I’ve been seeing this argument popping up more and more often these days. It’s a relatively new comer in terms of claim, but it certainly one that’s worth discussing. Last article I mentioned how the word “faith” is a misnomer; I’ve never actually met a Christian that did not think there was a mountain of evidence supporting their claim that Jesus of Nazareth was a God. Really the only time you’ll actually hear the “it’s my faith, and I believe it despite what you say” excuse is whenever you paint them in a corner.
In the early days of Christianity, there really was no debate as to whether Jesus was a real person or not. Most accepted the view that the story of Christ was a parable for living one’s life. Paul of Tarsus, who laid the foundation for Christianity, never refereed to Jesus as a real person. As far as he understood it, the story of Christ was an allegory about redemption, forgiveness and finally absolution.
For a long time, Christianity developed many different branches. Some favored a more allegorical approach to the religion (see the Gnostics for more), but in 325 AD, Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea, which would be responsible for “organizing” the religion. There, a committee decided what books would eventually become the Bible. The council decided that a historical Jesus was needed to codify the religion. The books of Luke and Matthew, which laid the foundation for his genealogy, were included to provide evidence of his blood relation to King David in order to fulfill Old Testament prophesy. Predictably enough, both conflict with one another (with some Christians getting really creative with their explanations).
The Council had succeeded in establishing their creed, but there existed little (if any) historical corroboration of the actual existence of a man by the name of Jesus. Since the Bible was largely considered the only real necessary historical document, there was little attempt to prove his existence outside of Christian doctrine. Why would they bother? Standards of evidence in the 4th century were not the same as they are now.
Despite the extremely flimsy evidence for the historical Jesus, Christians still maintain that the New Testament is a historical document, despite the fact that even the books themselves offer contradictory stories as to the origin and linage of Jesus. The only evidence that suggests he might have existed is the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian that makes a brief reference to a “Christus” figure (which translates literally to “Anointed One”), but even this passage is disputed. Clearly, if someone had indeed performed the supposed miracles that Jesus did, there would be more corroborating evidence for multiple sources. Of course, if St. Paul and his ilk had simple made it up, it would explain everything.
I can only imagine that the need to prove the existence of Jesus is a way for Christians to feel that their religion is not entirely a fabrication. Perhaps they feel that if Jesus were in fact a real man that everything else in the Bible must also be true. If you’re familiar with logic, you can quickly understand how flawed this type of thinking is.
Lots of Christians believe that the evidence for Jesus and their religion in general is overwhelming. In fact, it’s far too flimsy to even qualify as proper history. It demonstrates, however, that human beings need more than Faith to believe in something; we demand evidence. It just so happens that it’s the standards of that evidence that tends to differ with Christians. They feel that by barely proving his existence, they have somehow proved that he was a God.
I might be willing to go on a limb and say that Jesus may have been based on a real person (the best candidate is Apollonius of Tyana), but it’s not enough to convince anyone with a sound mind that this means that a virgin gave birth to an all powerful savior who sacrificed himself on a cross to absolve humans from having eaten a sacred apple in a mythical Garden. Honestly guys, is that the best you can do?
June 16th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Josephus reference is disputed? There are two references, one of which is disputed. There is no original document available to inform the dispute. The other – the Testimonium – is almost universally deemed outright forgery.
Also, Josephus was writing roughly a century after “Jesus” is alleged to have been around. Josephus wasn’t even born in “Jesus’” time.
There is essentially NO contemporaneous record of Jesus. Odd, isn’t it, that an otherwise very well documented era which allegedly saw extraordinary, remarkable events, has ZERO contemporaneous documentation of “Jesus?”
June 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
This is the silliest article I have read. Do a spell check and a proof read before tossing an article up on the web to keep yourself from looking like an 8th grader.
These are vague notions that you have about something you don’t believe in. Why bother sharing them? Think no one has said this before?
June 16th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
As a historical figure, it’s fairly certain jesus existed and (in my opinion) was probably a pretty cool and happening dude (for his time), who i’m sure would be disgusted at what has become of the state of ‘christians’ since his death.
However, as a historical figure, i find him far less interesting than mohammed. Now there is one guy who knew how to live a bizarre and varied life.
I personally am irreligious, and in many cases find the intrusion of religion into realms where it does not belong offensive, but even if i did have an agenda involving the disproving of the very basic tenets of christianity (which i don’t), i would know that attempting to disprove the historical existence of jesus is not the way to go about illustrating my point. It reeks of (gasp) zeal, which is never conducive to a friendly outcome.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
@Christopher:
Another Christian backed into a corner and resorting to personal attacks? I think so.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
@ Greg
So…. proof?
June 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Sorry, that was @Jim, who (in my opinion) is probably a pretty faggy dude
June 16th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Whats the matter Christopher? Did someone make a valid point about your religion? Hmm? Awww….he’s so sad. Why do YOU believe in God?
June 16th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Jesus Christ ROCKS dude! He is the almighty!
RT
http://www.absoluteanonymity.tk
June 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@christopher: Ad hominems are not good ways to prove your point.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Let’s assume it is all the “gospel” truth.
Where in the Old Testament does it say that Yahweh is going to come down to Earth and incarnate as a mere mortal in order to get spit on, tortured and killed? Why would the great Yahweh do such a thing? Why would Yahweh create a universe in which his committing “Death by Cop” (Centurion) would ever be necessary? Is Yahweh nuts? In the Old Testament Yahweh never even hinted that such a move on his part was necessary or would ever be necessary. In the Old Testament Yahweh’s solution to every problem was “Kill them all. Let Yahweh sort ‘em out. Are you gonna tell me the Yahweh of the Book of Job would ever stoop to Death by Centurion? Hell, no. ANd it isn’t it interesting that God is never referred to as “Yahweh” anywhere in the New Testament? Did Christians see the God of the Old Testament as an embarassment?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Where in the Old Testament does it say that Yahweh is going to come down to Earth and incarnate as a mere mortal in order to get spit on, tortured and killed? Why would the great Yahweh do such a thing? Why would Yahweh create a universe in which his committing “Death by Cop” (Centurion) would ever be necessary? Is Yahweh nuts? In the Old Testament Yahweh never even hinted that such a move on his part was necessary or would ever be necessary. In the Old Testament Yahweh’s solution to every problem was “Kill them all. Let Yahweh sort ‘em out. Are you gonna tell me the Yahweh of the Book of Job would ever stoop to Death by Centurion? Hell, no. ANd it isn’t it interesting that God is never referred to as “Yahweh” anywhere in the New Testament? Did Christians see the God of the Old Testament as an embarassment?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Where in the Old Testament does it say that Yahweh is going to come down to Earth and incarnate as a mere mortal in order to get spit on, tortured and killed? Why would the great Yahweh do such a thing? Why would Yahweh create a universe in which his committing “Death by Cop” (Centurion) would ever be necessary? Is Yahweh nuts? In the Old Testament Yahweh never even hinted that such a move on his part was necessary or would ever be necessary. In the Old Testament Yahweh’s solution to every problem was “Kill them all. Let Yahweh sort ‘em out.” Are you gonna tell me the Yahweh of the Book of Job would ever stoop to Death by Centurion? Hell, no. ANd it isn’t it interesting that God is never referred to as “Yahweh” anywhere in the New Testament? Did Christians see the God of the Old Testament as an embarassment?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“Is Yahweh nuts?”
SA2SQ #1: Yes.
SA2SQ #2: If there were a Yahweh, yes.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Well, in all honesty… I can understand Christopher’s frustration. In the past, they could deal with atheists via torture, defenestration, the classic (and very entertaining I may add) witch trials, the ever entertaining public burning at the stake. Now, kids today… having to form arguments based in facts and logic. Who has time for that?
What more proof would anyone require other than a set of books, many of which were at significant odds with each other, written and edited by committee hundreds of years after the fact? Jeeeeezzz…
June 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Ironic that an article about evidence makes 2 claims in the 2nd paragraph without citations to back them. If you’re going to take pot shots at the Christian fish in the barrel, at least provide more references than just Wikipedia linkage.
Does taking you to task just make me another Christian apologist?
