have never read much of any research into the archeology, their story, etc,...About a year ago, I was talking with a man from southern India, who is now fairly prominent as a minister there, and he grew up in what he said they called the Assyrian church but claimed that was a mislabelling by the West.Why should we be so dismissive of claims from the Indian church to have been founded very early on by Thomas?I understand that perhaps some groups wanted to link themselves to an apostle for notoriety's sake, but Thomas? Doesn't make that much sense to claim he was the father of your church. Seems like one would pick Peter or Paul.In general, a lot of the claims that stuff was fabricated seems illogical. As you point out, it makes no sense to claim Jesus never existed but Paul had a dispute with the Jerusalem leaders.But it may well be there is a lot of scholarship on the Indian question. It's certainly not a matter of my faith or anything. I just wondered if you or anyone was aware of any valid research, archeological, linguisitic or otherwise.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:33 AM

Iason, well, I'd like to address some aspects of one of your links. It has some interesting stuff.First, their main point seems to be Christianity is better understood and related to if it is considered a mythical approach to higher truth. Isn't that what Joseph Campbell also argued? Seems like nothing new there.Also, I found this interesting."But most scholars agree that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified around A.D. 30. Freke and Gandy challenge that assumption, and also take on another major belief: the preeminence of the Roman Catholic belief system in early Christianity."Sabbatarian.comI have to agree wholeheartedly with the 2nd part, namely the idea that the Roman Catholic belief system was not preeminent in early Christianity. Of course, they are not the first to state that, but imo, acceptance of that concept is critical to properly understanding Church history, and incidentally the evolution of our society, especially in areas such as the concept of separation of Church and State, held by the Donatists, various medieval sects, the Anabaptists, and eventually the Baptists, Quakers, and many colonials here in America.But although I agree that some aspects of gnosticism, or those accussed of being gnostics, likely got a bad rep from later Catholic writers, I think he is just blatantly incorrect on the facts with the following claim."Paul doesn't have a historical Jesus," according to Freke. "His Jesus is a Christ within, it's a mythical figure. He gives us no details of his life, he doesn't quote a single quote from Jesus, even when it would really help him. There's a massive silence in Paul, ..."Sabbatarian.comEither he's not reading the same Pauline letters as the rest of us, or he's created a mythical Paul. If you're going to talk about what Paul wrote, at least be accurate about it. If you want to say, you think Paul didn't really write of Christ's death, reserruction, or other facets of his life, but were added later, well say that, but Paul's letters do in fact give us the most critical details of his life, namely that he was crucified, buried and rose again.Heck, why should he give more earthly details?I do agree there is some gnostic tendencies in Paul, but strongly disagree that Paul's emphasis on spirituality equates a denial of the literal person and life of Jesus. They are not mutually exclusive.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:55 AM

Greetings,

quote:

---

No, I think the thread can be debated, but debating over facts that are universally acknowledged

---

You just can't help yourself can you?It most certainly is NOT a "fact, universally admitted", that Jesus existed.I named several scholars who do not accept this, proving such a "universal" claim wrong.It is merely a BELIEF, albeit held by many.(If you are trying to get me to agree that it is a universally agreed fact that the majority of scholars agree Jesus existed, then yes, of course I do - so what?)

quote:

---

is not helpful in the debate, and I specifically mentioned the fact of what most scholars believe, namely that Jesus existed. The fact most scholars believe Jesus existed does not make it true, but how can we proceed very far, if even something like this, which you know to be true, namely that most scholars believe Jesus existed, is not quickly acknowledged.

