I’m really on the fence on this one because from what I’ve read, there seems to be very little evidence that Jesus actually existed.
This evidence really seems to rest on 2 main sources. The first source being Paul, who claims to have met James, the brother of Jesus and Peter. The second source being Flavius Josephus, who mentions both James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus himself, in his writings.
Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
There was a man named Jesus, who preached a message of peace and love. This man Jesus did many good deeds and helped people. Jesus, became popular and started drawing large crowds. Because of this the Sanhedrin became concerned and so the Romans crucified Jesus for being a trouble maker. Then, after his crucifixion, some peopled claimed to have seen Jesus in visions. As a result, we believe that this Jesus was the Messiah.
Now, along with this story, Peter claimed to be the main apostle of this man Jesus, and James claimed to be Jesus’s brother.
Next, Peter and James told this story many times to many different people. As people heard this story, they told it to others and it spread. As a result, more and more people came to believe in this man Jesus, and these people became the early Christians.
As Christianity started to spread, Paul, persecuted these Christians. However, after a while, he became conflicted about this. He may have thought, “What if this Jesus really was the Messiah?” “Should I be persecuting these Christians or should I become a follower of this Jesus?” In dealing with this conflict, Paul had a vision and as a result he started to spread his own message about Jesus.
Then some time later, Paul meets up with Peter and James, the supposed main apostle and brother of this man Jesus.
Now, the story of Jesus was told and retold by many people throughout the oral tradition
Furthermore, as this story was retold, it gradually evolved into a story, where Jesus healed the sick, Jesus walked on water, Jesus fed 5,000, Jesus brought people back from the dead and furthermore, after he was crucified and died, Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
Some years later, the gospels are written. These gospels are written by people who never met Jesus and they tell the stories of the life of Jesus as it had evolved by that point in time.
Then sometime after this, Josephus writes his histories and in these histories he writes about what he’s heard regarding this man Jesus and James, the brother of Jesus.
Now, I’m not saying that this “is” what happened and to be honest, I really don’t know what took place 2,000 years ago. But I’m also not closed to the possibility that something like this “may” have taken place, instead.
The question I always have about the idea that Jesus was just “made up” is that we know based on the letters of Paul that the Christian movement started pretty much immediately upon Jesus’ (alleged) death: there were enough of them even outside of Palestine for Paul to be persecuting them in the mid-30s.
Jesus’ ministry was mostly in pretty small villages and even Jerusalem wasn’t large by modern standards. They certainly weren’t so big that if you heard about a wandering preacher who supposedly came through last year, and no one you know recalls actually meeting him or hearing anything about it at the time, you’d just figure it must have been on the other side of town or something.
It seems like there’s two conflicting claims that get made: one, that Jesus’ ministry would have been so big and spectacular that historians all over the ancient world should have recorded it, the other that Jesus’ ministry would have been so unnoteworthy that in a town with a population of 1,500 (one estimate I’ve come across of the likely population of Capernaum at the time) no one would have expected to have heard about it at the time or remember it a few years later (which doesn’t really match up with what I’ve been told by people I know who grew up in small towns today!).
Both of these claims seem to me to be incorrect: something doesn’t have to be so big and spectacular that it would be of note to historians to be something that would make you suspicious if no one you knew had heard about it before in the small community it supposedly happened in a year or two ago.
JBSeth1 said
I’m really on the fence on this one because from what I’ve read, there seems to be very little evidence that Jesus actually existed.This evidence really seems to rest on 2 main sources. The first source being Paul, who claims to have met James, the brother of Jesus and Peter. The second source being Flavius Josephus, who mentions both James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus himself, in his writings.
Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
There was a man named Jesus, who preached a message of peace and love. This man Jesus did many good deeds and helped people. Jesus, became popular and started drawing large crowds. Because of this the Sanhedrin became concerned and so the Romans crucified Jesus for being a trouble maker. Then, after his crucifixion, some peopled claimed to have seen Jesus in visions. As a result, we believe that this Jesus was the Messiah.