Make a better fist of backing your own observations will help your arguments. Otherwise you’re really just goading (trolling?) Christians.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
OK. Whatever person or persons wrote the books attributed to Paul did include some statements indicting that Jesus was a real person. For example when Paul or someone wrote “the rulers of this age” killed Jesus. But compared to the gospels the Pauline epistles describe a Jesus who is little more than a phantom. And these were the first Christian writings.
Many details of Jesus life were added by later writers (the identity of Judas as betrayer for example). The implication is that Paul was talking more about a concept than he was about a real person. And we know that there were interpolations (later additions to Christian writings). So why not later additions to the Jesus story?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Why not later additions (interpolations) to the Pauline epistles making the conceptual allegorical cosmic Christ (Logos) into a real life flesh and blood person who perhaps not coincidentally is reported nowhere else in history other than the Bible?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Lol @ uninformed article. Honestly, I would reply, but the number of angry atheists online has swollen to epic proportions lately and I simply don’t have the time to deal with all the angry people I come across who don’t take the time to inform themselves before they tap something out across a keyboard.
That said, anyone without a half-decent knowledge of this rather well-written article (in the sense that it’s organized, grammatically correct, etc.) will be convinced because they have nothing to check some of the basic (and wrong) assumptions the author makes.
But okay, one gross, negligent, glaring assumption from the 2nd paragraph to illustrate what I mean:
“Paul of Tarsus, who laid the foundation for Christianity, never refereed to Jesus as a real person. As far as he understood it, the story of Christ was an allegory about redemption, forgiveness and finally absolution.”
Whoa, what? How on earth did you ever get this conclusion and from whom? I’m sorry, are we even talking about the same Apostle Paul? The one who traveled by foot and boat across the Roman empire and endured numerous hardships and persecutions, including being put in Roman jails and enduring floggings whilst penning many epistles?
I mean, could you take a bit more time and at least back up your sentiment with a reference or two? As it is, this is a broad, biased, unsupported (and I’m tempted to call it bigoted) *assumption*.
I’m sorry, but the idea that mere religious allegory is enough to motivate someone to be beaten and thrown in a Roman prison repeatedly is mentally deficient.
Anyways…
TLDR: This is just more of the same, vitriolic, un-researched, un-nuanced atheist e-spew that I don’t have the time or energy or desire to viscerally deconstruct further than I already have. *sigh*
One day, I’ll make a post online somewhere of all the evidence I have supporting the legitimacy of the Historical Jesus, including comparative time lines for primary documents in Western History, and when I do, I’ll be sure to post a link here.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I came across this in Josephus. Could this be where Mark got the ideas for his story?
Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,
“A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!”
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,
“Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,
“Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”
Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.
This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,
“Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the Holy House!”
And just as he added at the last,
“Woe, woe to myself also!”
there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.
Wars 6.5.3
You can get an audio or videotape here and you can find most of his arguments on Crosstalk. I don’t know offhand if he has published it.
Via…
June 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I share your frustration with those who do not employ their God given faculty of reason however not all Christian’s share this fault. I come from a tradition that values reason, tradition, and experience as important and necessary when interpreting scripture.
You are also correct that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were not written with the intent of being historical documents. Even the so called “histories” of the time were not written as we know histories to be written today. Each Gospel differs slightly because each Gospel is trying to emphasize a different aspect of Jesus; his claims to authority in Matthew for instance. Many Bibilical Scholars believe that Mark originally ended with verse 8 instead of continuing to include an actual appearance of the post resurrection Jesus. To assume this means that Mark didn’t believe in the resurrected Lord is simply bad literary criticism if not put in context and examined within the book of Mark itself. To interpret and understand what these authors were trying to say we must begin and end with the text. I would encourage you to do the same.
The Gospels themselves are unconcerned with Paul and were written independently. It is generally accepted that Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark though some scholars disagree. John was likely written without the benefit of the other three. These Gospels do not contradict each other (though they do have different accounts of some aspect of Jesus life and ministry none of them deny anything that another contains and in this way substantiate each other). Where the Gospels do differ is an invitation to ask and explore why. Noticing a thing is just the first step. If Newton would have stopped with noticing gravity, where would be? We must ask why.
As far as Paul is concerned I would point you to 1 Corinthians 15. In that chapter he argues for the physical resurrection of Christ and it is doubtful that he would argue so strenuously (to the point of saying that if it didn’t happen “we are to be pitied more than all men.”) that a man he didn’t believe existed rose from the Dead. Moreover his ministry is based on an encounter with Christ and he recounts several of Christ’s appearances in his epistles.
There are other Roman officials and historians who mention Christ as well. Cornelius Tacitus mentions him when talking about Nero blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome. It seems Cornelius took it for granted that Jesus existed. It is also interesting to note that the Christians of that era could not be enticed to curse Jesus name. There are other sources as well though with all of them there isn’t 100% consensus among scholars as to authenticity, etc. Archeology can never prove a thing, only provide evidence that must be interpreted by, alas, flawed humans.
My own faith come from my experiences and is tempered by reason and informed by my tradition. I have encountered Jesus though not in any way this quantifiable and able to be duplicated. I have doubts and I’m not content with the knowledge I have now. It is something that is important to me and as such I want to know if I’m wrong. I don’t want to be blind to evidence but I don’t want to dismiss a thing because its easier to either. You’re faith in the absence of an historical Jesus is admirable and I hope that you will do everything you can to research throughly by looking into all facets of the argument. Read the Gospels and read Paul’s epistles. Let yourself be confronted by who they purport Christ to be. If in the end you maintain your position at least it will be a fully informed one. Being open minded means being open to the possibility that we are wrong. I am open to that possibility and I hope you are as well.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Philo did not consider the Logos to be a “mere religious allegory”. Perhaps, similarly Paul also did not view Jesus as a “mere religious allegory”. I know this may come as a news flash to you but people have believed in and died for ideas and beliefs other than that of an historical Jesus. People have even believed in and died for ideas never manifested on this earth (Heaven’s Gate Cult). What makes the early Christians any different?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
None of the gospels deny anything that another contains? Guess again.
“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever(always) taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”
Jhn 18; 19 & 20
“And when he(Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”
Mk 4; 10-13
Either Jesus lied to the high priest or John contradicts Mark.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I don’t think there are a lot of “angry atheists on the web”. The way I see it, we have become increasingly concerned with what allegedly god-driven-to-do-good christians are doing to politics, tolerance, education and science.
We are not angry. We are out of the closet, and sometimes, yea, we raise our voices and speak up.
It is about time.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Not so many angles as you think! Seriously, people, read the title again. Here it is for those of you who can’t find it on your own: “Tired Christian Claim #3: The evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming”
So, please christianists, show me even one piece of contemporaneous evidence. All those infants Herod ordered whacked? Not a peep about about it in any of the numerous contemporaneously recorded histories. Some wild Jew ransacking the temple? Not a whisper. “King of the Jews” getting crucified after a very public debacle involving the Imperial Governor? Well I guess that occurred on some big news day, didn’t get much coverage.
Come on – give us ONE contemporaneous document.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
* The council of Nicaea didn’t decide on the canon, or on the historicity of Jesus.
* There are 42 early authors who talk about Jesus. You’ve only considered one of the two passages in Josephus, which leaves you (by my count) with the rest of Josephus and 41 more authors to go.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
“On soft grey mornings widows cry
The wise men share a joke
I run to grasp divining signs
To satisfy the hoax.”
- Peter Sinfield
Could be the “widows” are widowed victims of the Inquisition.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“There are 42 early authors who talk about Jesus.”
None of whom wrote while Jesus was alive. There is not one contemporaneous account documenting the presence of God in the flesh on this earth.
Maybe the last 2,000 years has been another test of faith, a wager between God and Satan, like the one Job endured. Only this time we are all Job.
Funny God, that Yahweh. Quite a sense of humor.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
And what’s the point of being dead for three days when your God. And spending the weekend in Hell? This has some great significance? If God really wanted to suffer he should be spending eternity in Hell, like the vast majority of his creation.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
@rofl: You’ve got this thing down solidly, don’t you? Wow.
1.) Insult people. Check.
2.) Claim that anyone who disagrees has an invalid opinion because they just don’t understand. Check.
3.) Claim opposition is mentally deficient, Check.
4.) State that your world view does not permit your understanding of this, so it can’t possibly be so. Check.
