what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[pinkocommie]

I haven't read much evidence that points to Jesus as he exists in the bible being a real man.

I keep seeing this posted here about "not much" evidence for Jesus. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of Jesus as portrayed in the bible. NONE....etc etc etc

Absotively correct.

Just noticed that was my comment being quoted.

I'm not personally educated on the subject, so I word it the way I do to reflect that.  Also, I specifically worded my post in that way because I was hoping Jac would chime in on the subject since in an earlier post he grouped historical Jesus deniers in with moon landing deniers.  I wanted to see if he might respond to hear his side of the argument since he seems relatively intelligent and certain of the existence of a historical biblical Jesus.  Personally, I've never come across any evidence that he did, but like I said - I haven't really studied the subject.

[lundberg500]

I would love to see what "evidence" Jac has for a historical Jesus. I spend a great deal reading about any "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the New Testament. In all the years that I have been reading on this subject, I have found absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I am ready to counter each and every possible account of possible evidence with hard facts. Also, you stating that this person Jac groups me and many, many others who believe that Jesus was not a historical person into the same category of people who deny the moon landing worries me. That is certainly not the case when it comes to evidence of a historical Jesus. Jac sounds very Christian.

[tymygy]

I would love to see what "evidence" Jac has for a historical Jesus. I spend a great deal reading about any "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the New Testament. In all the years that I have been reading on this subject, I have found absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I am ready to counter each and every possible account of possible evidence with hard facts. Also, you stating that this person Jac groups me and many, many others who believe that Jesus was not a historical person into the same category of people who deny the moon landing worries me. That is certainly not the case when it comes to evidence of a historical Jesus. Jac sounds very Christian.

Jac is very christian, and like the others very blind.

But I think you should make a new topic and talk about the historicity of jesus with him. I'd love to see who could "out-fact" the other.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

But I think you should make a new topic and talk about the historicity of jesus with him. I'd love to see who could "out-fact" the other.  

Seconded.

[lundberg500]

I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

[PoopShoot]

I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Because he focuses on philosophy over facts.

[Jac3510]

I wonder why Jac hasn't jumped in on this thread? This would be a perfectly good thread for him to comment on. I look forward to anything he might believe is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Two reasons:

1. Because my time has been extremely limited over the past two weeks, and what little time I've had here I've wanted to put into the thread on Hell. That is, after all, one of the most common objections against Christianity, and so it deserves the fullest consideration.

2. Because arguments against the historicity of Jesus are, to be completely frank, silly. There are plenty of things we can argue about Jesus. How much of the words attributed to him did he actually say? What language(s) did he speak in? What was his eschatological position? What was his overall theological position -- was he closer to the Pharisees or the Essenes, for instances? What was his relationship to the Christian church (this may seem obvious, but the issue of Pauline origins are important and must be examined)? How did Jesus see himself? How should Jesus be classified generally -- a feminist, social revolutionary, moral sage, pacifist, etc.? Why was he crucified, and what did he do to so enrage the religious leadership of his day? What is the relationship between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of faith" (this question, I might add, has been debated very strongly over the three quests for the historical Jesus, but almost always makes severe methodological mistakes from the outset. The field of study called "Biblical Theology," which is distinguished from the field called "Systematic Theology," is deeply divided on the question of whether or not we can even make an appropriate division between "what the text means" and "what the text means." For more on this, I highly recommend G. Hasel's excellent Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed)?

These and myriads of others are the kinds of things Jesus-scholars regularly debate. Whether or not he actually existed? That's a fringe idea, to put it politely. The type of "historical scholarship" you have to engage in to come to that conclusion is precisely the same that leads us to the conclusion that Napoleon never existed.