---

Pardon?
You mis-understood me, and ranted about straw-men for several posts - I NEVER claimed what you said I did, instead YOU got all worked up about whether "most scholars claimed Jesus exist" - of course they do, we all know its a majority view, which I said previously - once again you don't seem to have READ what I posted.But as I noted - the vast majority of these people you call "scholars" are in fact FAITHFUL Christians who have taken a VOW of BELIEF.You can not seriously expect as to consider a person who has taken a VOW of BELIEF to give a non-biased opinion on whether Jesus existed?Of course the vast majority of people believe Jesus existed - because their parents and their priest did too - because their priests and the priests before them all believed - right back to when NOT believing meant risking your life.For over a millenium the church made SURE that everyone BELIEVED - if you didn't (at least) CLAIM to believe, it meant perhaps being BURNED ALIVE !Do you think the majority of people (claimed to) believe in Jesus when the Inquisition raged?
I'd guess about 99.99 percent - does that make it true?

quote:

---

If so, what about the non-Christian scholar who nevertheless feels he or she wants to spend their lives studying the New Testament? Are they any less biased, more biased, or what?

---

A scholar who is driven by seeking knowledge is credible.
A person who has an a priori vow of belief is NOT credible on that subject.When it comes to the Qur'an I treat Mulsim claims with a grain of salt.
When it comes to the book of Mormon, I am suspicious of what a Mormon claims.
When it comes to the origin of Freemasonry, I would not automatically believe a Mason.

quote:

---

As you can see, it is easy to cast suspicions on people's motives.

---

Pardon?
Are you claiming that all non believers have an axe to grind?Do you believe non-believers about whether Krishna existed?
Do you believe non-believers about whether Osiris existed?
Do you believe non-believers about whether Hercules existed?What exactly is your point?My point is clear -
a person who has take a VOW of BELIEF in Jesus, a person whose religion REQUIRES him to believe, a person SURROUNDED by others who also BELIEVE and reinforce that BELIEF - such a person cannot possibly be considered impartial when considering whether Jesus existed.How can you possibly expect us to accept such obviouslty biased testimony?Do you belief what Muslims say about Mohamed?
Do you believe pagans who say they turn into a wolf?
Do you believe what Jim Jones followers said about him?So,
why would you expect us to take the word of FAITHFUL believers that your FAITHFUL BELIEFS are true.

quote:

---

I think you are grossly misreading my posts, or maybe just misrepresenting them. I am not claiming we should not consider the arguments that Jesus never existed, or whatever else you are suggesting. I am claiming that agreed-upon facts, by everyone, should be admitted to early so we don't waste pages on pages going over them.

---

What agreed-upon facts?
I agreed several times its a minority view, I never claimed otherwise, even though you ranted that I did.You also misunderstood what I said about Paul (and don't even seem to realise it yet),
and you claim it is I who is misunderstanding?
What a laugh.

quote:

---

I am merely trying to correct what I thought was a false appeal to scholars by you. You admitted that your view was the minority view, and I thought we could move on, but apparently not based on your last post.

---

Pardon?
What "false appeal to scholars" ?
It is becoming increasingly hard to understand your point.YOU made a fuss about the majority of scholars was on your side - but you think I am making some false appeal to scholars? Bizarre.When YOU challenged my claim that "the scholarly consensus is that no NT writing was by an eye-witness", I cited SCHOLARS to prove my point (of course, you ignored the evidence, once again.)But when you are challenged to come up with scholarly support for your views - the best you can manage is some proffessor you can't remember and a disputed quote from wikipedia? You really should get a job with Monty Python.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss specifics of why you think Jesus did not exist, or a late date for the New Testament, make your argument, and I will be glad to join in.

---

I posted pages and pages of detailed specifics - you ignored all of it, such as -I posted numerous evidence of scholars who argued NT writings were not by eye-witnesses - you ignored it.I posted a lengthy list of authors who did not mention Jesus - you said nothing.I posted refutations of the so-called "evdience" for Jesus - you said nothing.I posted a detailed exposition of the early church - you ignored it.I invited you to present some scholarly evidence for your claims - you didn't.

quote:

---

Iason....

---

You can't even get my name right, you obviously never check your work at all, do you?Let me once more lay it out clearly and simply :1) Jesus never existed (a minority view, yes)

​

2) no NT writing is by an eye-wtness to Jesus (a modern consenus)Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Either he's not reading the same Pauline letters as the rest of us, or he's created a mythical Paul. If you're going to talk about what Paul wrote, at least be accurate about it. If you want to say, you think Paul didn't really write of Christ's death, reserruction, or other facets of his life, but were added later, well say that, but Paul's letters do in fact give us the most critical details of his life, namely that he was crucified, buried and rose again.

