Did Jesus Exist?

While some historians consider Jesus to largely be a mythological and legendary entity, others”generally, though not always, Christians”consider accounts of Jesus' life to be largely, or even entirely, historical and factual in nature. Some of these historians have also suggested that one treat the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the New Testament as distinct questions. Some notable historians have affirmed the resurrection of Jesus such as A. N. Sherwin-White, Thomas Arnold, and Michael Grant.Even outside of those who believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be largely historical, there are many who reject the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths. For example, the contributors to the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies maintained that the only area which has any historical detail with regard to the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was in the area of art.

Some scholars argue that Jesus may never have existed outside of the mythological realm at all; in support of this claim, they cite a lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers, insufficient physical evidence, and similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts. Perhaps most prolific of these Biblical scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is the professor of German George Albert Wells. However, currently the position that Jesus never existed is a minority view among scholars [6].
[edit]Jesus and syncretismThe existence of Gnosticism and various mystery religions with similarities to Christianity has led the mythological school to suggest that Christianity was strongly influenced by these, essentially building a mystery religion on the foundation of a Judaic tradition (syncretism). This would have included linking the two through Jesus' attempts to fulfill Old Testament prophecies. More generally, it would have included mythologizing a Jewish leader into a Son of God, and a representative of wisdom and knowledge.Some of the most well-known early adherents of the mythological school include Voltaire, Friedrich Engels, and David Strauss (1808-1874), who was the most intellectually influential early mythologist. Strauss accepted that Jesus had existed, but believed the miraculous aspects of the Gospel accounts to be mythical. According to the Slovenian scholar Anton Strle, Nietzsche lost his faith in Christianity as a result of reading Strauss' book Leben Jesu. Another important mythologist was Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959), a philosopher and a consistent defender of the thesis that Jesus did not exist.

Started my minnemooseus, no less. The one minnemooseus topic in the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" forum:

The facts are not conclusive either way.

Eye-witness accounts are a very poor form of evidence, but nevertheless it seems to me there is much more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for Jesus; especially considering that many of the accounts of Jesus are second-hand.

Whats the definition of a positive claim, anyway? The "other" side is making a positive claim inferring human wisdom as being able to imagine a universe (without a God) bigger than we will ever see in our lifetimes. I am convinced that some people delight in attempting to make a mockery of a God whom they would rather not obey!

Historical evidence IS the many believers throughout (early) history especially. You can't expect THAT many people to change based on a mere marketing ploy.

"Apostles" in Early ChristianityOne of the puzzles which Paul in his letters presents to us is the nature of the apostolic movement of which he was a part. If the orthodox picture of Christian beginnings were correct, we would expect to find reference to a system of missionary preaching which traced its impulse back to the group in Jerusalem known in the Gospels as the Twelve. Figures like Peter and John, having had contact with the Master himself on earth, and appointed by him to spread the gospel message, would be regarded as authoritative, and Christian prophets working in the field would inevitably define themselves in relation to this privileged body in Jerusalem and be organized around it.In later times, efforts were made to create such a picture. Acts, probably written well into the second century (see the Main Articles, Part One), presents a golden-age beginning for the Christian apostolic movement and makes Paul subordinate to and in agreement with the Jerusalem apostles, in blatant contradiction to Paul's own letters. The Gospel of Mark is the first to offer an inner circle of Twelve chosen by an earthly Jesus, a group for which there is virtually no evidence in the earliest record. The mention of the "twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is anything but clear, since they are listed separately from Peter and "all the apostles." (They may be an administrative body in the sect.) Paul nowhere else gives so much as a hint of chosen followers of Jesus on earth.The word "disciple(s)" appears not once in the New Testament epistles. This is the word used in the Gospels for followers attached to a ministering Jesus, but in the epistles there is no mention of such followers or a ministry. Instead, we find only the word "apostle," meaning one who is sent out to preach, and it is used for men like Paul and Peter, Barnabas and unnamed others, who are spoken of as being called by God and inspired by the Spirit. (Note that in the Gospels, once the "disciples" are sent out by Jesus, they become "apostles": see Matthew 10:1-2.)

The "scholars" sure do work hard trying to get rid of the God who will finally judge them. The great re-imaginers. That's all they do, imagine devious motives, evil intentions. Some "scholarship."

