Did Jesus Exist?, Mythical figure or Actual Man? Options

[NoSex]

[I had posted part of this before in another thread. I wanted to have a debate on the historicity of Jesus, so here it is again. A bit changed. Discuss.]

I am skeptical that a man named Jesus Christ ever even existed. In all reality, there is not a strong amount of historical documentation within the supposed time of Jesus Christ. In fact, there isn't a single known document which mentions a Jesus Christ that could be found to have appeared during the supposed time of Christ. The earliest document outside of the Bible which mentioned a Jesus Christ appears late in the first century. A small paragraph speaks of a Jesus Christ in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The interesting thing about this though is that the section which mentions the Christ has been under quite an amount of scrutiny. Many a scholar has expressed skepticism towards the document, and many, both liberal and conservative scholars, have taken the position that the mention of Jesus was not written by Josephus but added centuries later by dishonest christian historians.

Scholars often point to the most blaring problem within "Josephus'" passages. Josephus was a devout Jew but, in the text, refers to Jesus as "The Christ."

The passage appears in Book 18, chapter 3 and reads as follows:

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

Although the first copies of Antiquities are believed to have appeared after 90 CE, the oldest copies available are dated back to the 9th century. All of the known copies and translations have been provided by christian sources. The work was also copied and kept alive by the church. As many have studied the text, it seems to fail authenticity in that the style and vocabulary used is highly unlike that of Josephus' other writings.

There is not a single other known document which mentions a Jesus Christ within the 1st century. There is a handful of scattered accounts of "The Christ" within the 2nd century, none of which refer to a "Jesus Christ." These seems distant and often a product of hearsay. Notable accounts are presented in small passages by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.

Still, not a single document naming the christ as "Jesus," within the 2nd century. As the "records" continue on into the 3rd and 4th centuries they become less and less significant. A "historical" record of a man who lived in the 1st century written in the 3rd century is a bit silly.

As you examine the documents, their authors, and the controversy involved with early christian historians creating counterfiet documents to support the historicity of their man-god you may become increasingly skeptical of a historical Jesus.

Heck, the Biblical accounts are even rather poor. Some later gospels appearing nearly six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This would make Luke and John nearly 90 years old when they wrote their accounts. This seems highly unlikely for both the time and the situation. And, the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, doesn't even appear until 70 C.E.

It may also be noted that descending into heaven, rising from the dead, and general miracles were not much of a rare happening according to most ancient records. Suetonius, whose writings are presented as evidence for a historical Jesus, also wrote that Caesar Augustus flew into heaven after his death. Countless pagan mythology includes men-god, born of virgins, death and rebirth, as well as empty tombs and wrathful fathers; many of which date back before the Christ story.

Mithra, Dionysus, Horus, and many more ancient gods, which are contempary to the Jesus story, share numerous qualities and signs with the stories of early Christianity.

Some of the earliest writings of Christianity come from Paul of Tarsus inside his letters or Epistles. Paul is reported have written more than 80,000 words on early Christianity, which he helped to shape. However, a majority of scholars have seem to have come to the conclusion that Paul didn't even write most of his own letters, and those letters which he is believed to have written tell us little to nothing about a Jesus.

Paul is the gap between the death of Jesus and the emergence of the first Gospels in 70 C.E. But, Paul doesn't even mention ever meeting Jesus aside from within in a vision. Paul doesn't allude to a virgin birth. He doesn't say anything about Pontius Pilate, any trials, or the Pharisees. Paul doesn't give Jesus any kind of geography, he doesn't mention a single miracle, and he only speaks a few sentences concerning Jesus as an ethical teacher. Of all the words written by Paul, which closes the gap between the Gospels and the death of Jesus, we only hear about Jesus' sacrafice, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. And, even these events are diluted, vague, and empty compared to later gospel accounts.

Paul may not have even believed that Jesus existed as a man on earth. At least, a many early Christians did not. Many of the Pauline, Gnostics, and Jewish Christians, which largely made up the earliest Christians, did not believe that God could ever take a human form. Many believed Jesus had only existed in a mythical realm.

The theory then becomes, as Brian Flemming puts it, "Everyone forgot, then they remembered."

Paul didn't seem to know as much as the authors of the Gospels seemed to know. And, the further you press the question, and invade the origins of Christianity, the less likely it seems a man named Jesus ever even existed.

Inconsistencies in gospel, and the total lack of important historians (Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius), within the region of christ, making note of Jesus within his time just enforce a skeptical position.