---

Ah, the eternal argument about Paul.Paul certainly writes about Christ's death, and crucifixion, and resurrection, yes.Paul does NOT say anything about Jesus' life as a person at all.Paul does not mention :
* Mary, Joseph, the birth stories, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Magi
* the baptism, the sermons, the triumphal entry,
* the miracles, raising and healings by Jesus
* the trial, Pilate, Judas, Gethsemane, Calvary,
* the empty tomb !
* the teachings of JesusPaul writes only about a spiritual being - the Risen Christ, who was crucified by the astral powers in the lower heavens.
Paul says he has met Jesus like the others did - i.e. they all met Jesus in visions.
Paul visits Jerusalem and shows no intertest in the Gospel places or events,
and he rebuffs James and Peter - he is just as good as them.
No sign of a historical Jesus there at all.What makes YOU think Paul refers to an earthly Jesus?I suggest you read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, then we can talk about Paul.Iasion

How far does the stories about someone have to diviate from reality for it to be a legend based on someone, rather than that person?

Greetings,

quote:

---

If you want to discuss specifics of why you think Jesus did not exist, or a late date for the New Testament, make your argument, and I will be glad to join in.

---

Sure,
let's consider the issue of the stages of development of the Christ myth -The Development of the Jesus MythThe Jesus Myth theory can be seen in terms of the various stages that we see in the Christian record -Stage one - spiritual Iesous Christos
* INITIALLY PAUL describes Iesous Christos as a purely spiritual being who exists on a higher plane, but who acts inside every human, perhaps somewhat like what we might now call a "soul" (Christ in you, the hope of Glory.) Paul mentions no earthly Jesus of Nazareth, no miracles, no empty tomb, no speeches, no dates, names, places, nor events - merely a few spiritual references. Paul is religious allegory - our soul (the Christos) is pinned (crucified) to the body (the cross) by the passions of the flesh, and raised back to heaven after we die (we live Christ's death, Christ lives our death.) Clement Alex. later discusses these very themes.Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!
None of those key events or actors are mentioned even once by 1st century Christian writers.You can see how the early Christians show no knowledge of Gospel stories in overview in my table here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipNONE of the Gospel stories are mentioned until the 2nd century, just like there is NO mention of the Gospels. But, from late 2nd century on, we see an enormous explosion in writings by many Christian authors which explain, and exposit and exegise the Gospels - whole libraries of books endlessly quoting and preaching from the Gospel and debating the finiest minutiae of every detail of every incident in Jesus' life.The argument that these issues were NOT mentioned because they were so well-known does not make sense - these details were even MORE well known in later centuries when we see them repeated endlessly at vast length. Every later writer (who obviously have heard of the Gospel Jesus) quotes and argues from the Gospel stories frequently. The only possible explanation for the total silence of the 1st century Christian writers about the Gospel stories that are the basis for Christianity now, is that they had NEVER HEARD of them.For example there are MANY occasions in Paul where we WOULD EXPECT Paul to mention the live and teaching when the context is entirely appopriate for a mention of Jesus or his teachings -
* 1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that.
* 2 Cor. 6:1 - Paul talks about the the "day of deliverance" (quoting Isaiah 49:8) without the slightest mention of what Jesus had said on this very important topic!
* Rom. 6:2 - Paul talks of Christian baptism - NO MENTION of the baptism in the Jordan.
* Rom. 133 - Paul encourages Paul to trust the authorities - yet those authorities allegedly just crucified his God!
* 1 Cor. 1:7 - Paul talks of the coming of Christ in the future tense - no hint he had recently been.
* Rom. 6:17 - Paul talks of Christian teaching being "handed on to you" - no mention here of Jesus' teachings.