5.) Offer no actual evidence to back up your claim/dispute. Check.
6.) Assert that you’d give evidence, but you left it in your other jacket. Check.
7.) Melodramatic exit. Check.
You’re like a cartoon version of an offended christian. Poe, is that you?
7.) State your own obvious superiority. Check.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
The idea that the New Testament offers contradictory stories about Jesus’ life doesn’t do much to dismantle the idea that Jesus was a real person. These contradictions would perhaps eliminate the possibility of the book being divinely inspired (although the only “contradiction” I’ve seen mentioned on this page isn’t a contradiction, it’s Christ saying he spoke openly to everyone in the first passage, and then in the second passage saying that few understood him and the rest found his words only to be stories and did not understand their meaning). But the possible existence of minor disagreements between the authors of the Gospels isn’t a good argument for every event or person in these books being a fabrication. I’m sure if we sift through the historical documents pertaining to World War II, we will find lots of disagreements about events depending on the perspective, but it’s imbecilic to suggest that this means WW II never happened.
With that said, you don’t have to believe the divinity or the message of the New Testament to recognize it as a historical document, even if you wish to reject its religious claims. The authors of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were contemporaries of Jesus, and as far as ancient documents go, the Christian Scriptures are the best preserved and are more verifiable than any other ancient text as far as the number of manuscripts available and the time passed between the purported origin of the books and the dates of the manuscripts. There are 24,000 manuscripts of fragments of the New Testament available. The closest ancient text to this is Homer’s Iliad, which has under 700 available manuscripts. Quite a few of the New Testament manuscripts have been dated to within less than 100 years of their origin, while the Iliad manuscripts (again the closest) are dated within 500 years at the earliest. So if the New Testament does not meet your standards to at least shed some light on a historical figure, then we know nothing about ancient history at all because every other ancient text is far less reliable.
And as far as the Apostle Paul goes, unless you’ve got some secret autobiography that Paul wrote about himself to corroborate your statements, your assertion that he only thought of Christ as an allegory is silly. His writings in the New Testament are certainly not in agreement with that idea. You might as well argue that Paul didn’t exist either, it’ll be slightly less difficult than trying to say he didn’t believe in the man he spent his life teaching about.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
“Clearly, if someone had indeed performed the supposed miracles that Jesus did, there would be more corroborating evidence for multiple sources.”
I thought the Bible was from multiple sources. They didn’t put it all together into one single book until later didn’t they? I thought that was done by the Catholics. I forget.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
“… but it’s imbecilic to suggest that this means WW II never happened.”
Why? Because there is a veritable shitload of other corroborating evidence. Whereas, in the case of “Jesus,” there is none. Criminy, it’s not that hard.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Mark 4:10-13
Jesus said “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:”
In other words he spoke in parables to outsiders. Which means he said other things (in secret) to insiders. He went on to explain that he did not want some people to understand his message. But to the high priest (in the book of John) he said “in secret I have said nothing.”
Either Jesus lied or Mark contradicts John.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“”"”I’m sure if we sift through the historical documents pertaining to World War II, we will find lots of disagreements about events depending on the perspective, but it’s imbecilic to suggest that this means WW II never happened.”"”"
If someone claimed that a collection of WWII history books were the divinely inspired word of God you might have a point. But no one is claiming such a thing. Therefore you have no point.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:32 am
The authors of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were contemporaries of Jesus
FALSE
, and as far as ancient documents go, the Christian Scriptures are the best preserved and are more verifiable than any other ancient text as far as the number of manuscripts available and the time passed between the purported origin of the books and the dates of the manuscripts.
WELL SURE WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT? CHRISTIANS BEGINNING WITH CONSTANTINE AND EUSEBIUS DESTROYED COMPETING DOCUMENTS BY THE THOUSANDS AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS TO WHICH YOU REFER ARE MEDIEVAL.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:36 am
There is not one single contemporary account of the mythical Jesus. In the best case scenario we are talking about word past by mouth over many villages over many decades with many translations. If it was David Koresh in Waco Texas 2000 years ago, instead of Jesus of Nazareth…….then it would not only be the Jesus myth on steroids…..it would be Star Wars, Star Trek, Titanic, 911, color TV, VCR, blue-ray Jesus from 90210….It would be epic beyond belief.
My point is that the myth of Jesus is simply no better than Santa…the Easter Bunny or FSM. If Koresh was taken as the new messiah(because of his overwhelming contemporary legend)…..he would have been HUGE…..that is if his legend was told by camp fires to gullible sheep herders who would whore their ‘faith’ for scraps of food………
June 17th, 2009 at 1:54 am
I’m sorry, I’m an atheist and no defender of Christianity, and you may even have a case about the thin historicity of Jesus, but you make a number of points that simply can’t be supported, and you haven’t bothered to try.
1) As has been pointed up above, to argue that Paul believes Jesus is an “allegory” is asinine, and completely ignores the text of Paul’s letters (even taking into account those he is not believed to have written personally). The closest argument to yours that can be supported is that Paul believed in an exclusively SPIRITUAL Jesus; even this isn’t certain, and in any case there’s a world of difference between spiritual and fictional. The Gnostics, incidentally, took a SPIRITUAL, not an allegorical approach.
2) It is in no sense remarkable that no contemporaneous documentation of Jesus exists; indeed, a simple examination of the historical record reveals that this is exactly what one might expect. There is a common misconception that the Roman period is exceptionally well-documented, and that anything not included in the voluminous Roman records is probably false. In fact, any serious study of Roman history reveals Classicists bemoaning the paucity of written source material, which is voluminous by comparison to, say, the Anglo-Saxon period of English history, but not by comparison to any era of modern history and very likely inferior to parts of the High Middle Ages. There are entire Emperors – rulers of the Roman World – for whom we have the word of but a single historian, sometimes decades or centuries later; this can be corroborated, in many cases, by ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence, which is plentiful but often difficult to interpret. The Jesus depicted in the Gospels would have been a sack-clothed rabbi executed as a common criminal in Judaea, the arsehole of the empire; the odds of such an event being documented in writing are astronomical, and it would leave no archaeological trace behind. It would, in fact, have been of no interest whatever until the cult of this Jesus became a significant Judaean presence in the 50’s and 60’s, under the tutelage of Paul; shortly hereafter, by no coincidence, Josephus writes. And it would have taken longer still to be of interest to the wider Roman world, explaining handily why we must wait until the end of the 1st century to encounter Christ in Tacitus. These sources are both disputed, it is true, but they are about the earliest we should reasonably expect, except for…
3) The Gospels and other books of the New Testament, which are of COURSE historical documents. ALL documents written in a given era have SOME historical relevance, and it remains the task of the historian to determine what that relevance is; it would make no historical sense, however, to disregard documents simply for containing superstition – especially in an era where only the most educated members of the upper crust could have even partially written without it. Bereft of better sources (for reasons easily explained above) we must make do with the ones we have, and in cases that carry less of an emotional charge would surely have concluded that the Gospels argued for the existence of a rabbi named Joshua around whom a cult centered after his death. As someone pointed out above and was ignored, the “Bible” was indeed compiled by Christians over hundreds of years; its every text constitutes a distinct source. As someone ELSE pointed out – quite correctly – and was shouted down, contradictions between the Gospels’ narratives have little relationship to the question of Jesus’ reality. It is, indeed, QUITE like concluding that conflicting witness testimonies mean a given event did not take place at all.
4) An amplification of points 3 and 4: familiarize yourself with the nature and degree of historical source material. A huge portion of ALL classical manuscripts are medieval. The Middle Ages, and specifically the Medieval Muslim World, are our source for the vast majority of “classical” writings. Catullus, one of the greatest and best-known of all Roman poets, survives to us in ONE 10th century manuscript. Many of the most authoritative Roman historians are similar cases. Again, documents from the first couple of centuries CE simply have not survived in great numbers. You could as easily use this fact to argue against the existence of Tiberius as Jesus. You also, by the way, have no idea who wrote the Gospels. Nobody does. They were probably not written by contemporaries of Jesus, but they could have been written by Moses and you wouldn’t know. So don’t get self-righteous.
