Jesus never existed??!! :O

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I tried to do some research recently, trying to find if there were any actual non-religious historic or roman government documentation covering the events that coincide with the four gospels. Strangely, every site that I’ve tried to search for such documentation leads me to dead ends. Even the most fervorous Christian sites only confer the historical acuracy of the Bible with just the text of the Bible. I am not disputing the fact that the New Testament was recorded when it is reported to be done so. Naturally it holds a level of literary antiquity like Homer’s Illiad.

However…the argument I am making is that there appears to be no documents outside of the Bible that support and defend the events that lie therein. In fact, it is strange that there is not enough historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus as an actual person. I was shocked to discover the possibility that Christianity is not based on history whatsoever, but the mere ravings of madmen.

Cornelius Tacitus (20-117 CE), a Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian once recorded something on Christianity in his Annales, book 15, verse 44 (115 CE), quoting: “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of… Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.” It is clear that Tacitus was mentioning what it is the Christians believe, quoting the historical value on what is said in the four gospels.

Tacitus and Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius (69-140 CE), a Roman historian and personal secretary of Emperor Hadrian, both mention Christ as being the symbol of worship by Christians. Suetonius said: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome”.

One of the most astounding factors was the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (38/39-? CE) who published Antiquities (93 CE), makes no mention of the person of Jesus, although he does mention, among others, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist and king Herod, as well as numerous events of minor and major political, religious, and economical interests in the area. Yet nothing of Jesus. WTF?

Justus of Tiberia (?-? [1st cent.] CE) (Tiberia was a place not far from Capernaum which Jesus often visited, according to the Bible), another Jewish historian, made no mention of Jesus in any of his writings. Philon of Alexandria (?-50 CE), scholar and leader of the Jewish society in Alexandria, also makes no mention of Jesus in his writings as well, and this is very strange as he was famous for his knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish cults at the time.

There’s a classic Christian line of questioning that forces one to think of the possibility of the divinity of Jesus, stating that Jesus was either: 1. a liar…(instating that he was a devious manipulator that intended to use his ability as a soothsayer to get the masses to worship him.)
2. a madman…(instating that he was mentally instable enough to believe himself the son of god and go around performing acts of goodness while saying things that would result in his worship.)
3. the son of god…(instating that he was the person who the bible says he is.)
The problem with this system of deduction is that it fails to include a fourth option…
4. did not exist…(instating that everything we know of Jesus was a matter of fiction by the writers of the four gospels to satisfy their rebellious-cult needs.)

I don’t suspect that this topic will generate much uproar because it’s clear that there’s no real way to pose an argument against it.

However, for the fun of it, I’ll make a poll on another thread. :smiley:

2

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=140856

3

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was a historical account of Yehoshua Bar Yosef or Joshua son of Joseph. Joshua is spelled Iesus (the spelling should be right) in Greek, which is then translated to Jesus in English. The Gospel of Thomas, as stated earlier, was a historical account of Jesus’ childhood. The Bible itself is a historical account of some events, although many might have cultural and personal colorings on them—they are still written during and for the times, which are then considered contradictory or irrational. At any rate, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was considered too ridiculous to be added to the Bible because of certain things that happen within the text like Jesus killing people and making clay turn into birds for no real reason other than enjoyment et cetera… He even hated school! (Duh-duh-duuuuun!).

4

Whatever you say…

Still though, of all the reported miracles and junk Jesus was spoken of doing in the gospels, not one of them were good enough to be spoken of by historical writers? So he doesn’t exist…big deal…so…

What say a small number of us on this forum…maybe 3 to 6 people…including Monooq…all get together in some outlandish place and write up “historical documents” inputing a few names of real people, brazenly exaggerate a god-like figure who just happened to suddenly exist and begins performing miracles but then gets whacked by the local government. To fortify our word is truth, murder the people whose names we use and make it look like a suicide, and say the power of so-and-so forced them to give their life for their crimes against the divine…then start running around the country telling people about the god-like being who came and was destroyed, but then rose to a heavenly plane where judgement will be made upon those who do not follow so-and-so’s whims…which happen to be our whims…

…eh, eh?

5

youll have to use the golden rule as a front so people respect you. but you dont actually have to follow it! thats for damn sure! make sure that your followers spend trillions on decorations.

so its not a historical account. not only is it not corroborated, EVEN THE CHURCH thought it was ridiculous? well at least they have one shred of credibility.

what about the theory ive heard briefly mentioned that paul made him up?

6

I once talked to a Mormon about the question if Jesus was what he really said he was, and he told me, for some strange reason, that there have been records found (supposadly), in the Roman-settlement building where Jesus was condemned by Pilot, and he went on to say that the records contained the names of Pilot and the High Priest, and a so-called account of Jesus being sent to crucifixion, the same evening as to when he was supposed to be sent.