* Gal 2:14 - Paul talks about the Jewish laws and the Gentiles - no mention of what Jesus had allegedly said on these very subjects.See Earl Doherty's list of 200 silences in Paul for a detailed analysis of this problem -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/silintro.htm
(internal URL, pardon me :-)The WAR, phase 1
* ~70CE - the Romans get fed up, the Temple is razed to the ground, Jerusalem is largely destroyed, many Jews killed or dispersed.Stage two - early lettersTHEN OTHER LETTERS began to appear (but before the Gospels arise) - these are either anonymous (Hebrews), forged in Paul's name, or forged in the name of characters from Paul's letters. These early letters mostly date from between the wars, and are in the name of characters in Paul's letters - modern scholars consider all of these letters pseudographs (i.e. not written by the person named as author.)According to modern scholars, the Gospels were written approx. these dates :
* G.Mark : 65-80
* G.Matthew : 80-100
* G.Luke : 80-130
* G.John : 90-120
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
These dates are all deduced from internal evidence (such as references to the destruction of the Temple, relations with the Jews, use of special terms.) What the external evidence shows is a little different - the Gospels do not become clearly known to Christians until early/mid 2nd century.Some scholars (e.g. Herman Detering) argue that the Gospels should be dated to just after the SECOND part of the war - see the Journal of Higher Criticism (not for newbies, top notch scholarly work here) :
Articles You Can Read NowWhatever the actual dates of the Gospels, I will argue from the documentary record and the dates generally agreed by consensus of scholars (if such can be found.)The WAR, phase 2
* 132-135CE - the Romans call up to 10 legions in to squash the widespread massive rebellion - the rest of Jerusalem is destroyed (some say the whole city was reduced to knee-high rubble), the remaining outposts are wiped out (e.g. Masada), Judea is literally wiped from the map, and mostly from the earth. Only AFTER all this destruction, after one or two cataclysms of war with the Romans, nearly a century after the alleged events - only then do we see the Gospel stories become widely known in the Christian record.Stage three - the Gospel appears
* the GOSPEL (of Mark) appears, anonymous (while perhaps written shortly after the first war, Christians writers only began to show knowledge of the Gospels in early-mid 2nd century.)G.Mark is a masterpiece of spiritual literature, synthesizing a grand new version of the heroic son-of-god story so well known to so many cultures through Osiris, Dionysius, Attis, Adonis, Iasius but now cast into a Jewish milieu by melding key elements from the ancient Jewish writings. We know how the religious impulse in humans just loves to find old books to mine for their cherished beliefs - so in those times the Jewish scriptures represented a newly discovered, yet ancient deep and rich spiritual literature to peoples bored with crude Homer and jaded with Rome's silly superstitions. Mark's story was set in the perfect heroic past - not long ago, just before the wars, yet cast in the epic ancient context of the Jewish scriptures. Mark uses the figures mentioned in Paul as the actors in his story - Peter, John, James.G.Mark is a work of literary genius, it creates entire speeches and characters and events from the whole cloth of the Jewish writings AS WELL as elements of Paul's letters - he merges the classic pagan myth with the suffering servant and messianic figures and the Iesous Christos of Paul to craft a new son-of-god who transcends the older figures by expressing the myth with a new sense of depth, by capturing many of the spiritual issues and themes which were important to seekers of the day.
Furthermore, G.Mark is built from the warp of paganism and the weft of Judaism with clear structures of LITERATURE - we see literary structures called chiasms (called after X in Greek) in the form : ABCDC'B'A', we see the classic challenge and response of pagan works, called chriea, amongst many other examples of structure showing its a work of literature. G.Mark may also echo Homer by episodes in which Jesus mimics the actions of Odysseus but is found to be superior in the climax (see Denis McDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.)See Michael Turton's magnum opus on G.Mark for details about these literary structures :