5) Stop conflating the reality of the historical Jesus with the reality of the Christian faith. You’ve been quick to point out the prevalence of this logical fallacy in Christian circles, but less quick to dispense with it yourself. People make sound points about the person Jesus and you respond with YAH BUT IT DON’T MEAN HE WALKED ON WATER SO UR STUPID. This is obviously illogical, and makes atheists look bad.
In fact, your entire presentation makes atheists look bad, as does your dogmatism. I resent the face you’re giving us.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I’m glad you all have the answers.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Free Radical,
I think you nailed it. The Jesus character in the NT was most likely based on someone’s life. And pointing out Biblical contradictions by no means indicates that there was no “real” Jesus.
But the complete lack of or slow spread of information regarding Jesus’ life outside of Biblical writings says something about Christian claims of divinity. Was the life of Jesus really the best Yahweh could do? Of course not. Jesus could have performed some very public and well-publicized miracles in Rome. He could have had a first class trial in Rome, trial of the century stuff, with all sorts of press coverage. When he resurrected he could have appeared before the Emperor, the Senate and so forth. If he had done such things there would be quite a bit less to argue about.
Similarly the Bible is supposed to be the divinely inspired inerrant word of God. If the Bible was truly transmitted from the mind of God through the hand of man (see Edgar Cayce: automatic writing) then the Bible should contain no contradictions or errors. Alas this is not the case.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:32 am
I know I don’t need to say this, but ignore the criticism about misspelled words and grammar. Anyone who seriously writes and publishes knows how difficult it is edit your own writing. You’re providing a lot of good content, and I for one don’t notice the grammatical issues. You can have ten misspelled words in this article, but it doesn’t make the content less valid.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Also, as for Jesus and the resurrection. What’s the theological line on all that? Why did Jesus have to atone for our sins? What does that actually mean when you break it down. I know what the Christians say, but what the heck does that mean? Who was god appeasing in this act of atonement? Himself?
June 17th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Bahahahha! You don’t need to have good grammar to be a writer? What the fuck has America come to. I like how people assume I’m a Christian because I tell this child to learn to write properly.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Good writing? Please, some human beings invented this language. It’s not God-inspired, so who cares? Write so people can understand it, that’s all =)
I like to argue that people who have faith in Christianity don’t really have faith in Christianity.. rather, they have faith in human beings, and I’ll explain.
Let’s imagine you are an educated person from Africa who has never heard of Christianity. Suppose someone tells you (not convert) about the religion, and what it’s about. How would you respond? Well… first, we’d examine the Bible and see if the book backup the claims…
We’d examine the Bible, and ask these questions:
- If it was God-inspired, why do some of the stories contradict each other?
- Why are there unfulfilled prophecies?
- Why are some of the claims misaligned with scientific evidence?
- Why are there so many inconsistencies in the Bible?
We’d also probably would find the claims of Christianity very astounding and somewhat confusing. We’d ask:
- Why would God need to send his son down to earth to die for our sins? He’s God…
- Why would he send good-natured people who don’t believe in him to hell?
- Noah’s Ark.. are you serious? Sounds kinda.. mythical.
- Why is there so much suffering, wars, and conflict in the world if God is all-loving?
- What makes Christianity true, compared to shamanism or any other religion?
Needless to say, a newbie to Christianity would be very very skeptical of these claims and the Bible. But of course, that doesn’t mean it’s 100% false, right? It could be true.. it could be true…
We’ll need to backtrack ourselves in history, and look at whether there is good, solid historical evidence for what Christianity claims. When we do so, we start to become even more skeptical:
1. No historical records besides the letters of Paul written during Jesus’ lifetime.
The fact is that there were many historians at this age, such as Seneca(who we have plenty of records of), yet none of them wrote anything about a man named Jesus.
2. Letters of Paul don’t describe everything we claim about Jesus
Sure it talks about a man, who claims to be from divinity. But it talks nothing about 3 days, then resurrection. It talks nothing about born of a virgin birth.
Yes we know these details were written about by people after Jesus’ death. However, a logical person would wonder how they would even KNOW these details after he/she died.
Also notice how these details are very similar to that of other pagan god’s (virgin birth, 3 days, then resurrection)
3. Historical records of Jesus after his death are not to be trusted.
This includes part of Josephus’ writings, some of which has been forged. This makes you wonder.. hmm.. forgery.. seems like someone must have had an agenda
4. The story of the compilation of the Bible seems suspicious
So some dude named Constantine had a meeting to decide what would go into the Bible?
When you gather all the evidence and look at it from a logical standpoint, you reach the conclusion the whole thing was man-made and fabricated for a few people’s agenda.
And if you study psychology, or understand history, you’ll realize without a doubt that it was man-made.
If you still insist that the Bible was God-inspired, and that you just gotta faith, and that God would never let himself be proven 100%, you fail to realize how susceptible you were to lies, and social conditioning. Why?
- You learned about the Bible from someone else
- You learned from people that you just “gotta have faith”
It’s all social conditioning. Christianity was a dreadful hoax.. an amusing one perhaps to the founders.. but still dreadful.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Steve Rogers is coming back! My FICTIONAL messiah is coming back before yours. Captain America has returned! Jesus is still a no show. I hope in a 1,000 years someone could write me as being Captain Americas apostles which are called AVENGERS. I guess all the Christians can still go back and reread the old back issues of Jesus Adentures, otherwise known as the bible.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Bernie,
“@ Greg
So…. proof?
…
Sorry, that was @Jim, who (in my opinion) is probably a pretty faggy dude”
If you want solid proof of the existence of people who lived two thousand years ago, or even one thousand, and in some cases as few as hundreds of years ago, in the overwhelming majority of cases, you won’t have any. The only proof of such figures ever having lived is in the written histories of the time. I challenge you to unequivocally prove to me that Pythagoras existed. Or Euclid. or Nebuchadnezzar. There are thousands of examples, of whom jesus was just one. But relative to other famous people who lived around 1-33 a.d., there is a LOT written about him, by a lot of different people. Claiming he ‘didn’t necessarily exist’ is a moot point, that’s true of anybody who lived in that era, and for a long time afterward. The very premise of the original post is mired in bias.
As for your childish accusation, even if i were homosexual, what would that have to do with my point? This place is for discussion of theology and related concepts, is it not? If you’re going to go around throwing juvenile slurs at people you know nothing about, i think youtube might be more for you. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do… Try to get around to it in a hurry, please.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Oof. My original post now reads to me as needlessly abrasive, for which I apologize. I’d been reading these sorts of arguments elsewhere all night and was needled.
I think Jon, Henway, and everyone else are really correct to argue that the Bible contains no convincing historical evidence for the divinity of Jesus, or for any supposed miracles, etc. I also think you’re right, Jon, to point out that if the story had really gone like the Gospels say it did, there WOULD have been a historical record of a man appointed King of the Jews who performed miracles. However:
1) Given that reasonable people can dismiss the official account just on its face, I still don’t think it’s particularly weird that we don’t have Jesus in any contemporary Roman historians. There really aren’t as many as you think, and little reason for the few that there are to care about anything happening in Judaea. It was, as I said, the armpit of the Empire, and they executed criminals there every day.
2) Constantine didn’t compile the canon; the Council of Nicaea isn’t where that was done. It was a little more holistic than that, with a number of the Church Fathers refining and adding to the canon over the centuries. I believe Jerome contributed significantly in choosing which books the Vulgate would include. This is a pretty trivial detail, but the sort of thing we should probably get right if we’re to argue this with Christians.
Speaking of which:
3) The Gospels are rife with small internal contradictions, as any close reading would reveal. John, for example, seems unaware Jesus was born in Bethlehem; he even has someone comment on it, in confusion that this Christ does not fulfill the prophecies, and this point is never answered. Going to the New Testament more generally, the letters of Paul himself clearly contradict the ones he didn’t write (what are called the Pseudo-Pauline epistles), especially in their treatment of women: the text makes it quite clear that Paul himself was cool with the ladies, and that later interpolations are not. Quite good evidence of an early Church agenda.