It isn't like mythicists are rare or shortsighted. There really is not a good case for the historical existence of a Jesus Christ.

[NoSex]

The lack of writing on someone does not disprove their existence.

Of course not. I am not saying that the argument from ignorance is a deductive argument. It's not. However, in the case of history, it certaintly is a significant andvalid part of an inductive argument. Using rationality, we should weigh our beliefs so as to make them proportional to the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence that someone existed, than we have no reason that he or she did indeed exist. Thus, if we wish to be reasonable and rationable human beings, we should not believe that said person existed.

History also follows a certain level of rational standards when putting together accurate time lines. If we are told that there is an important figure who existed at a certain time, in most cases, we would expect that signs of this figure exist. These signs may come in many different forms, but they must be reliable and relevant. No signs can be found during the time of Jesus to support that such a man even existed as a man, no more than that we should believe Hercules existed.

Also, it is to my understanding that most scholars do not doubt a man named Jesus existed. Some argue his divine nature, but I've read that it's pretty much been agreed upon that Jesus did exist.

First you build a straw man of my argument, seemingly claiming that I was operating a deductive proof on an argument from ignorance and then you move into arguing a pure argument from popularity. Sure, scholars may truly believe that a man named Jesus existed. Heck, everyone in the world could believe such a proposition, but that doesn't prove it to be true. You have to actually make an argument, as I did above, not pretend to have one because some people are on your side.

So, why should I believe that a man named Jesus existed? What is the actual argument? What is the evidence?

Yes, he did exist.

I don't know for sure whether he did or did not. I can only follow the evidence. But, I'm curious, how can you be so sure?

I'm not christian, so I'm not being bias, but I read about it in a World History book, he was executed and nailed on the cross. I don't want to go into details because I don't remember it all. For all I know, if I say one thing wrong, I might offend someone

Argument from authority. Just because your World History book says it, doesn't mean it is true. You would actually be surprised at how much those books can get things wrong. But, aside from that, why do you think your World History book says such things? For what reason should I believe that the book's conclusion is true? What is the actual argument for the existence of a man named Jesus, where is the evidence?

I built an argument, and if you want to debate, I suggest you make counterpoints.

[ghetosmurph]

if you have faith in jesus, you don't know whether or not he's real, but CHOOSE to trust and believe.

and that's what gives jesus power.

Ok, you need to shut your mouth and not open it again.... Jesus does not gain his power because people have faith in him..... This is nothing like Santa Clause and the entire, people must believe in order to make the sleigh fly idea. No, Christianity is based belief on the fact that Christ is God the Son, the Seond Person of the Blessed Trinity. (Now, I am Catholic and I am not sure whether the different protestant denominations beieve in the trinity..... so dont shoot me..... but Catholocism was Christianity up until the protestant revolt, so what I say is thechnically true) Christ has his power because not only is he the son of God, He is God. His power in now way is supposedly linked to belief in his divinity, or his existence for that matter. Please don't just make stuff up if you don't know what you are talking about.

First you build a straw man of my argument, seemingly claiming that I was operating a deductive proof on an argument from ignorance and then you move into arguing a pure argument from popularity......

Argument from authority. Just because your World History book says it, doesn't mean it is true.

Well, someone took a course in formal Logic..... very nice work..... btw, "argument from popularity" is better known as "Band Wagon"..... now it's my turn, no?

Question... CE is the politically correct term for AD, right? ok.

The Oxford Fragment - part of Matthew's Gospel currently residing in a museum in England date back to around 70 AD.

also we have Fragment 7Q5 - A part of Mark's gospel found in the dead sea scrolls that dates back to 50 AD..... 20 years before your alleged 70 AD

The Rylands Fragment - a large portion of John's gospel, found in Upper egypt, dates back to 100 AD. However, this is quite far from the Mediterranian Sea, and b/c of it's distance, the trade patterns in this area, and the average time for the spread of literature over such and area, it must have been written much earlier

Also it is presumed that the Gospels had to have been written before 70 AD, because not a single one mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Destruction of the temple was like the end of the world for the Jews, and had been prophecied by Jesus, the prophecy actually being contained within the gospels. Because it was such a major event and Jesus prophecied it, you would think that at least one of the gospels would contain record of it. Not a single one of the gospels even alludes to the fact that this prophcy came true.