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMarkmap.htmlG.Mark is a great work of literature - but note that it is not at all clear what the intended GENRE of the document really was in the unknown author's mind. This is still a matter of considerable debate.Stage four - OTHER Gospels appear,
the 2nd century battle for Spiritual vs Literal JesusAfter G.Mark other Gospels appeared - many (dozens) and varied - some later become our accepted four, some are gnostic works, and some are of even other types and quality and authorship. Some are accepted as genuine before before later rejected for doctrinal reasons (e.g. the Gospel of Peter.) Some counts of how many Gospels were produced in the early period run as high as 50.During the formative period we see two totallly opposite poles of belief appear -
1 - the early gnostic and/or esoteric camp - who argue Iesous Christos was a spiritual being, or a phantom, or something not physical and historical (Paul and Paul2, Basilides, Valentinus etc.)
vs
2 - the later literalist who argue that Jesus was "truly" crucified under Pontius Pilate etc. as a historical event - starting with the suspect letters of "Ignatius" probably around the time of Papias.Fierce battles of dogma raged between the two camps over the 2nd century, critics disagreeing with even the core elements of the Christian stories :
* 2 John, Polycarp, mention Christians who did not accept Jesus Christ came "in the flesh",
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom or spritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",We also see a very odd case - church father Minucius Felix explicitly claims Christians do NOT worship a man crucified, ridiculing the whole thing along with the idea that gods could become men. This appears to be a Christian who has heard of the Gospels stories and is EXPLICTLY DENYING they are Christian beliefs. A church father explicitly denying the Gospel stories !
His writing is as clear as mud to a blind man with his eyes closed at midnight during an eclipse, probably why it escaped the church censors :
Felix : "he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"We also see examples of 2nd century Christian writers who discuss Christian beliefs at length but conspicuously FAIL to mention Jesus -
* Mathetes to Diognetus - responded to 'close and careful inquiries' and preaches in Neo-Platonic tones of the Logos, his Son, but no time, place, or identity for this incarnation are provided. The name Jesus never appears.
* Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks - Esoteric Christianity at its finest - neither Christ nor Jesus not Son is mentioned anywhere - the Logos is the emphasis. In Ch.21, Tatian compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote: "Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories".
* Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned, but the Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.
* Theophilus (of Antioch) wrote To Autolycus which does NOT mention Christ, nor Jesus.Such examples are clear and present evidence of 2nd century Christians who do NOT believe the Gospel stories are part of their beliefs, either because they think them new and spurious, or perhaps because they had not even heard the Gospels yet.Stage five - Literalists win the battleBy late 2nd century the battle is all over bar the shouting -
* the Gospels are chosen and named,
* the hierarchy is formed, the literal Gospel Jesus is dogma,
* the Gnostic and esoteric writers are consigned to the flames,
* the shouting continues for a couple of centuries - Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine...The clear pattern to be seen from this chronology is that the original Jesus was a spiritual figure, and the historical Jesus was a later belief that developed after the war(s), when everybody was dead and Jerusalem was in ashes.The evidence of the 2nd century batttles of dogma emphasizes this - even then there were sceptics and critics who denied that Jesus and his actions were physical and historical.Iasion