4) Certainly contradictions in the Bible “call upon us to ask why.” If we don’t at least SUGGEST, however, that the answer to this question is “because they’re not true,” we’ve been logically remiss.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Oh, and kudos to Free Radical, who’s posted the best comment so far.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Jim Cap loves the GAYS his best friend from his childhood was gay.And Captain America loves the jews because his girlfriend from the 70’s was Bernie the glass blowing jew. And come on Black people we all know Cap’s best friend and partner is Sam “FALCON” Wilson.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Don’t be afraid to include links to your counter arguments Free Radical.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Grammar isn’t why were visiting this site. Its about sharing ideas and making people think. Attacking an article about religion on grammar isn’t what you should be worried about. It’s only proving his point that when people can’t defend their beliefs, they resort to other ways to debate that can’t compare to the original argument. If you listened to the podcasts, you’d know research isn’t their strong point, its concepts and reasoning that logically prove religion can be harmful to your health.
See, I pay attention.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Two obvious conclusions:
1. Jesus is best understood as an urban myth.
2. Joe Botelho has unresolved identity issues if you know what I mean.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I think if you believe in Christianity, it is fine, but you have to acknowledge you are believing in something that is definitely not likely to be true. You believe despise the fact that:
- The claims seem outrageous to anyone who has not been exposed to Christianity
- There is no historical evidence about Jesus during his life.
- Paul had a good memory and did not lie about what he witnessed.
- The 4 Gospel writers wrote the stories 100% true to their word, and the stories got passed down 100% as it was written originally.
- The people who compiled the Bible and the church did not have a personal agenda.
- The historians who wrote about Jesus after his death wrote 100% true to their word.
Notice a pattern? That’s putting a lot of faith in human beings being true to their word. Most people fail to realize religious institutions are just like any other institution: open to corruption, ambition, and greed.
If there is a God, and Jesus really did exist, I’ll take my chances in hell. It’s painful, but at least I did not devote 100% of my living a life and a hoax. That would be infinitely more depressing.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Henway wrote:
“I like to argue that people who have faith in Christianity don’t really have faith in Christianity.. rather, they have faith in human beings,”
After analyzing my own life experiences with religion I have reached the same conclusion.
Looking back on the times in my life when I “bought in” to the Christian meme I never once believed Jesus rose from the dead or that any of the alleged miracles actually occurred. But I did believe Christianity was the best way to go. And this was purely due to being socialized in a thoroughly Christian culture. It was nothing but ethnocentrism. A huge component of this was that I found the strength and complexity of Christian theological arguments infinitely more impressive than a supposed death of God for our sins followed by resurrection. Theology and apologetics can be incredibly persuasive when it is all you know. And on the strength of such arguments I concluded that Christianity must be the superior ideology.
This is why it is so important to counter the arguments for Christian exclusivity and superiority at every turn. History (including my own personal history) tells us that if Christianity is allowed to dominate a culture it will suppress if not wipe out competing ways of life. We can’t let this happen again. There are Christians ready to throw us to the lions at the first opportunity. Among the several designations of such “Christians” are Reconstructionist and Dominionist (Dominion Theology). “Christian Fascists” (a redundancy?) works for me. These people are insane and want us to live under Christian Shariah law.
But I digress. I now find it endlessly ironic that theologians and apologists go on and on and on about how the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God. Yet theologians and many if not most Christians spend much more time reading theological opinions about the Bible than they do reading the Bible itself. Kinda suggests to me that perhaps the Bible is not a stand alone document that can argue for itself? But apparently it’s the best God could manage. They were his first 66 attempts at writing so maybe we should give him an “E” for effort. Maybe the *New* New Testament will be better?
June 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The *New* New Testament? The Koran
The *New* *New* New Testament? The Book of Mormon
Who’s next?
June 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I think Jim raises a crucial point. The overwhelming majority of all ancient people are poorly documented; in fact, the vast majority have been utterly lost to history. Jesus becomes a heated figure because of his religious significance; otherwise, he would be no different from a Pythagoras or a Euclid in this sense.
Jacob has requested links to my counterpoints. This is a fair request; unfortunately, I’m taking most of these points from academic study (books and articles) and not websites, so I don’t always have links. In general, I strongly recommend Bart Erhmann’s books (Misquoting Jesus most notably) for an introduction to Biblical criticism and to textual problems with the New Testament. Actually, his scholarly introduction to the New Testament is really good too. Colin Wells’ history of the Roman Imperial period has a great chapter on source material, and most books on individual Roman provinces (e.g. Roman Britain by Malcolm Todd) will have a similar chapter on documentary and archaeological data. Just as a fr’instance, the early Roman period in Britain is covered by Tacitus’ Agricola, and not a whole lot else. I know book titles won’t help you much, but if someone REALLY wanted to confirm I wasn’t full of crap, this would be the way to do it.
As for links, here’s the chapter of John I mentioned:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%207&version=31
Here’s the Wikipedia on the First Nicene Council, which lists its agenda and what they decided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Here’s Wikipedia’s list of Historians organized by period. Note some 30-odd historians of the entire ancient period, with just a small handful that coincide with the Biblical chronology; click a few, see how many works are partially or wholly lost. I think you’ll be surprised. By comparison, the medieval period has 100+ historians on Wikipedia, many more of whom are available. This wasn’t my source and I haven’t checked to see if I think this list of authors is comprehensive, but it’s the best I can do in a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians#Historians_of_the_Ancient_Period
Does this help anyone who had problems with my claims?
June 19th, 2009 at 1:54 am
I’m onboard with atheism / agnosticism, but I’m also pretty sure that Jesus is a verified (as verified as can be) historical figure. The issue is not whether he walked the earth, the issue is whether or not he performed miracles.
June 21st, 2009 at 11:11 am
Is that the issue? I’d have thought the issue should always be “Is the message good”?
I’m an agnostic pantheist who will often define himself as a Christian because I was raised in a Christian family, went to a C of E church and sang in the choir. Also the music is bloody marvelous. But aside from that I don’t really believe that Jesus was or in any way could have been the son of God. Nor do I believe in the intelligent being looking down on us and controling and judging us.
I think you can waste time arguing against religion, especially ones that have such a positive message at the heart. Of course, the people who should be confronted are the radicals: Westboro Baptist Church, terrorists, etc., but what are the odds Phelps or Bin Laden are strolling across these web pages?
In any case:
If God does exist, he wants you to be happy and make others happy, love one another and all that.
If God doesn’t… well, shouldn’t you still be happy and make others happy, love one another and all that?
Fundamentalists, be they Christian or Muslim or Atheist, use elements of religion and the world around to put across their own agenda, not the only significant message of God or Yahweh or Allah or Buddha or Brahman or Destiny or Big Bird or humanity itself: to love one another. That should be the issue, and that should be the cause we fight for.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 am
“I’m an agnostic pantheist …”
Could you explain that please? It seems a contradiction in terms to me.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
An agnostic pantheist… that can be said to believe in Christ but not the totalitarian god of the old testament who also takes the deist position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone bend over backwards in so many directions at once and all at the same time to boot. Somebody call Guiness.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Interesting. While I personally think there is census evidence that Jesus did exist (as a human being), there is no true evidence that he was the Son of God, born of a Virgin, etc.
As a Prophet, he’s no different than the Dalai Lama, if indeed he preached true “love and tolerance”, not the hatred that modern Xtains spew.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Yeshua(h) probably existed….as the name was common.
Son of God….that’s a laugh!!!
God….that’s a laugh too!
July 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Why do people care so much whether Jesus existed or not? It doesn’t matter. So what if Jesus is a myth? So what? Do the teaching lose any value? Is compassion not a good value to have?
Why don’t we learn from the stories, and stop debating a pointless argument.
This goes out to both christians and atheists. Arguing the existence of Jesus is POINTLESS!!!!!
July 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am
And yet, your post was so worthwhile. Interesting..
August 4th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Daniel: Check the title of the article ‘Christian claim’ the point is some christians claim that as the evidence of Jesus existing is overwhelming that is a reason why people should be christian. I’ve heard someone say ‘he’s in the census records’.
Yes,compassion is a great thing to have,but the idea is hardly unique to Christianity. Compassion is also not always evident in people who are christian. The point is that their are people who think that their particular version of morality should be forced upon everybody. That is something that makes me very glad I live in a country where comparatively few are involved in organised religion, and the idea of ‘Intelligent design’ being taught in schools is laughable. Funnily enough, despite that we also have fewer of the problems the religious right say Christianity would solve.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@ Daniel,
Compassion is indeed a wonderful and much needed quality in our world. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with christianity, a religion that has created bloodshed and hatred for centuries, along with it’s counterparts. Yes, kindness seems to be a part of the doctrine, but what really matters is the cumulative effect it has had on our planet.