Now, If we do assume from all of the above that the gospels were in fact written before the year 70 AD. This would mean they were published within living memory. This means that they were published at a time when people who had been there and experienced the events were still alive and able to act as a check agaginst the validity of all the different parts of the gospels, yet not one document from this time period has been found claiming anything within the Gospels to be false.

Also all of the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Luke was not an eyewitness but is believed to have recieved all of his information from eyewitnesses, such as Mary. Mark was eyewitness to parts of the Gospels, but not all. However, he was a close follower of Peter, and a Jewish historian, Papias, who lived C. 120 AD said that Mark wrote down Peter's teachings.

You also have the fact that all 12 of the apostles died as martyers in defense of the teachings of the gospels. Do really think they would have had the guts to put up with persecution and even sacrafice thier lives for a lie, much less someone who didn't even exist? And their deaths are all documented by those who killed them.

Joesephus confirmed not only the existence of Christ in his books "The Antiquites of the Jews", and "The Jewish Wars" but also other details contained within the Gospels, further demonstrating that they are in fact reliable historical documents. In regards to Jesus alone, he confirmed that Jesus lived, he confirmed that Jesus worked miracles, he confirmed that Jesus was executed by order of Pontius Pilate, and he confirmed that Jesus tomb was empty 3 days after his ressurection. He also said that some people claimed the Jesus rose from the dead, but he could not be sure himself. Now in regards to your excerpt from The Antiquites of the Jews, the "[the]" means is was inserted into the translation to make it read better, no? well if you read it without the "[the]", it reads "He was Christ". You can't take his refrerring to Jesus as "Christ" or even "the Christ", as as conspiracy plot that someone put that excerpt in there at a later date. "It was generally accepted at that time to refer to Jesus as "Christ", or even "the Christ", even by Jews who didn't believe he was the Messiah. And I am skeptical that any accurate conclusions can be made from comparing a 7 line excerpt from one book to the rest of of Josephus's writings in order to say that they fail to be of the same style and vocabulay used by Josephus.

To your "myths" idea. In comparisons done by historians, none of the writings in the gospels come even close to the myths generated at, around, before, or after this time. The gospels are all simple and concrete, not extravagant or exaggerated in any way. Comparing the gopels to mythological stories is in fact negative transfer, one of the informal fallacies, and not a valid form of argumentation.

We can also be certain that the accounts of the gospels used today are accurate and untampered with. The Bohmer Papyrus, is the earliest know full version of John's gospel and it is the exact same as the version used today. The Bohmer papyrus dates back to the early 200's AD. The earlist full account of the other gospel all date to C. 300 AD, but again are the exact same as copies used today.

The last thing showing the historical reliablility of the gospels is that everything that has been checked out agrees with known fact. We have even found proof of the existance of cities named in the gospels that dont exist today. Archeology, manuscripts, and ancient writings, all support the fact that the gospels are historically reliable documents.

Therefore, if the Gospels have been proved by historians to be historically reliable documents, we have historically reliable evidence of Jesus's existence.

All of my information comes directly from my World History Class, taucht by Mrs. Anne Carroll with the assistance of her husband Dr. Warren H. Carroll. Catholic historians who have written quite a few books on this and many other subjects. Go look them up if you would like. Dr. Carroll was the founder of Christendom College but had to stop teaching b/c of a stroke. He now assists his wife, who has written several books of her own in the history classes she teaches at our highschool. All of the information you have been given does not come out of some text book but directly out of their research notes.

Now for some of my personal thoughts on things that the above did not cover.

The Lack of important historians in his time period making note of the existance of Chirst, might have something to do with the fact that at the time, Christ was not well known outside of the Mediterrenian, and by the time, new of what was going on would have spread to said important historians, it would have been long after the occurance of the events, and there would have been no real way to determine the validity of such things at that time.

also, everything above does not apply to the letters of paul in the epistles..... Yes he had many early christian writings.... No, I would not expect them to contain information about Jesus, because 1) He was not one of the 12 apostles, nor knew Jesus personally. His fist encounter with Jesus was when Jesus blinded him, as then "Saul", on the way wherever it was he was going. 2) Those letters were written to christian faithful who had questions about what they were supposed to believe and was was allowed and what not, and to encourage them to continue in thier beliefs despite of persecution. Paul did all his evangelizing in person. Still, his teachings on christ have no bearing on christ's existence. Red Herring - Diversion..... maybe Sic Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc..... hmmmmm kinda a mix