Now, along with this story, Peter claimed to be the main apostle of this man Jesus, and James claimed to be Jesus’s brother.
Next, Peter and James told this story many times to many different people. As people heard this story, they told it to others and it spread. As a result, more and more people came to believe in this man Jesus, and these people became the early Christians.
As Christianity started to spread, Paul, persecuted these Christians. However, after a while, he became conflicted about this. He may have thought, “What if this Jesus really was the Messiah?” “Should I be persecuting these Christians or should I become a follower of this Jesus?” In dealing with this conflict, Paul had a vision and as a result he started to spread his own message about Jesus.
Then some time later, Paul meets up with Peter and James, the supposed main apostle and brother of this man Jesus.
Now, the story of Jesus was told and retold by many people throughout the oral tradition
Furthermore, as this story was retold, it gradually evolved into a story, where Jesus healed the sick, Jesus walked on water, Jesus fed 5,000, Jesus brought people back from the dead and furthermore, after he was crucified and died, Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
Some years later, the gospels are written. These gospels are written by people who never met Jesus and they tell the stories of the life of Jesus as it had evolved by that point in time.
Then sometime after this, Josephus writes his histories and in these histories he writes about what he’s heard regarding this man Jesus and James, the brother of Jesus.
Now, I’m not saying that this “is” what happened and to be honest, I really don’t know what took place 2,000 years ago. But I’m also not closed to the possibility that something like this “may” have taken place, instead.
There are some problems with this mythicist view.
1. Assuming it’s true, there should have been literary echoes of opposition against such a fabricated message. The Gospels often tries to counter rumors/opinions existing at the time of writing, like for instance Matthew 28:11-ff, Luke 7:33-ff
2. The disciples(forgers or real) got organized in Jerusalem early in the thirties (follows from the Pauline chronology) and started spreading their message of the crucified Messiah there. Jesus foremost enemies, the priestly Sadducee temple authorities would have known if no such incident and it would have provided fuel for the later anti-Jesus writings within Judaism. There is no such thing, but rather accusations that we was a deceiver.
3. The story itself has historical credibility within the description of Palestine given by Josephus and other sources. A single “prophet” like Jesus Ben Ananias were given a treatment much like Jesus of N., but not executed, because he had no followers. Larger sects were brutally persecuted, both leader(s) and followers. But for those in between, like John, the authorities executed the leader only.
4. Conspiracies exist. But they are very difficult to maintain when there are many players. The likelihood is in favor of a historical person, because it explains the facts better than a fabrication. Paul was a relatively sharp-witted person, and definitely not meek and uncritical. On the contrary, he shows critical distance to James and Peter in Galatians.
JBSeth1 said
(…)Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
(…)
If so, they must have done more than that. Since James became the effective leader of the Jerusalem community, he must successfully have convinced his family members that they wasn’t his family , but that he was he brother of someone they had never heard about. Later , he must have organized “brothers” of Jesus with wives , who could do the same miracle.
But it is a good exercise to follow a hypothesis ad absurdum.
Was there a historical Jesus? Honestly, I don’t know. It’s a great debate, but I find it more reasonable to argue about who he is represented to be by scripture and the masses that followed? For me, it is more profitable to reflect on those who wrote about him and their influence over the church. And what were their intentions?
If he were a “real” man, he was exalted above the common man, so that he might be worshipped. And leaders wanted to elevate themselves along/beside him, to share in his glory. But, I could be wrong.
What if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus never really happened, but were just invented out of literary models from older Greek and Jewish writing? What if this was done because it was thought the world would be a better place if people believed Jesus died for our sins and rose from the grave?
Plato writes: “What they will say is this: that such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire …” (Republic 2.361e-2.362a). Maybe this passage in Plato’s Republic inspired the crucifixion story in the New Testament in the same way Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and the Wisdom of Solomon did by way of haggadic midrash. Maybe the crucifixion and resurrection story about Jesus was one of those noble lies Plato spoke of in the Republic (see Republic Book 3, 414e–15c), told because it would make the world a better place if the masses believed it.