As for your point, the existence of Jesus is considered by many christians to be proof of their religion. The pursuit of truth is a far more important and noble thing than merely accepting something on the grounds that it isn’t hurting anyone.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:33 am
jesus christ died on the cross. he is was man. God Almighty can never die..no one can kill Him.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“jesus christ died on the cross. he is was man. God Almighty can never die..no one can kill Him.”
He is was man?
And yes, it’s difficult to kill imaginary friends.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Not to mention that that famous passage of Josephus’ is widely thought to be a later forgery by most historians. So, they don’t even have that.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Daniel, I understand why you think these debates are pointless but let me offer my opinion as to why I think they are important. There are people who are willing to kill for their beliefs and they do (this goes for other religions as well, not just christianity of course).There are people who refuse medical care for their children and let them die for thier beliefs. There are people trying to get creationism/intelligent design taught in our schools. If we can show these people that perhaps they are not on as solid ground as they think it may help stop some of the more extreme and dangerous religious behavior. I am not pretending that we can change their core beliefs necessarily, but I do think that we can help curb fundamentalism. I have seen it happen. I have known very religious people who , after being exposed to oppsing evidence and viewpoints became much more moderate in their faith.
Also, I think that debate is good just for its own sake. We as a society should always seek to broaden our minds. Why do I read books on string theory that have no pratical application to my life? Because knowledge is a great thing on its own. Debating is a tool to help people learn about opposing viewpoints , not to mention learning more about their own. It also helps people see issues from other people’s perspectives. Hearing debates about various subjects helps me to have more compassion and understanding for people on the other side of the issue.We can always use a little more of that! Just my humble opinion.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Why don’t people pick up on the fact that he reported to be a carpenter’s son… seriously, how much wood is in that part of the world back… its far more likely his father was a stone mason…
September 14th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Correction my friend. There were also other non-contemporary historians that mention Jesus. Tasitus (don’t quote my spelling) to my knowledge spoke of a guy called Jesus who was killed by Ponchas Pilot during the reign of Herod. Another pagan historian talked about the christians who worshipped a guy called Jesus. Again neither of these are contemporary and writted about 50 years or more after the supposed death of Jesus. Even the New Testament is not contemporary.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
@ Free Radical.
The article argues that there is little evidence for a historical Jesus. It makes some positive statements which you dispute/question, however none of your points make the case for an historical figure stronger. They simply question the positive statement that ‘Jesus did not exist because of X,Y and Z’. We are still left with little evidence to suggest he ever existed.
Given the similarity of the Jesus story to other earlier figures we accept as fiction, the lack of supporting historical evidence, and how the description of his life resembles prophecy, it would seem to me that the default position should be skeptical disbelief. The burden of proof lies with the people making the claim he is an historical figure and the level of evidence required should be high.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Why is it that Christians try to claim that Jesus existed when the evidence is so sorely lacking? Outside of the Bible and the testimony of Josephus which no longer exists in it’s original form, there is no other writings about this supposed Christ that supposedly performed so many “miracles”.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I live in central Indiana and We have a bunch of Jesus’s in our Town
October 12th, 2009 at 6:50 am
http://atheisme.ca/repertoire/hodges_john_b/ethics_of_jesus_en.html
I would argue, based on a comparison of Jesus’ reported ethical teachings in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as contrasted to his reported teachings in John, that there probably was a historical Jesus. He thought the world was ending Real Soon, during the life of those standing there hearing him speak. He taught his followers to take extreme measures to prepare. After enough time has passed to make it clear that Jesus was mistaken, the Apocalypse had not come, someone invented a revisionist theology and wrote John, which praised Jesus to the skies while burying what he taught, taking out his Apocalyptic warnings and essentially all of his ethical teachings. Most Christianity since then has been based entirely on John. Most modern Christians don’t even KNOW what Jesus taught (in M, M, and L), much less FOLLOW it. In short, Jesus may have existed but what he taught did not remotely resemble modern Christianity.
http://atheisme.ca/repertoire/hodges_john_b/ethics_of_jesus_en.html
October 12th, 2009 at 9:05 am
The New Testament could be a legitimate source when discussing the existence – or not – of Jesus, BUT it fails on one count: objectivity. The people who wrote it, decades after the ‘events’ in question, obviously had a major agenda driving them, and that involved the real – and divine – existence of their founder. It would be a bit like stating a belief in Alien abductions basing yourself on countless “conspiracy theorist” books and websites. Now, that doesn’t mean there was no Jesus around in c. 30 CE, which has as much validity as saying that there was _definitely_ a Martin Smith around in the USA in 2000 CE, given that the name Yeshua ben-Yussuf (or just plain ‘Yeshua’) was pretty common in Judea in those days. There is a vague independent account of a Yeshua being nailed to the walls of Jerusalem at around that time, and a few other accounts – written much later – of a bunch of people following a preacher named Yeshua/Martin Smith. Big deal. In addition, Judea back then was swarming with all sorts of cults, sects and end-of-times freaks, such as the Zealots – largely as a reaction against occupation by the Pagan Romans – and most of their members were big into magic mushrooms, the main culprit here being the ‘Pantera’ variety (read Gerald Messadié’s ‘The Mary Magdalene Affair’ for more on that theory). This would explain some of the hallucinations described in the NT, such as seeing Moses and Elijah on top of a cloud-covered mountain, or the entire Book of Revelation (well, that’s an _obvious_ example!).
All to say: historical Jesus, perhaps (though which one?); god-Jesus? Certainly not.
Take care =-)
October 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
PS: the book I should have mentioned is ‘Jesus of Srinagar’, not ‘The Mary Magdalene Affair’ – sorry!
October 26th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Clearly, if someone had indeed performed the supposed miracles that Jesus did, there would be more corroborating evidence for multiple sources.”
Well, I would disagree. There are hundreds if not thousands of historical figures about which entire books have been written that have only one or two original references to them, even some from the period in which Yeshua of Nazareth lived. For Yeshua we have 4 canonical gospels, several non-canonical gospels and books of quotes, The Acts of The Apostles, Josephus, and Roman reference to his sentence and the origins of Christianity, not to mention any references that may have been destroyed, decayed, or corrupted over time. The physical man Jesus had more written about him than Hammurabi, yet we hail him as the creator of the first code of law with little to no controversy.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“Clearly, if someone had indeed performed the supposed miracles that Jesus did, there would be more corroborating evidence for multiple sources” Hmmm. Are you sure? What if–by design–there was not more corroborating evidence, thus forcing the believer to be one in the UNSEEN versus the SEEN? Hmmm
November 27th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
It would be easier to dismiss the historicity of Jesus than to address his claims and their remarkable impact on world history, however, this will require extensive investigating and the invention of explanations to eliminate many historians besides Josephus.
Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Plinius Secundus, Tertullian, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Justin Martyr are among other first and second century historians who reference the person of Christ.
The existence of Julius Caesar might be easier to debate – even if his claims are not quite as controversial.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
This article is neither well-written or well argued, but the comments are interesting. In order to make any argument, I find it necessary to make some distinctions. I think arguing about the evidence for the existence of Jesus is a bit of a red-herring, many popular brands of religion have no historically verifiable figure at the centre. People’s reasons for buying into a particular belief-system are many and varied, but I’d suggest that they include looking for some sort of ‘magical’ experience or a rationale behind existence – this is an historical argument rather than a religious or spiritual one. Add to this the fact that anything that happened more than a thousand years ago is somewhat open to debate – the physical ‘proof’ we really have is archaeology and as someone said, that too is subject to interpretation. Most of the histories were written by the victors and doubtless contain a certain amount of propaganda.
There is a big difference between what Jesus is reported to have said and the tenets of the Christian faith. Jesus never describes himself as ‘the son of God’, at least not in my RSV translation. The Christianity that developed in the Roman Empire seems to have been quite different from what the early Christians practised. I always found it curious that Jesus is reported to have performed miracles, if Jesus was an ordinary mortal, then it brings up some awkward questions like, why can’t the rest of us perform miracles? Perhaps Jesus was really a magician? Oh no hang on, the Christians tell us that magic is bad, along with sex and drugs. It’s mean to say the only women that were interested in Jesus were prostitutes, this may also turn out to be a gross misinterpretation of Mary Magdalene if she was a real historical figure. If Jesus was really of royal lineage, surely it would have suited the Romans’ purposes to cover up the reality and create a more ’spiritual’ version?