With that said, there is a great deal we can say about the historical Jesus, and I would like to get into some of the evidence that we do have in the near future. For now, I'll simply leave you with a quote by John Dominic Crossan:

Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus

That from page five of his book Who Killed Jesus? This was not written by a raving Bible believing Christian such as myself. Crossan chaired the Jesus Seminar for many years and has publicly debated men such as N. T. Wright on whether or not the resurrection of Jesus happened at all (he denies it). He considers himself a Christian, but only the broadest sense of the word, as he most definitely denies basic tenants such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration and inerrany of Scripture, and even the traditional authorship assigned to the Gospels (he believes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be second century forgeries). Despite this, he is a scholar of the highest caliper, and primarily a historian. If he makes this kind of statement, it shows just incredibly far one must go to try to deny Jesus' existence all together.

Obviously, just because Crossan says so doesn't make it right. I only point him out as a quick example of why I don't pay too much attention to the "Jesus never existed" crowd, as there are much more important historical discussions to be had. If you would like to see a rough draft of a sample paper I wrote many years ago for a local seminary to help their undergraduate students get a feel for the process of paper writing (I suggest the rough draft because the final edition cut a great deal of detail, since it was only intended to be an example, and even the paper is a summary at best), you can see it here. The focus of the paper is whether or not Jesus' resurrection can be considered a historical event.

Again, I would like to have a discussion on this matter in the near future. Right now, I'm just a bit more pressed for time than I'm comfortable with to take up such a detailed subject.

[i_am_i]

If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

[Jac3510]

If we're talking about the character called Jesus in the New Testament then no, such a person did not exist. I say this because no one comes back to life after being dead for three days, that's impossible and everyone knows that.

No one walks on the sea either, and everyone knows that, too.

The New Testament Jesus, that's the guy who's important, and that guy who is said to have turned water into wine and brought people back from the dead, that guy never existed for the simple reason that it's impossible to do things like that.

I mean, come on. What a story. How anyone other than a complete simpleton can swallow it is beyond me, it really is.

On the assumption that God does not exist, you are of course right. Do you have any proof of the non-existence of God  so that I should adopt your position? A mere lack of belief isn't enough, because if we have historical reasons to believe that Jesus actually did those things, then that would just furnish evidence of God's existence, as would any miracle. If, on the other hand, we know that God does not exist, then we can dismiss miracles out of hand.

So this comes down to the definition of your atheism. Are you a strong atheist who knows that God does not exist? If so, your statements are fair, and I will ask you for your evidence that God does not exist. Or are you a weak atheist who simply lacks belief in God? If so, then I would ask you to retract your statement in recognition of the fact that we do not know that such things are impossible, because that presumes knowledge that you do not have (the impossibility of miracles via the non-existence of God).

[PoopShoot]

A mere lack of belief isn't enough,

Proof that unicorns are real.  Thanks, Jac.

[lundberg500]

Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus

I know you just didn't mention Josephus and Tacitus. The fraudulent interpolations into these writers have been proven over and over again. It doesn't matter who is stating that this is evidence. This is NOT evidence at all. I have studied the writings of these two men quite a bit. I read the writings of Josephus and Tacitus at home for excellent insight into the times in which they lived. Let me assure you that these few interpolations interrupt the flow of their narratives greatly and they make absolutely no sense when reading their work. I will show you briefly how these were interpolations.

JOSEPHUS: Josephus wrote two very important histories; "History of the Jewish War" (70’s CE) and "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). The work that you are referring to is the "Antiquities of the Jews". Right now I am reading his other work, "History of the Jewish War". Even though this book was written during the 70s CE, do you know how many times he mentions Christianity? ZERO. That's because Christianity did not develop until AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

Here is the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus writing “Antiquities of the Jews”:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Not a single writer before the 4th century â€" not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â€" in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to these words.

All manuscripts before Eusebius (263-339 CE) do not have the passage in question. Also, no form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the works of any writer until after Eusebius.

There is nothing said by Josephus about Jesus or Christianity in his “Jewish War”(70s CE). In the section on Pilate in the earlier "Jewish War" he outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). In the "Antiquities", these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In "Jewish War", no mention of Jesus or Christianity is included. Also, throughout the "Antiquities of the Jews" there is not one mention of Christianity or Jesus besides this one small interpolation. The work of Josephus is voluminous and exhaustive. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure leaders, yet he says absolutely nothing about Christianity or Jesus.