Plato apparently takes the idea of the noble lie from Euripides’ Bacchae, where Cadmus says “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.” Maybe this is why Christians said Jesus was a God.
“The noble lie” would fit in with Jewish and Christian theology, where lying and deception were allowed if it served the purpose of God (see Exodus 1:18-20, Joshua 2: 4-6, 1 Kings 15:5, 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Kings 8:10, 1 Samuel 21:2, Jeremiah 4:10, John 7: 8-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:11, James 2:25).
Maybe a better world was a cause the original Christians would die for, even if they knew Jesus never rose from the dead. Paul would have been part of this conspiracy too, because he was never hunted down by his former employers when he deserted and joined the Christians.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)”
prestonp said
“Paul never met Jesus.” milkywayAre you sure?
“Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The above message does not indicate that Paul saw Jesus, although it indicates he saw the light from heaven flash around him and then he heard a voice of someone or something claiming that he is Jesus. I would agree with you if “meeting” can be achieved by hearing someone’s voice only, without even exchanging any conversation.
prestonp said
Hi prestonp, I get the impression that you are pressing “why the disciples of Jesus would have died for a message if that message was based on a lie”. My insightful answer is … I don’t know.
Well, let’s think about it. Why would someone tell a bunch of lies and then allow themselves to be executed for their lies, when they could have walked away?
First, though, let me try again. No. My question is not, “Why would they die if the message they were dying for was a lie.”
The question is, “Why would they die for a message filled with lies that they themselves created and spread?” It was they who began the sham about the resurrection, knowing it was a sham. They invented the resurrection! They knew there was no resurrection. But they fabricated the N.T. lies that there was one and got taken out for it. Why? Why would anyone die for a “cause” or a “message” they themselves created when they didn’t have to?
I see that your argument is the same argument made in the book called “Case for Christ”. If it is indeed true that all or most disciples did get martyred for their refusal to renounce Christ as Son of God, then I would agree that such fact would definitely bolster a position that they truly believed that Christ was Son of God. However, what they believed was true might not have been true, so my answer to your specific question is that they did not think what they believed was a lie. People who come back from “dead” will swear on their lives that they really saw light in the tunnel and their loved one who died. Do I believe they are lying? No, I believe they are telling the truth that they think they saw them. Do I believe they temporarily went up to heaven and did really meet their deceased loved ones? No.
I myself believe that there was a person named Jesus Christ and he did live and was crucified. I have no idea whether he really rose from dead or he was truly Son of God, or the exact reason why he was crucified, etc.
gavriel said
JBSeth1 said
(…)Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
(…)If so, they must have done more than that. Since James became the effective leader of the Jerusalem community, he must successfully have convinced his family members that they wasn’t his family , but that he was he brother of someone they had never heard about. Later , he must have organized “brothers” of Jesus with wives , who could do the same miracle.
But it is a good exercise to follow a hypothesis ad absurdum.
It does bother me when Jesus’ own family did not believe he was the Messiah. I mean you would think your own family would know that you had some special powers, etc. I wonder if all his family also went through the conversion (like James and Mary), or were there some family members who still did not believe that he was the Messiah? It seems like we don’t hear anything from Joseph.
webattorney said
gavriel said
JBSeth1 said
(…)Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
(…)If so, they must have done more than that. Since James became the effective leader of the Jerusalem community, he must successfully have convinced his family members that they wasn’t his family , but that he was he brother of someone they had never heard about. Later , he must have organized “brothers” of Jesus with wives , who could do the same miracle.
But it is a good exercise to follow a hypothesis ad absurdum.
It does bother me when Jesus’ own family did not believe he was the Messiah. I mean you would think your own family would know that you had some special powers, etc. I wonder if all his family also went through the conversion (like James and Mary), or were there some family members who still did not believe that he was the Messiah? It seems like we don’t hear anything from Joseph.