Just who wrote the gospels remains a mystery. However, it is known that they were written not in Hebrew or Aramaic, as some people may think, but in Greek6. The titles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not the names of the authors as is widely assumed. They are in fact little more than second century guesses with no known connection to biblical characters of the same name6a. The stories and sayings related in the gospels are for the most part hearsay based entirely on second- and third-hand evidence derived solely from intermediate sources none of which was an eyewitness to the events they described. Also, many gospel passages are known forgeries7. For that reason the gospel stories cannot be taken at face value.The dates of the writing of the gospels are more certain. Most scholars agree that the oldest gospel, Mark, was written between 70 and 75. Matthew, although traditionally placed first in the New Testament, was actually written after Mark and is dated at between 80 and 90 as is Luke. Mark, Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptic* gospels. John, written between 95 and 110, tells an altogether different story from the synoptic gospels. The oldest extant reference to gospel writings occurs in a letter form Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to the Trallians. The letter dates from around 107, and in it Ignatious mentions Pontius Pilate and the virgin Mary. The earliest reference to Jesus as a teacher appears in 1st Clement, a letter dated at about 110. To find the first reference to Jesus as a miracle worker, we must move beyond Ignatius and Clement to the Epistle of Barnabas dated 115. The earliest direct reference to the gospels by name appears in a letter to the Philippians from Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, dated 130. Because these early references are all dated after the writing of the gospels, it is logical to conclude that the gospels served as their primary source. Therefore, they can not be sited as reliable historical conformation of the existence of Jesus.

It is hard to combat this kind of skeptical nonsense because it IS all a matter of internal evidence and they can just let their imagination go wild tearing down the scholarship of the traditional church. Speaking of evil, this is evil.

You didn't have any problem calling "Laura's" husband "evil." That's what I was "speaking of." You used the term, I applied it more appropriately

When used as a verb, "midrash" refers to a way of interpreting a biblical verse. Traditionally, understanding of Biblical text in Judaism is divided between peshat (direct meaning), remez (hints), derash (exegesis) and sod (mystical). The Midrash concentrates on remez but even more on derash.Many different exegetical methods are employed to derive deeper meaning from text. This is not limited to the traditional thirteen textual tools attributed to the Tanna Rabbi Yishmael, which are used in the interpretation of halakha (Jewish law). Presence of superfluous words or letters, chronology of events, parallel narratives or other textual anomalies are often a springboard for interpretation of segments of Biblical text. In many cases, a dialogue is expanded manifold: handfuls of lines in the Biblical narrative may become long philosophical discussions. It is unclear whether the Midrash assumes these dialogues took place in reality or if this refers only to subtext or religious implication.The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.Some Midrash discussions are highly metaphorical, and many Jewish authors stress that they are not intended to be taken literally. Rather, other midrashic sources may sometimes serve as a key to particularly esoteric discussions. Later authors maintain that this was done to make this material less accessible to the casual reader and prevent its abuse by detractors.

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' - it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice - but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god - surprise, surprise! - no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.” Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) - in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area - records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.” The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.” St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.” No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Jesus' existence: the full range of views:Almost everyone believes that Jesus walked the land of Palestine in the 1st century CE. Many have never considered the alternative - that Jesus was a mythical being. Most Christians would probably consider such an idea to be blasphemy:

A conservative Christian, who believes in the inerrancy (freedom from error) of the Bible, and the inspiration by God of its authors, might cite passages from the Bible as proof of his existence. The gospels link Jesus' birth and crucifixion to historical persons and events. They describe his sayings, conversations, prayers and actions in great detail.

Many liberal Christians view Jesus as a great Jewish prophet and innovative, itinerant teacher. Even though they do not necessarily consider him divine, few ever question his existence.

Muslims also believe that Jesus was a great prophet. They do not believe that he died on the cross, but they definitely accept that he was born of a virgin, lived in Palestine in the early 1st century CE, and ascended to heaven without having previously died.
bullet Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi of the 1st century CE who popularized many of the beliefs of the Pharisees and of the liberal Jewish thought at the time.

​

However, there are some individuals who disagree that the biblical accounts of Jesus are accurate:

Some claim that Jesus is simply a mythical character, not a historical person.

Others claim that stories about a number of Jewish prophets and teachers from that era were consolidated and attributed to one man: Jesus.

Still others believe that the myths and legends associated with other religious leaders and founders were collected from Egypt, Persia, India, etc. They were rewritten to refer to a person in first century CE Palestine, who may or may not have existed.

You ARE aware, I hope, that none of these attempts to debunk the Bible have any authority or evidentiary foundation whatever, that they are nothing but speculations and imaginative reconstructions that are clearly designed to contradict the views of the previous 2000 years of Bible scholarship.