I’m not saying I believe a word he was saying, but the man at least was a well-made Computer Programmer. He wasn’t dumb… I just think I struck a cord and he went on to making up a bunce of useless lies. Oh well. Just thought I would note how people react to such things.

What is with Mormons and fake ancient records?

7

Sounds like bullshit to me…but it doesn’t matter how intelligent someone is, they can still be decieved by stuff like this…I remember reading that a bunch of high school graduates who were Jesus-freaks were going to go to college and study in sciences and stuff. I keep thinking there’s some underlying conspiracy with church officials to grab hold of smart people and make sure they believe that Jesus is behind the design of molecular biology. It’s like it’s some master plan to compromise the validity of science with religious idealism.

One thing I find funny about Mormons is that all the other Christian denominations denounce them as part of the Christian religion. It’s like, before the Satanists and Quasi-religious go to hell in the end of days, the Mormons will be the first to burn.

8

I’m sure many of the events described in the Gospels are fictional, but that doesn’t mean these accounts can’t tell us anything about the historical Jesus. From what I’ve read of Jesus scholarship, it’s mostly guesswork to begin with…and my guess is, based on other examples of deified teachers throughout history (Socrates, Mohammed, etc), that the character Jesus is based on a real person who really did teach some radical things and really did manage to piss off the Roman authorities and the Jewish aristocracy. My guess is he was not the son of God, however–just as I guess that whoever led the Greeks at Troy was not really raised by a centaur.

9

The works of Flavius Josephus…Jewish Historian

ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM

I found two enteries reguarding Jesus.

Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64…

Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200…

[quote="Sagesound
"]
One of the most astounding factors was the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (38/39-? CE) who published Antiquities (93 CE), makes no mention of the person of Jesus, although he does mention, among others, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist and king Herod, as well as numerous events of minor and major political, religious, and economical interests in the area. Yet nothing of Jesus. WTF?
[/quote]

Hmm…I wonder what else you may have overlooked in your decision to denounce Christianity.

10

Actually, I question what you have looked over too hastily in your defense. As you will find upon further investigation, the passages that you note are forgeries. There are more sources confirming that Josephus never mentioned Jesus or Christ in his writings. Theories behind who wrote these forgeries tend to lead mostly to the infamous bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (ca 265-430 CE) who happened to forge many texts in his time. The site that you have taken must have mistakenly added in these forgeries.

Besides, even if Josephus really did mention Jesus, why then would others not do so as well?

11

[size=150]Okay people, no trolling and stay on topic![/size]

12

As far as I can tell, it is likely that the references to Christ in Josephus are forgeries, at least, the parts that describe him as a miracle worker. My understanding is that Josephus was a Jew, and he never converted to Christianity, so saying such things would be pretty uncharacteristic.

13

Sagesound, I’m fully aware of the controversy. It’s not the mension of Jesus that is in question, it is the tone of Josephus’s writtings in one passage only. It is Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64 that is in question.

A fairly recent discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account has less of a Christian overtone, but still makes mension of Jesus. Also, there is no controversy of the second Josephus passage in which Jesus is named…Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200.

I posted it as a service to you. To show you that at least in this one case, you have apparently based a major life, and death decision (turning from God) on mis-information.

14

Heh, thanks for your service Dust, at least you make a point to discuss about. And you are correct, even if Josephus did mention a guy named Jesus, it’s the way he spoke of him which is really the important thing. As Uccisore adequately put it…

What is an interesting theory about Josephus is that assuming that Jesus was a person who pissed off alot of Jewish high priests, ‘ol Joey-boy could have possibly been very much in favor of the Jewish sentiment towards some hippie who decides to contradict alot of stuff in the New Testament. However, seeing how most of Josephus’ writings clearly indicate a sense of order unaffected by one’s emotional feelings towards a subject, it’s equally as possible to state that he just wrote what happened and nothing more.

One thing I have to respect about Christianity is the attempt to utilize history to prove its truth. It’s something Mohammad learned to one-up by not only incorporating historical account into the Koran, but science as well…and oh how that does make Islam more convincing than Christianity. It makes me wonder how the next big religion will utilize this strategy…perhaps not only adding history and science, but also something we have not yet realized?

Oh! I know…it’s that special technology that TrueSky Guru-guy claimed he had knowledge about!! Something that will save us from…dare I say it…the dark forces!! ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=142515

15 
It's not an attempt to utilize history after the fact, the religion is actually based on [i]stuff that happened[/i]. Once that stuff was in the past, we refer to it as history.  Islam needs to 'utilize' science as an after thought just because science wasn't very advanced when Islam started, so it couldn't easily be a part of it's foundations.  History isn't that way. 