The statement “he was the Christ” is very out of place in its present position and disturbs the flow of thought. Also, Josephus being a devout Jew would NEVER claim Jesus as the Christ. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, Josephus has nothing but bad things to say. He condemns the whole movement of rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple. And yet the Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus?

Eubesius’s texts always sound like Eubesius. The phrases “maker of many miracles”, “tribe of Christians”, and “until this day” are found throughout the writings of Eusebius. Eusebius used the same trope or habit that a writer has that is relatively unique and acts as a fingerprint in identifying that writer’s work. The most used trope of Eusebius was the phrase “even to this present day” or “to the present time”. Eusebius liked to use this phrase a lot, especially when referring to proof of the truth not only being seen in the past but still being able to be seen in his present time. He used this same trope even when quoting other writers. Also, the term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS (maker of miraculous works) is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus. The Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in his "Demonstratio" very closely.

TACITUS: The work you are referring to is his "Annals" written around 109 CE. Here is the passage:

Tacitus, Annals, 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative and it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. Tacitus does not mention Christians ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the Annals nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage.

The first copy of the manuscript was dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. This is the Beneventan rustic capitals manuscript that made it’s way to the Monte Cassino where another copy was made around 1038-1055 CE. As the first copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. It is even admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity.

The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.This story, in nearly the same words, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century CE and the same type of slander against Nero is to be found in the writings of Eusebius.Tacitus was writing long before the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. Nero blaming the Christians comes from these apocryphal writings Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul proving that these lines MUST have been interpolated into the Annals.

In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second. This manuscript has been examined and it was found that there are signs of an 'e' being erased. It was discovered that under ultraviolet light that the 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρησÏ,,ÏŒÏ, (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.

The wrong title is used for Pontius Pilate of procurator. The term prefect should have been used. Also, Pilate is mentioned here over 25 years after his rule with no mention of a prior reference to him in another part of the Annals. Tacitus was writing the Annals of accounts year by year, hence the name. He surely would have referred the reader back to an earlier book where he mentions Pilate, especially after being 25 years since he was in office.

Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Many writers called Judaism a superstition. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition. Chrestus (the actual word used by Tacitus), means "the good", a complementary title for just about anyone. Chrestos was a term used in mystic religions, to denote a perfected being. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition.

Like I said, the two small interpolations into Josephus and Tacitus have been proven as forgeries for a very long time. John Remsberg even wrote about these in his book "Christ Myth" written around 1909. It doesn't matter who is quoting these lines as evidence, they are NOT evidence.

Because arguments against the historicity of Jesus are, to be completely frank, silly. There are plenty of things we can argue about Jesus.

Arguments about a historical Jesus are silly? Discussions about a historical Jesus are extremely important. If a historical Jesus cannot be proven then Christianity is SEVERELY weakened.

How much of the words attributed to him did he actually say? What language(s) did he speak in? What was his eschatological position? What was his overall theological position -- was he closer to the Pharisees or the Essenes, for instances?

These are just speculations that are a complete waste of time if this god man never even existed. In all my studies on this subject I have never turned up any evidence for a historical Jesus. I know 100% that he did not exist. I am sure of this. I know all about the Hellenistic influence after the Jewish Diaspora in 70 CE and how the Jesus story developed outside Palestine in Hellenized areas such as Alexandria and Rome. Most Christians I know have absolutely no idea about Hellenism and how this greatly affected the development of Christianity. I will never understand how any rational intelligent human being can believe in stories about a god man dying and resurrecting without any evidence at all. This completely baffles my mind. I just can't think that way. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Jac3510]

A mere lack of belief isn't enough,

Proof that unicorns are real.  Thanks, Jac.

You know better, PS. If I see some droppings in my front yard, you and I can both be pretty darn sure that they are not from a unicorn. Now, on what logical basis can I say, "They did not come from unicorns?" There is only one way.