The Call of An ApostlePaul lives in a world of divine revelation. He moves amid wide-ranging and diverse circles of apostles who preach the Christ, none of whom show any sign of tracing their authority or knowledge about such a divine figure back to a ministry on earth, or to a group of apostles who had been participants and witnesses of that ministry. As I discussed in my first Supplementary Article (“Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate”), neither Paul nor any other writer among the New Testament epistles gives us evidence of the concept of apostolic tradition, or of the idea that anyone had known Jesus personally. The latter idea is notably missing in Paul’s direct references to the Jerusalem apostles, with whom he has important disputes; and it is equally missing in his discussions of the question of who is to be considered a legitimate apostle.In 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul asks plaintively: “Am I not an apostle? Did I not see Jesus our Lord?” It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary revelation and authority from God. In 2 Corinthians 10 to 12, Paul defends his apostleship and compares himself to unnamed rivals (they are not from the Jerusalem group) who are competing for the Corinthians’ allegiance: “Someone is convinced, is he, that he belongs to Christ? Let him think again, and reflect that we belong to Christ as much as he does” (10:7). And he goes on in 11:4 to reveal the source of all these competing messages and claims to legitimacy:For if someone comes who proclaims another Jesus . . . if you receive a spirit different from the spirit already given to you, or a gospel different from the gospel you have already accepted . . .Paul operates in a world of perceived revelation from God, populated by self-appointed apostles who learn about the Christ, and formulate their own interpretations of him, through the Spirit.In all of his arguments over the legitimacy of his position, Paul never addresses the issue in this way: “Yes, I know others were appointed by Jesus in his earthly ministry, but the way in which I was called is just as worthy . . .” Had there been such a thing as appointment by Jesus, can we believe that this, or a link to those who had been so appointed, would not be the ever-present benchmark by which all apostles were measured? Could Paul possibly have ignored such a standard throughout the debates in which he engages concerning apostolic legitimacy? In fact, Paul’s arguments reject the very idea that there could be any deficiency of qualification on his part. And the implication of 1 Corinthians 9:1 is that, since his "seeing" of the Lord is to be regarded as legitimizing his apostleship and this "seeing" was entirely visionary, the legitimacy of the others he is comparing himself to, which includes the Jerusalem apostles, is based on the same measure, namely visionary revelation.That this is the universal standard is clear from 2 Corinthians 10:18. Paul declares: “It is not the man who recommends himself, but the man whom the Lord recommends.” There is no suggestion of a separate basis of authority or pre-eminence based on having known and been chosen by a Jesus on earth. Here “Lord” refers to God (cf. 3:4-6), which is in keeping with the way Paul regularly expresses himself about his call to preach the gospel. Acts has so imposed on Christian consciousness the legend of the dramatic event on the road to Damascus that it comes as a surprise that Paul nowhere refers to such an experience. (Note that Paul’s vision of the Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:8 is not described as a conversion experience, and the Damascus road event is notably missing in his reference to “visions and revelations” in 2 Corinthians 12:1f.)In fact, Paul consistently tells us that it was God himself who called him to be an apostle. In 1 Corinthians 1:1, “the will and call of God” has led him to preach. In 1 Thessalonians 2:4, he is “approved by God.” It is God, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, who qualified Paul to dispense his new covenant, God’s actions which made him an apostle to the gentiles in Galatians 2:8. (Those same actions of God also made Peter an apostle to the Jews!) As for his knowledge of the Christ, Paul tells his readers in Galatians 1:16 that it was God who revealed his Son to him, not Jesus who revealed himself.Even the pseudo-Pauline writers express things in the same vein. It is the “commission God gave me,” in Colossians 1:25. Paul is commissioned “by the will of God” in Ephesians 1:1; in 3:7 he is “made a minister by God’s gifts and powers.” Whenever all these passages were penned, it is difficult to imagine that the writers possessed any concept that Jesus had called or appointed apostles, whether on earth or even through spiritual channels. In fact, Paul clearly excludes such an idea in 1 Corinthians 12:28: “In the church, God has appointed in the first place apostles . . .” No writer who had the Gospel picture before his mind could possibly have said such a thing.The gospel which apostles like Paul preach is likewise never said to have had its source in Jesus or his ministry. Paul constantly refers to the “gospel of God” (Romans 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:2); 1 Peter 4:17 condemns those “who refuse to obey the gospel of God.” Occasionally, Christ is the object of the gospel (1 Thessalonians 3:2), but its source is consistently God himself, and it comes to the minds of apostles like Paul through the channel of God’s Spirit.Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people to whom it came? If anyone claims to be inspired or a prophet, let him recognize that what I write has the Lord’s authority. [1 Corinthians 14:36-38]

Support yours. All your sources are nothing but opinion. Everything you've posted is nothing but reimagining the original texts. The actual facts can support many interpretations for anyone who is of a mind to make stuff up.