My comment was to the suggestion from JBSeth1, who set forward the interesting hypothesis that Peter and James fabricated the entire sect message and set it into motion so that it ended up being written down by believers in elaborated form, complete with naturally evolving legendary embellishments, some decades later. My counter-argument was that it is hard to deceive and uphold a conspiracy including false family relationships. Paul knows the marital relationships of Jesus brothers, which indicates that all or most of his brothers converted, or claimed so. Theoretically, a small group of Galileans, unknown to everyone in Jerusalem, Antioch or Damascus,including wives may have started such a “conspiracy”. But how probable is that? There is no historical proof of it, and the theory is basically the same type of construct as fundamentalists use when they they want to explain away contradictions in Scripture: they invent elaborate, theoretically possible, but unproven historical contexts that may unite Scripture and theory.
regards, g.
john76 said
What if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus never really happened, but were just invented out of literary models from older Greek and Jewish writing? What if this was done because it was thought the world would be a better place if people believed Jesus died for our sins and rose from the grave?Plato writes: “What they will say is this: that such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire …” (Republic 2.361e-2.362a). Maybe this passage in Plato’s Republic inspired the crucifixion story in the New Testament in the same way Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and the Wisdom of Solomon did by way of haggadic midrash. Maybe the crucifixion and resurrection story about Jesus was one of those noble lies Plato spoke of in the Republic (see Republic Book 3, 414e–15c), told because it would make the world a better place if the masses believed it.
Plato apparently takes the idea of the noble lie from Euripides’ Bacchae, where Cadmus says “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.” Maybe this is why Christians said Jesus was a God.
“The noble lie” would fit in with Jewish and Christian theology, where lying and deception were allowed if it served the purpose of God (see Exodus 1:18-20, Joshua 2: 4-6, 1 Kings 15:5, 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Kings 8:10, 1 Samuel 21:2, Jeremiah 4:10, John 7: 8-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:11, James 2:25).
Maybe a better world was a cause the original Christians would die for, even if they knew Jesus never rose from the dead. Paul would have been part of this conspiracy too, because he was never hunted down by his former employers when he deserted and joined the Christians.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)”
Of course the Jesus story was all lies. Religion has always been all lies. Did Muhammad fly off into the sky on a winged horse, or was somebody lying? Did Apollonius of Tyana do all those miracles, or was somebody lying? Did Joseph Smith find golden plates from heaven, or was somebody lying? Did Jesus do all those miracle and rise from the dead, or was somebody lying?
Tom said
I’ve found these sources so far … and costly to purchase since they’re off major scholar presses:
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods Paperback – July 1, 2002
by Darrell L. Bock (Author)The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993
The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religions) Paperback – November 5, 2006
by Amy-Jill Levine (Editor), Dale C. Allison (Editor), John Dominic Crossan (Editor)Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1 Hardcover – July 29, 2003
by James D. G. Dunn (Author)Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence Paperback – May 1, 2002
by Jonathan L. Reed
I choose not to include Meier because (I think) his work sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other reference material out there.
I think Dr. Ehrman’s book does a pretty good job illustrating Jesus’ historicity but the mythicists continue to pick it apart.
These above references IMHO will get anyone started on discovering Jesus, the human being.
-Tom
The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy by Steefen is good but that author has a second edition in the works.
King Jesus by Ralph Ellis is obligatory.
Only after reading King Jesus by Ralph Ellis, one should read Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill and the second half of Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah by Joseph Atwill. The first half of the book can be boiled down to this: Marlowe and Shakespeare agree with the findings of Caesar’s Messiah. Both Ralph Ellis and Joseph Atwill are flawed writers but what they do get right advances the field of study.
gavriel said
JBSeth1 said
(…)Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
(…)If so, they must have done more than that. Since James became the effective leader of the Jerusalem community, he must successfully have convinced his family members that they wasn’t his family , but that he was he brother of someone they had never heard about. Later , he must have organized “brothers” of Jesus with wives , who could do the same miracle.
But it is a good exercise to follow a hypothesis ad absurdum.