None of this really proves or disproves whether the universe is controlled by some form of divine intelligence or not. Much as the thin line line between Mythology and History is a fascinating subject, I remain as unconvinced by the Atheist as the Christian. Why not drop the BS (belief-systems) altogether? I find the most convincing argument in favour of any particular philosophical or spiritual path is positive, humane action on the part of its adherents. While Christianity appears to contain more than its fair share of judgemental hypocrites and psychopaths, it also contains those who have been so successful in convincing themselves that they are ‘at one with God’ that they spend their lives helping other people and appear to be able to perform miracles. One of the problems of religion is that most of its members don’t live up to their own moral code, this only goes to prove that humans are extremely fallible.
By the way, Jesus isn’t the only super-hero guilty of a no-show, King Arthur has been noted for his absence for several centuries, what will we do if it gets too heavy for Superman?
November 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
As interesting as christian mythology is, it is just that, mythology
Read it yourselves.
There are no evidences for the existence of a Jesus, like described in the bible. The bible itself can’t explain Jesus without omissions and contradictions
A nice article about this topic may be found in: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm?test4
December 1st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I agree that the claims of Jesus are a much better place to begin than his existence, Tim. That is the point I was trying to make (though unfortunately not to your level of quality!).
Regarding his claim to be the son of God, Matthew 23:63-65, Mark 2:5-10, Mark 14:61-64, and John 10:25-39 in the RSV record instances of Jesus infuriating the religious leaders by claiming to be God or His equal. In fact, that is why he was killed according to the gospel accounts.
This dual nature of his divinity and humanity is what separates him from other mortals and empowers him to perform the recorded signs and wonders.
I also agree that many people who call themselves Christians deserve no respect for their behavior. I am sincerely sorry for their wrongs and misrepresentation.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Ok, so going back in time and seeing that everything was a big pile of BS, made me realise why Vaticans keeps their secret documents in a very safe place. If they would be released would change the humanity (just it’s religion) entirely. Do a bit of research and you will understand. Christianity did a really good job to mask the truth. good on you guys!!!
January 5th, 2010 at 8:19 am
This ‘tired’ argument relies on two large fallacies: a) Shifting of goalposts in regards to what constitutes reliable attestation and b) argument from silence in suggesting what we ’should’ have – we don’t have half the documents that were written, we can only go on what we have, and as it stands, none of the extant references to Jesus deny that he existed. Indeed, the reference to counter-claims as found in Matthew corroborate his existence. That is, the extant hostile witness confirms it!
There is quite a deal of attestation that comes from within a normally acceptable time-frame which the sceptic must first dismiss, which really just shows an agenda.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Hi,
I am a new a-theist; less than a month. I was a born-again christian for over 20 years. Based on a number of things – including science – I realized that there are no gods. Even if there were/was, it would certainly not be the christian or jewish god.
Because of ongoing exploration and discoveries in science we now know that humans have been walking on this world for over 150,000 years. Nothing in science points to humans only being here for 6,000 years or so. O
Even though I have read the bible for two decades and participated in countless bible studies, I realized that the bible has lots of errors and contradictions. Either the entire bible is true or it is a piece of crap. Since it is not completely true, it is crap. It took me a week to get over the fact that I actually believed it for so long. I am now happy and free. And guess what? My morals are the same without god as with. Go figure.
Until my recent deconversion I actually believed evolution was false. The bible is now (to me) clearly false with regards to how the universe developed.
If god could have created this massive universe and so much life, and humans… and everything works so well… then why couldn’t he create one book that is perfect? Which is more difficult? creating a book or creating the universe?
We humans have never even concluded what the bible actually means. There are numerous christian sects/denominations. Each telling everyone else that they have the ‘true interpretation’ of the what god wants and thinks. Everyone else is not as ‘enlightened’ as our group. Even people attending the same church do not agree on every point. It would seem almost trivial that ‘god’ would have created one book that everyone could understand and agree upon (without torturing and murdering those who disagree).
I want my money back – about 65K over the years. Where is the customer service dept for god?
Thank god I am now an atheist! Don’t worry former fellow-christians, I’m praying for your deconversion
January 15th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
newly freed…if you turned your back on christ, you never knew him like i do. as for there being no evidence for christ, think on this.
how can a religion so hated by the majority of the world for 2010 years since the day it started still survive? you will notice that christianity is one of the few religions that always survive persecution. look at china. crack down results in thousands of underground churches, and can other religions really truthfully say that every true christaian believer would rather die then give up his faith. not really, im sure you atheists would convert to islam if they held you at gunpoint. would a christian? a true one wouldn’t.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
did you know that the only reasons you have morals is that you borrowed from the christians. i can give you proof that reasoning itself is a christian aspect. do you want some?
January 26th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Good article a little short on details but the historical fact of the matter is Jesus was probably mythical. The Romans would have had extensive records on him especially if he was causing unrest and effecting their tax collecting efforts in the area. There are none.
January 26th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I think that there probably was a man called Jesus who believed he was the son of God. Do i actually think he was the son of God? No. That’s when things start to get a little ridiculus. There are plenty of people who claim nowadays that they are the son of God or Jesus reincarnated. Does it make it true? No. Does anyone really believe them? Well yes, although these happen to be mainly guilible and somewhat desperate people, but for the most part no. So what makes Jesus special? What qualifies him to be the son of God and not just like some mentally ill person who claims it now? That’s where my issue lies. Is it because a bunch of guys wrote about him? And to be honest who really cares when they wrote it? It doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist. All it means is that he was ignored at the time he was alive because nobody with a few exeptions believed him much like the people making the same claims now. After he died somebody could have picked up on his story and wrote it down adding their own ideas into it. Then it could have gained more popularity and more and more could have wrote about him adding their own ideas and opinions as they went. Now isn’t that the most plausible explanation. Not that he didn’t exist but he did but nor was he the son of God, he only believed he was. And that humans, beautiful, fallible humans expanded upon this belief and the stories they may have heard about him and wrote it all down. Now to me that seems to be logical. Certainly more logical than there being a man called Jesus who was born of a virgin who was the son of God who perfomed miracles. Does that not just boggle all you logical Christians out there? Do you actually believe that the story of Jesus is true? Why, when I’m sure most of you don’t believe anyone who claims to be the son of God and who claims to be able to perform miracles nowadays? Why can you be logical about it in that instance and not when it comes to Jesus? That is what truly fascinates me.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
fred johnson, to the Romans, Jesus was just another common criminal, nothing new to them. the Priest who killed him wouldn’t record it because if they did, they would be admitting Jesus was right in everything you said. Also read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel for more info.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
sorry i ment they.
February 14th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Christians have never hesitated to lie, distort and deceive to promote their idiocy. This issue is no different. If you want to see the Jesus myth, look up “Mithra”. It is so similar that there can be no question to any rational mind that Jesus was copied almost entirely from Mithra.
The frequently-documented fact that there is not even one contemporaneous account of Jesus doesn’t disturb these liars one bit. The first mention of any “jesus” is decades after his “death”. One would think that someone that was as influential as this figure, performing miracles, fomenting political upheaval, then publicly tried and executed would have had at least a brief mention in accounts of the day. But nooooo, not even a mention anywhere.
It’s as if, there were no accounts of Thomas Jefferson until the 1850s or later. Would we wonder if he really existed?
But religion has enjoyed a free ride for far too long. You can’t question it, tax it, or defy it without risking grave consequences. It’s time to put this nonsense in it’s rightful place as just another business with questionable ethics and shady practices.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:19 am
I believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God and He is the only way to have eternal life. The Bible is God’s Word. It is infallible. The Old Testament sacrifices were to atone for man’s sins. God loves us so much that He had Jesus to die for us to atone for our sins. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and took on the sins of mankind (past, present and future sins). The only way to be saved is faith in Jesus Christ. If there was physical, tangible proof that Christ exists there would be no need for faith. Christians are only human, they are not perfect, they also sin. By God’s grace, our sins are forgiven. A true Christian life is joyful and has purpose. Why does an atheist feel the need to try to prove that God doesn’t exist? We all have to believe in a lot of things that we cannot see or touch, (an example being the wind). If I live a Christian life and it turns out there is no God, I haven’t lost anything. But if there is a God and there is a heaven and a hell, an atheist has lost everything. There will be no atheist in heaven or hell. The Bible says there every knee (including former atheists) will bow before God.