Yes, my thoughts on Josephus is that he probably said something about Jesus, but the flowering words describing him as a miracle worker were added after the fact.  Even if you ignore Josephus, though, you still have Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonious, Lucian, Galen, Celsus, Mara bar Serapion, the Talmud, and all the aprocraphal and heretical gospels as early references to Jesus. 
  I'm no historian, but these references all exist, they are all from before 200 AD, and to say that all of them are illigetimate would take quite a bit of proof (and be quite a suggestion of bias, if that was your initial assumption). I think we have just as much historical evidence that Jesus existed as we do any other person from that time period, short of royalty, and a great deal more than others who's existence we all take for granted. 
   Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have, in fact, researched sources on both sides of the fence, and not found any Christian websites that use references outside the Gospels to back up the existence of Jesus, you must have missed this one:

christian-thinktank.com/

16 
It's not an attempt to utilize history after the fact, the religion is actually based on [i]stuff that happened[/i]. Once that stuff was in the past, we refer to it as history.  Islam needs to 'utilize' science as an after thought just because science wasn't very advanced when Islam started, so it couldn't easily be a part of it's foundations.  History isn't that way. 

Yes, my thoughts on Josephus is that he probably said something about Jesus, but the flowering words describing him as a miracle worker were added after the fact.  Even if you ignore Josephus, though, you still have Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonious, Lucian, Galen, Celsus, Mara bar Serapion, the Talmud, and all the aprocraphal and heretical gospels as early references to Jesus. 
  I'm no historian, but these references all exist, they are all from before 200 AD, and to say that all of them are illigetimate would take quite a bit of proof (and be quite a suggestion of bias, if that was your initial assumption). I think we have just as much historical evidence that Jesus existed as we do any other person from that time period, short of royalty, and a great deal more than others who's existence we all take for granted. 
   Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have, in fact, researched sources on both sides of the fence, and not found any Christian websites that use references outside the Gospels to back up the existence of Jesus, you must have missed the truth, I am not so sure, there has to be also  apart from evidence to shoulder its side also rationality to prove that christ did not and could not exist thanx to science and social studies and anthropology and pantheism and all that backs what is and what isnt we naturally beleive that christ could not have existed and that closes the question but for people that are not in search of qualified answers the queries will go on and on :astonished:
17

one major lack of historical record you’re all forgetting about is when pontius pilate had all the young male children killed. That would’ve made the local history books at the time!

As far as jesus the historical, it’s more than likely there was a jesus just like it’s more than likely there was a samson and a moses… samson didn’t have super strength from his hair and moses couldn’t part the red sea.

jesus couldn’t heal lepers, and walk on water, etc.

and yes mythos can spread that fast!

18

I’m suprised I didn’t catch this before in my response…but thanks to scythekain bringing this thread back to life, I can address this.

Exactly what do you mean by “death decision?” Who’s god are you talking about? Yours? If so, who is your god and why do you believe in him?

19

actually you should thank romelouis.

I know your not actually that dense though… you know which god he is talking about and what death he is talking about.

all the same his response is typical. A good one I got when discussing absolute truth with a christian is “you will know the truth, but will it be too late?”

As epicuris said (paraphrasing here a bit) “death is only a problem to the dead”.

since I’m not dead, death is not a problem. Christianity and the religion it’s based on and it’s cousin islam all play on your fear of death. The TRUTH of the matter is that if your alive you needn’t fear death. death can’t exist in life. and life can’t exist in death. So really what is there to fear? as long as your alive you are not dead.

You also get the conflicting messages of “help one another, love thine enemy”, “preach that they will go to hell without me, only let those worthy into mine house” (all concepts within the bible) so it’s no wonder that the christians, judaism, and islam literalists and fundamentalists are so conflicted. They don’t realize by saying such things as “to turn to death instead of god”,“you will know the truth, but will it be too late” is extremely condescending and judgemental.

but so is the way of life for a fundie.

20

Ahh, quite right you are good sir. I just gave credit to the maker of the last post on the thread, being as I have not seen it in quite some time.

How true. It also being true that as he made such a comment that merits no respect towards other religions, I based a response that considered all mono-theistic religions. The Christian belief it seems has two very distinct traditions. One is concious, the other is subconcious. The first being arrogance, which fans the “holier than thou” attitude out of proportion. The second is ignorance, which allows arrogance to overshadow understanding and make its dominating stand.

Indeed we could then take the form of a new religion, one more arrogant than Christianity, and start using our creative minds to devise clever words that are designed to make people rethink their meaningless lives and convert. How about Monooqism?

Yes, Dust of the earth, you say I’ve gone against god - but what if you only knew that this whole time you’re the one against god? That god being Monooq…your savior, your redeemer…whose imminant prophet (him being Future Man) speaks words that you can only fathom as being divine!