James doesn’t mention the Church of Jerusalem in Josephus / Josephus doesn’t mention James mentioning the Church of Jerusalem.
Steefen said
gavriel said
JBSeth1 said
(…)Given this then, it seems “possible” that the entire Jesus story could have been a fabrication. For example, consider the following possible scenario.
Two people, one named Peter and the other named James created and told the following story.
(…)If so, they must have done more than that. Since James became the effective leader of the Jerusalem community, he must successfully have convinced his family members that they wasn’t his family , but that he was he brother of someone they had never heard about. Later , he must have organized “brothers” of Jesus with wives , who could do the same miracle.
But it is a good exercise to follow a hypothesis ad absurdum.
James doesn’t mention the Church of Jerusalem in Josephus / Josephus doesn’t mention James mentioning the Church of Jerusalem.
No, but there is a hint about James being a part of a group , in Whistons translation: “so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; ” The online version of Whiston has the alternative reading ” [or, some of his companions]”. Maybe Bart can clarify if this alternative reading of the Greek is valid?
The idea that there was a Jerusalem church is drawn from Paul and Luke. Paul says James was a “pillar”, with authority to instruct Peter around 50 CE, and Luke confirms the idea of James’ primacy at this time, while he at the same time says as little as possible about James in order to not muddle his harmonization work. The idea that “who was called Christ” is an interpolation, and that the identifying clause for “Jesus” has to be searched for in other paragraphs far removed, is not convincing. Of course, “who was called Christ” may have overwritten something now left out, but then you must argue for it with something that is not derived from the wish to see it so.
Hi All, Thanks for the interesting comments.
Lately I’ve been contemplating why exactly I’m on the fence on this issue and so I just read Professor Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist?” A great book by the way, and I learned quite a bit about the “mythicists” that I did not know.
Let me begin by stating that I am not a mythicist, nor a humanist, nor an atheist for that matter and I have no specific agenda to disrupt or bring any harm to any Christian church. I am however a history buff, and I find this subject fascinating.
The reason I’m on the fence on this topic is because of my understanding of the critical historical information on this subject. Let me explain.
As I understand it, Jesus was crucified around 30 CE. Paul wrote his epistles around 40 to 50CE. The Gospels were roughly written, Mark in the 60’s, Matthew and Luke in the 70’s and 80’s and John, in the 90’s. These are all ballpark timeframes.
Between the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels, there was a period of “Oral Tradition”, where the teachings, sayings and events of Jesus’s life were passed on, “word of mouth”. During this oral tradition, some embellishments to the events and sayings of Jesus may have been made.
Our earliest manuscript, something called P52 Papyrus Rylands Gk. 457, is a tiny papyrus fragment approximately 2.5 inches wide by 3.5 inches long, that contains John 18:31-33 and 37-38. This fragment is dated to about 150 CE timeframe. I believe the wording in this manuscript is very close, if not exactly the same as the wording found in the New Testament published today.
We have other fragments and portions of manuscripts after this, but, if my understanding is correct, nothing like the complete gospels or books of the New Testament until around the 300 CE timeframe at the earliest.
Professor Ehrman uses the term, “Proto-orthodox” Christians to describe the groups of people who were the followers of Jesus and whose writings eventually led up to the New Testament canon that we have today. Thus, I will use the term, the “Non-Proto-orthodox” Christians, to describe the other groups of people who had different views; such as the Marconians or the Gnostics.
From the writings of Eusebius, we find that there were very many and various “Non-Proto-orthodox” Christians groups, from as early as the beginning as the 2nd century and perhaps even earlier. Due to the challenge presented by the “Non-Proto-orthodox” Christian groups, the, “Proto-orthodox” Christian groups created various writings and documents to explain their “orthodox” points of view.
During the timeframe, between perhaps 50 CE to 320 CE, the “Proto-orthodox” Christian ideas and concepts were developed, massaged, harmonized, changed, etc. in response to this threat posed by the various “Non-Proto-orthodox” Christian groups.
Now here’s the issue as I see it.