Unicorns do not exist, and therefore, they could not have come from unicorns.

Against this, we can make a very good probabilistic argument which to state formally would require invoking Bayesian logic, in which I am nowhere near proficient enough. But outside of formal presentation, we make these kinds of logical inferences naturally every day, even if we don't take the time to systematize our thought process. To use a common analogy, suppose you had a two boxes, one with ten balls and one with ten thousand balls, both the same size, and in each was one with your name painted on it. Now suppose that you pushed a button that dropped one ball out, and on the third time you pressed it, the ball with your name popped out. You could make a very good probabilistic argument that you are looking at the box with ten rather than ten thousand balls. So we could do the same with the unicorn argument. Granted that I have no reason to believe that unicorns exist, and given that I've seen a great many number of animals leave droppings before, the chances are far more likely that they came from some other animal rather than the unicorn. They are so great, in fact, that I would be a fool to believe that they did come from a unicorn without excellent reasons to believe so. Testing the droppings and finding out that they come from a dog would only prove the point.

In any case, what I cannot logically say is, "I lack belief in unicorns, and therefore, I these droppings don't come from unicorns."

To put it in a logical form, you would actually have to say:

1. Some animal left droppings on my lawn
2. I have no reason to believe that unicorns exist
3. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that unicorns left droppings on my lawn.

(3) here is logical, but it is a far cry from, "Therefore, it is impossible for unicorns to have left droppings on my lawn," which is, mutatis mutandis, exactly what J argued with reference to Jesus.

In sum, he can argue that the miracles of Jesus are impossible if he has a positive knowledge of God's non-existence. He can argue that he has no reason to believe that they actually happened given his lack of belief in God. He cannot argue that his lack of believe in God means that the miracles of Jesus are impossible, and therefore, that such a Jesus never existed. He can even make the probabilistic argument that the miracles very likely didn't happen, and such a Jesus very likely didn't exist, shy of good historical evidence to the contrary. I am perfectly fine with that, because it allows us to discuss what needs to be discussed: the historical evidence. But his initial phrasing is invalid.

---------------------------------------------

lund,

I have already said that I don't have time to get into these details. I've appealed to the authority of Crossan here shy of the time to make my own case. If you think Crossan is an idiot, then that's your problem. As it stands, your argument are old, tired, and are rejected by the people who have real educations in this matter. Yep, that's an appeal to authority and is not intended to present a logical argument. You should spend less time at the conspiracy sites we all know and love and more time reading what actual historians have said on the matter. In any case, statements by you such as:

I know 100% that he did not exist.

imply that you've not done much study at all. This really is beyond absurd. If you have such evidence, be sure to submit it to the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. They would be thrilled to read it, and you would immediately become the world's most renowned biblical scholar, if not the world's most renowned historian.

Again, I will take up these issues in the near future -- maybe a week or two out -- and maybe we can have a serious discussion. For now, I simply do not have the time to invest in a proper discussion of the evidence.

[lundberg500]

your argument are old, tired, and are rejected by the people who have real educations in this matter.

Jac, this is simply not true. I also meant that I am personally convinced 100% that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. That's my personal conclusion. I can tell that I am dealing with a fundamentalist Christian here.  

[Jac3510]

Jac, this is simply not true. I also meant that I am personally convinced 100% that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. That's my personal conclusion. I can tell that I am dealing with a fundamentalist Christian here.  :shake:

[lundberg500]

Unbelievable..

the question naturally arises why you would be so inclined to believe a conspiracy theory on such weak evidence

I have done exhaustive research into a historical Jesus and I base my conclusions on sound, not weak evidence. I am NOT easily persuaded.

You, on the other hand, believe in a god man who died, then resurrected and then floated up to heaven. I'm sure you also believe in the ridiculous OT stories of Adam and Eve and the Flood too. You base these beliefs on NO evidence at all and I am the one who is easily persuaded?