My personal opinion, is that Jesus, as described in the gospels, is a myth.That does not include the possiblity of there being a person or persons that have done some of the things attributed , and inspired the concepts.This message has been edited by ramoss, 05-29-2005 07:14 AM

Greetings,Continuing my argument that Jesus never existed, lets consider the alleged "evidence" for the historical existance of Jesus -Alleged evidence for the existance of JesusApologists frequently cite various ancient authors as evidence for Jesus' existance.However, this evidence has serious issues, with all of it being late, suspect, or irrelevent, as follows -JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarIn short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.TACITUS (c.112CE)Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.SUETONIUS (c.115CE)Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all - I am surprised that this obviously un-related passage is cited so often.CLEMENT (late 1st)Clement was a prominant early church father, but :
* he does NOT mention a historical Jesus,
* NOR any mention of the Gospels or their events,
* merely a couple of SAYINGS attributed to Jesus
(along with many specific references to OT scripture and Paul.)So,
Clement is no evidence for a historical Jesus, indeed seems to know nothing about Jesus or the Gospel events.PHLEGON (c.140)Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events.So,
Phlegon is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.THALLUS date unknownWe have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote,
there are NONE of Thallus works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely refered to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading.)Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
Richard Carrier Thallus » Internet InfidelsSo,
Thallus is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.So,
Ignatius MAY be a 2nd century reference to a few details about Jesus, but the date is not certain (130s or 170s are possiblities.)QUADRATUS (c.125CE)Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted centuries later.So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.VALENTINUS (c.140CE)In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.JUSTIN MARTYR (c.150CE)Justin wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he quotes "memoirs of the apostles" ("called Gospels")
* these memoirs are NOT yet named for the evangelists,
* these memoirs are DIFFERENT to our modern Gospels,So,Justin quotes un-named proto-Gospels,
but
provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.POLYCARP (c.155CE)Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but
provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.LUCIAN (c.170CE)Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus.TALMUD (3rd C. and later)There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are variant and quite different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)So,
the Talmud contains later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories,
but
the Talmud contains NO evidence for a historical Jesus.MARA BAR SERAPION 3rd century? later?A fragment which says -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.It is NOT at all clear who this is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.GALENLate 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.This is far too late to be evidence.NUMENIUSIn the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"This not any evidnce for Jesus, its 3rd century wishful thinking.SUMMARYSo, whilst that list of alleged citations to a historical Jesus may have looked impressive to those who didn't know the details, in fact they turned out to be very weak indeed - to summarise :* an interpolated or forged passage (JOSEPHUS)* a first century Christian father who mentions NOTHING about a historical Jesus or the Gospel events, merely some sayings (CLEMENT)* a 2nd century passage, at best a late reference to Christian beliefs (TACITUS)* a 2nd century reference to Christians beliefs, not Jesus (PLINY)* a reference to someone else entirely (SUETONIUS)* a made-up reference (THALLUS)* a few tiny details in a suspect, probably forged, 2nd century corpus from (at least) 75 years after the alleged events (IGNATIUS)* a writer of uncertain date from whom we have a SINGLE SENTENCE cited centuries later (QUADRATUS)* a mid 2nd century Gnostic view about an esoteric Jesus (VALENTINUS)* a mid 2nd century work which quotes un-named proto-Gospels called "memoirs of the apostles" (JUSTIN)* a mid 2nd century writer who merely knew some sayings of Jesus (POLYCARP)* a late 2nd century reference to Christians, not Jesus (LUCIAN)* some 3rd century Jewish polemic (TALMUD)None of these references are contemporary, most of them contain no reference to a historical Jesus anyway - and the few that do are all suspect or far too late.Such is the "evidence" for Jesus.Iasion

quote:

---

Deut. 32.8, I found your post to be rather interesting.

---

Having characterised me as dishonest and unserious, I can only take your newfound interest as an instance of simple opportunism, a trait that I find no more compelling than sloppy scholarship, evasion, and ad hominem.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-29-2005 10:36 AM

Iasion, as in the past, I appreciate your synopsis. Would you be willing to read, consider, and respond to post #59?

The subject related to whether Jesus Christ existed as a person.My first reference pointed to the list of people who had made reference to Jesus, a list offerred by a skeptic. This was offerred as evidence, which was refuted by my point.My second mention was to Nero's recognition of them at 64, a scant 30 years following the historically agreed year that would be Jesus' crucifixion (and resurrection), which year helps aid or debunk the existance of same.The third reference was to the fact that all the historical followers believed in the fact of the resurrection enough (not just Messiahship) to go to martyrdom.And I listed the writings of Polycarp as well, a contemporary of John, meaning the one who wrote the gospel of John.So then the last paragraph, approximately 5 to 7 percent of my post, gave the evidence of my own transition based on this and the other evidence to belief, which I think counts as evidence. Granting the last six words as "evangelizing", how can you make such a generalization about that post. After all, empirical evidence is what brought me to my present beliefs.Also, I would submit that the whole idea of a "debate" forum is to offer the case for your beliefs on that idea.- Alan