If we found the original writings of Paul, the original 4 Gospels and the original Acts, would they be different than the copies we have today?
I don’t know. Possibly.
Maybe they were changed, perhaps in some cases significantly, in support the changing ideas that were developed by the Proto-Orthodox Church in response to the “Non-Proto-orthodox” Christian groups.
If we found the original writings of Paul, the original 4 Gospels and the original Acts, would they give us any reason to question the existence of Jesus?
Again, I don’ know. Maybe.
However I also don’t think that we can solve this dilemma without the originals. The fact that the early fragments and early New Testament documents that we have today are similar to those that are published in the New Testaments today, does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean that the “originals” necessarily looked like the “early documents” that we have today.
This is why I’m on the fence on this one.
Azeus said
The controversy about Nazirite is generally as follows. That word in Hebrew describes someone who has taken a vow with God that has specific requirements. When the Hebrew text was translated into Greek it becomes a reference to a place of birth. There is no archeological evidence or reference to a place called Nazareth during the time of Jesus. It was established well after that according to most archeologists. There are several examples of this in Biblical writings that dramatically alter the theological meaning of the text. No, I do not believe there was a historical Jesus figure. If I make the assertion that Zeus is my father, it is incumbent upon me to provide evidence that supports it. I cannot offer the the rational that you cannot prove he isn’t as my evidence. Making a statement that there are 4 separate accounts for the existence of Jesus in the Gospels is, well, silly. Most evidence shows these are variations of the same account, not separate accounts of 4 people who were witness to anything. I will try to demonstrate this. Justin Martyr is often used to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I have done an analysis of his writings. I was struck by his reference to Jesus being born in a cave. This is not mentioned in any of the New Testament Gospels. The only reference I can find that mentions Jesus being born in a cave is the Gospel of James. Justin Martyr therefore had access to James. James could have existed before some of the other Gospels. James has some awfully strange events early in the Jesus story and even stranger tales at the end. Is it possible that the reason Mark starts at his baptism and ends abruptly at his tomb because it is a redaction of James? The author of Mark simply edited out what he seen as not believable. Is it not reasonable to claim that James then has precedence over Mark? If that is true, James should be a Canonical Gospel and not Mark. Prove that claim wrong, provide your evidence. There is no evidence from the time of Jesus or for the following decades that he existed. The Jesus story appears in history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. If you make a claim that he existed, support it with evidence.
I not only know that He existed as a person, but also that He is alive today. Unfortunately no matter how I explain the matter to you, you would not be able to understand. Why…? Because God has decided that only those with faith should uncover Him. Why is that So? Because He is choosing and selecting His family from those that have a fear or respect of God law and faith in Jesus. If one is lacking in these things he will or has come against a brick wall. To get there all one has to do is to study the fine balance that sustain life on this planet, if one cannot see God in it, that one is blind. Furthermore, humanity has been made in God’s image, therefore we all are like God
It isn’t difficult to identify the spirit in us that bears the image of God; because He has not been hidden in some dark place, but He is in the most forefront of our lives. If anything it is His over-exposure that makes Him invisible as it were.
For with His essence we are able to think, formulate plans and be creative. To have the power of the Word means to be living souls. Just consider that without this Godly essence we would be like animals, living in the limitations of instinct, and not living from the essence of unlimited freedom and intelligent reason.
So the God given ability to formulate reason with words is what makes us in the image of God, for He created all things by the power of His word, and like Him we also plan and create things out of the reasoning power of our words. The ability to speak intelligent and creative words is truly what makes us living souls; therefore it is the breath of life itself. (Genesis 2:7.) You seek evidence of His existence! We all have and are living evidences of His existence.
john76 said
john76 said
What if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus never really happened, but were just invented out of literary models from older Greek and Jewish writing? What if this was done because it was thought the world would be a better place if people believed Jesus died for our sins and rose from the grave?Plato writes: “What they will say is this: that such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire …” (Republic 2.361e-2.362a). Maybe this passage in Plato’s Republic inspired the crucifixion story in the New Testament in the same way Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and the Wisdom of Solomon did by way of haggadic midrash. Maybe the crucifixion and resurrection story about Jesus was one of those noble lies Plato spoke of in the Republic (see Republic Book 3, 414e–15c), told because it would make the world a better place if the masses believed it.