God loves you whether you believe in Him or not. God is also a God of justice and He will have to judge everyone for what we have done. We do not know how long til Jesus returns for His people but He is coming back. Please accept Him as your Lord and Savior.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Holy logical fallacy Batman, I think Terry just went through the entire list of easily refutable arguments:
“The Bible is God’s Word. It is infallible.”
The bible was written by religious priests to sell a story. You needn’t look any further than the first page to realize it makes a mistake. Two separate Creation stories – written by two different authors (no, Moses did not write the Pentateuch.) There are numerous contradictions. No Christian person believes in the infallibility of the bible because they do not believe the entire thing.
“A true Christian life is joyful and has purpose.”
So is my life. I’m an atheist. I have joy and have a purpose in life.
“Why does an atheist feel the need to try to prove that God doesn’t exist?”
No atheist is trying to prove in god’s non-existence. People who claim ‘there is no god’ are as religious as those who say ‘there is definitely a god.’ I have no reason to believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian god of the bible, so I don’t believe.
“We all have to believe in a lot of things that we cannot see or touch, (an example being the wind).”
We don’t need to believe the wind exists. We can feel it, we can see its effects, we can experience the wind. I’ve never had an experience I could say ‘oh, that’s god.’ The wind is a force with a scientific explanation. God is magic.
“If I live a Christian life and it turns out there is no God, I haven’t lost anything. But if there is a God and there is a heaven and a hell, an atheist has lost everything.”
Pascal’s Wager! Yay! I love this argument! You can also alternatively say, ‘If it turns out that Thor/Anubis/Zeus/Cthulhu/FSM doesn’t exist, I haven’t lost anything. If they do exist, then those who don’t worship have lost everything.’
Also this statement: “There will be no atheist in heaven or hell.” Doesn’t make sense with your previous argument.
“The Bible says there every knee (including former atheists) will bow before God.”
The bible says a lot of things. The bible says that slavery is okay, and rapists can marry their victims for the equivalent of $300.
“God loves you whether you believe in Him or not.”
If god loves me whether I believe in him or not, and I live a good and moral life, then I doubt he’s the kind of person to go “YOU DIDN’T BELIEVE IN ME, NOW BURN IN ETERNAL FIRE!” Love != Eternal Punishment.
“God is also a God of justice and He will have to judge everyone for what we have done.”
And this smacks in the face of all Christian theology, because if all you have to do to get into heaven is accept Christianity, then it doesn’t matter what you do the rest of your life or what you did before it. “I’m with him” doesn’t make a really good theology.
“We do not know how long til Jesus returns for His people but He is coming back.”
Paul thought he was coming back before his generation faded from the earth. Paul’s generation is long-gone.
“Please accept Him as your Lord and Savior.”
Nah, I’m good, thanks.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 am
Hmm. I am an occasional atheist. Except when I am confronted by string theory and the like…
I occasionally have Joy in my life; lately, though, she’s been on vacation, so I’m Joyless, as we speak (How else are we to know Joy, if not by the absence of Joy?).
I have only one true, discernable purpose: I am worm and microbe food. Correction: my body is worm and microbe food. I find having a purpose in a world that has evolved, at least in my lifetime, into a fulltime hand in my pocket to be a waste of time, especially considering that the last chunk of rock that went sailing between earth and the moon only advertised its presence three or four days before passing through and, like any well-fired bullet, we’ll never hear the one that hits us. Which brings up my admiration for the truly dominant lifeform on planet earth: microbes, which have been around, I’m led to understand, since well before Fred and Barney were drag racing with their pet brontosaurians.
If there is a deity, it is, in my humble opinion, just as likely to be along the lines of God the Utterly Indifferent, in Kurt Vonnegut’s “Sirens of Titan” (A thoroughly instructive tome, masquerading as light fiction…).
The bottom line is this: if there be God, and you are convinced of this, you need to live your life completely in that light; if there isn’t, there’s nothing stopping you from becoming another Hitler, or something along the lines of an antichrist (in other words, acquire and exercise as much power on earth as can be mustered.) and enjoy the boons and usufructs of your labors before that coronal mass ejection makes everyone’s life (including, needless to say, all you worshippers out there…) about as relevant as a mouse fart in a hurricane.
Enjoy yourselves, it’s later than you think…
March 13th, 2010 at 8:52 am
I would like to extend the offer of praying through the many questions and concerns with anyone on this forum; christiam agnotic, etc. I would pray to the God whose character is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. I am sincere, and hope no one will reply to this in a sarcastic way. I believe that God is closer than our next breath. I encourage prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is a great place to start.
March 13th, 2010 at 11:18 am
@ Terry et all…guys why the fuck in the world would you come and make comments on an atheist website. Are you some sort of a crusader or something? Why think of your self as being a saviour or some shit like that? Furthermore, you think you are Jesus reincarnation, or Jesus or God or whoever wants you to visit a website and try to convince them using your stupid mongrel methods, with fear and enigmatic stupid questions that some god exists? Are going on the budhist, musulman and other religious or non religious (or non christian) websites to convince them too.
Why some stupid book lived over the years? I will tell you why. Because, we as humans have the tendency to blaim other superior power for things we cannot explain. Take rain for instance: it was from god back in the days (stones Age onwards) till nowadays when we all know that is a natural event. We, most of us like to believe that there is a destiny or some shit like that …no people. Wake the fuck up. No destiny, no gods ..nothing. Do something with your life.
How come chritianity lived so long? Well, lets see. First, probably because they went all around the world and still do that, to convert people to the true god. “Don’t belive in the spirit of the forest pal..thats BS. Belive in my god, as he lives in the sky on clouds”…Riiiight. Sure he does.
STOP being so blinded by this big pile of BS and wake up.
One question for some of you believers: Where all the people from Norway will go, given the fact that 85% are atheists? You see? So a society can live without religion or any gods and quite well I shall say.
@Singer…go somewhere else mate and play the “good humble guy role” ok? You think you’re a saint or some shit. Someone will need to slap your face and tell you to wake up. You can do better than that mate.
@creationist: Pal, I’ve been reading this blog for quite a while now, and I’ve noticed that most of your posts have an enigmatic tendency and also most of them end with a question. Is this the way you would like to attract attention? Have you played this role of a person that pretends that knows everything since you were a child or you developed this James Dean enigmatic role over time? Why do you need the urge to end a conversation with a question? Do you want them to come back for more borring arguments about the existence of god, morals and so forth? Especially when they come from the mighty “creationist”?
I honestly can’t help it when I read a comment of some nut religios idiot keep saying the same shit over and over again when there is a stronger evidence that there was no jesus as they know it.
I’m tired of it guys. May Jean luc Pickard be with you. he is praying for you right now…whereever you are.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Terry, get a life and one where you think for yourself for a change. I have a spiritual point of view that I espouse on this website, but I agree with a lot of what this group of people have to say. I’ve really vascillated on whether or not I believe Jesus was a historical figure or not. I’ve pretty much landed that I think he was, but what he had to say has been twisted and perverted into Christianity. His message was pretty simple and actually pretty helpful.
If anyone is interested … I’m a HUGE fan of Joseph Campbell … his books and videos really helped me verbalize and understand what I’d thought since I was a really little kid. Especially, his book “The Inner Reacher of Outer Space”. Most of the other videos, like the one where he was interviews by Bill Moyer, is fascinating from a historical perspective, but it serves to highlight just how twisted things have gotten. JC was raised Catholic, but as he became an authority on myths he abandoned it for just spirituality. He said something to the effect near the end of his video “Sukhavati”, that is it really important to help people sort out their thinking and come to know who they are … to set religion aside. The Christians reject what he had to say and it amazes me that they WON’T see what wisdom the man had to share.