Plato apparently takes the idea of the noble lie from Euripides’ Bacchae, where Cadmus says “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.” Maybe this is why Christians said Jesus was a God.
“The noble lie” would fit in with Jewish and Christian theology, where lying and deception were allowed if it served the purpose of God (see Exodus 1:18-20, Joshua 2: 4-6, 1 Kings 15:5, 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Kings 8:10, 1 Samuel 21:2, Jeremiah 4:10, John 7: 8-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:11, James 2:25).
Maybe a better world was a cause the original Christians would die for, even if they knew Jesus never rose from the dead. Paul would have been part of this conspiracy too, because he was never hunted down by his former employers when he deserted and joined the Christians.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)”
Of course the Jesus story was all lies. Religion has always been all lies. Did Muhammad fly off into the sky on a winged horse, or was somebody lying? Did Apollonius of Tyana do all those miracles, or was somebody lying? Did Joseph Smith find golden plates from heaven, or was somebody lying? Did Jesus do all those miracle and rise from the dead, or was somebody lying?
Yes I agree with you, all religions are someone’s fabrication, or that someone have been sincerely deceived: because if there is a God, there is also an enemy of God. Good verses evil, who can negate that. The evil one likes to make us slaves of religion by making us obey laws and precepts without changing our sinful character. The Holy One likes to makes us holy and free, by helping us to change our character. It isn’t hard to distinguish one from the other. True Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. “Love your neighbour like yourself” is the only requisite.
john76: The translation of Plato’s Republic I do not think would be accurate. The Greek is ἀνασχινδυλεύω. The LSJ does not list crucifixion as part of its definition or anything related. The basic idea of any such “schi-” word is separation or splitting apart (as in schizophrenia). The normal translation in this case is that the man will be “impaled”. I agree that people have translated this passage from Plato as involving crucifixion. I think this has to do with Christians seeing Plato as prefiguring Christianity, and not with getting an accurate translation.
I would doubt that Plato would have ever heard of crucifixion, certainly it was not common to his setting.
Atethnekos said
john76: The translation of Plato’s Republic I do not think would be accurate. The Greek is ἀνασχινδυλεύω. The LSJ does not list crucifixion as part of its definition or anything related. The basic idea of any such “schi-” word is separation or splitting apart (as in schizophrenia). The normal translation in this case is that the man will be “impaled”. I agree that people have translated this passage from Plato as involving crucifixion. I think this has to do with Christians seeing Plato as prefiguring Christianity, and not with getting an accurate translation.I would doubt that Plato would have ever heard of crucifixion, certainly it was not common to his setting.
Hi Atethnekos:
I am aware of the etymology and there is nothing wrong with translating the word as “crucifixion,” since “crucifixion” in ancient times was understood as a form of “impalement.”
And there is every reason to think Plato would be familiar with the punishment of crucifixion. Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used in pre-Roman times by the Persians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians. In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: “They nailed him to a plank and hung him up … this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion.” The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: “They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33.”
But this is all really beside the point. My argument was that the early Christian writers could have seen the passage in Plato and used it along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon to invent Jesus’ crucifixion narrative as haggadic midrash. Even if you are right (which I doubt), these early Christian writers could have seen the word “impaled” in Plato and interpreted it from the point of view of the popular punishment of their time, namely crucifixion. The early Christian writers were not really concerned with preserving the original meaning of the texts they were using for haggadic midrash. For example, they used “Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hosea 11:1)” to invent a story about the young Jesus in Egypt, even thought in the Old Testament original “son” referred to the Jewish people, not a specific person.
The main point is to begin to see the stories about Jesus as a bunch of deceptions and lies, just like the miraculous stories about Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, and Joseph Smith.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)