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.

[ghetosmurph]

agreed..... but then would you say thomas aquinas had less faith b/c of his philosophical arguments for the existence of God? There is a fine line there and I just don't know where it gets drawn......

[sadolakced acid]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.


sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

[ghetosmurph]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.
sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

No..... while it is possible to prove that the cat is not black by proving that there is no cat, you cannot use the fact that the cat exists to prove that the cat is black. The Cat not being black necessarily follows from the fact that there is no cat, but you cannot say the inverse is true. You can prove that there is a cat, but you cannot deduce in anyway from that what color the cat is...... Lets go back to your blind man in a room example. If the blind man in the room can prove that the cat doesn't exist, than the fact that the cat is not black necessarily follows. But if the blind man find the cat, and is holding it, he still has no way of deducing whether the cat is black or not. Likewise, while proving Jesus did not exist can prove Jesus is not divine, proving that Jesus did exist cannot be used in any way to prove Jesus' divinity. This is because of the universal and particular natures of the terms..... It's like illicit major and illicit minor. While you can prove a particular from a universal, you cannot prove the universal from the particular...... It's the same type of concept.

[msladyliberty]

I'm a pentacostal christian, my mom's a pastor, and all my godparents are pastors as well.

In our christianity, we're led to believe everything that is written in the bible, because the bible is truth.

But it has been known in history that books have been revised over the years. And the bible is known to have many many revised versions of it. I think the reason why we have many different christianities is because others have revised the book to establish law within the people. If there wasn't a "book of law" or "morals" then I'm sure there wouldn't have been a civilized society.

I don't know if he existed. I just believe in him and all that he stands for.
(I'm so busted if my mom read this)

Existed or Not, the belief of him has created a civilized society.

[forza]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.


sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

I still don't see how that stands up. It's not even a first step, really. His existence can't be used to prove his divinity, just as the cat's existence can't be a proving factor of its color..

[sadolakced acid]

i like how you both picked my weakest arguement to attack. i provide many, and you choose only one. let's try again. i'll leave that one off, since you don't really get it. there is no cat, so you can't prove it's black.

i'm not expecting you guys to think logically about this, but please do try.

to prove divinity, you must first prove existance.

i believe jesus to be like harry potter. divine, like harry is a wizard. and also fictional.

in order to convince me of jesus's divinity in real life, you must convince me of jesus's existance in real life.

please, kryo, come and put me out of my misery.

[deealiganga]

i am I.N.C. . and i believe that Christ was a man. =)

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ if you have nothing of value to add, go away.

i like how you both picked my weakest arguement to attack. i provide many, and you choose only one. let's try again. i'll leave that one off, since you don't really get it. there is no cat, so you can't prove it's black.

i'm not expecting you guys to think logically about this, but please do try.

to prove divinity, you must first prove existance.

i believe jesus to be like harry potter. divine, like harry is a wizard. and also fictional.

in order to convince me of jesus's divinity in real life, you must convince me of jesus's existance in real life.

please, kryo, come and put me out of my misery.

see, justin, the thing is, your argument works on a philisophical level only if we take it that, if jesus existed he was absolutely divine.

now, if i believe a man called jesus existed, but not that he was divine, your argument doesnt work. it is perfectly plausible that jesus is a bonifide historical figure. if that is

that's where i totally lost my train of thought due to heat, so i'll try again.

at the end of the day, what im driving at is this. yes, proving jesus exists is ABSOLUTELY the first step in proving his divinity. so what? accepting that he exists is not an indication that one is trying to prove his divinty (thereby negating faith), because one can prove his existence, and NOT BELIEVE he is divine.

and frankly justin, you cant complain that people picked on the weakest part of your argument, because as a whole it a) wasn't particularly stron gpoint overall, and b) telling people off for commenting on a point which you yourself posted with the intention of debate is just childish, and you can do better.

---

oh, and to answer ghettosmurf's earlier point, yes i would say that setting out to prove the existence of god, philisophically or otherwise, indicates a lack of complete faith in anyone, aquinas included.

[sadolakced acid]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.

your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

[forza]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.

your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

Your argument wasn't extensive enough in the first place to really refute anything but your cat analogy. But to humor you, I'll try and show you why your untenable, A leads to Z argument doesn't stand up.

You've quoted in previous arguments that seeking to prove Jesus' existence as a mortal man is the defiant "first step" to proving his divinity. In this last argument you've said that if someone doesn't believe Jesus existed, they cannot believe Jesus was the son of God, which is fair enough. Where your argument goes awry is in your assumption that the person seeking to prove he existed 2,000 years ago is "undermining faith in his divinity."

In my studies of it, I've noticed that the Bible only requires that Christians believe and have faith in Jesus' status as a perfect being. The only proviso to being a Christian is believing he is the son of God before he returns on judgment day. The "first step" that you say contumaciously screws oneself out of true faith is not frowned upon by Christian doctrine, only by a thin, lapse-ridden strand of your logic that I still have a problem deciphering.

So, if you look for the proof (that is going to be there, whether you seek it out or not), you're not breaking any rules. It almost makes sense to confirm his existence. Why, you ask? Because it's provable. As stated before, you can't prove the important aspect of Christianity, thereby requiring a little bit of faith. You seem to think that being a Christian requires a quart of faith when one may suffice with a pint.

[sadolakced acid]

and yet you still ignore the harry potter arguement.

to prove jesus is a perfect being you must also prove he is a being.

[forza]

^ I agree with that, but unfortunately for your presumption that one is less faithful and less worthy in the eyes of Christian doctrine, so would the Christian religion.

[*I Shot JFK*]

justin, if i go out into the streets and find a guy named harry potter who is in no way wizardly, will that help at all?

yes, everyone agrees that to prove he is divine, you must prove he exists, becaue that is common sense. you cant argue with that. well, not well, i would imagine. the thing which i really dont understand is why you seem to say that proof of existence will necessarily lead to an attempt to proove his divinity. it's logically fine, but it doesnt hold up practically.

[ghetosmurph]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.
your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

Ok, say for argument's sake I went out and proved a man named Harry Potter actually existed. He was a professor of midevil history at Oxford from 1846 to 1878. His existence can be historically proved though birth records, school faculty records, testimonies of people that remember him, etc. Does that make it any easier to believe that this man was actually a wizard, trained at a mystical place called Hogwarts for 7 years? No, it doesn't......

Here..... try this..... take out a peice of paper and a writing implement. Draw a fairly large circle on the page, with another little circle inside of it. Now label the large circle "existence" and the little circle inside of it "divinity". You can see that in order to prove Jesus is divine you have to prove Jesus existed, a perfectly correct statement. But you can also see that proving Jesus existence doesn't mean you can prove Jesus' divinity...... say draw another little circle that is in the divinity circle..... label that proof........ if you were to prove jesus was divine you would have to prove Jesus existed....... now draw another little circle this time in the existence circle and don't let it touch the divinity circle... also label that proof....... If you proved Jesus existed it doesn't neccessarily conclude, that he was divine..... do you see how this works?

No our arguments do not assume Jesus existed...... our arguments are based on the fact that you can prove Jesus' existence without necessarily proving Jesus' divinity..... Just like in with the little circles.....

**//EDIT//******


hahahaa..... ok here you go......

Harry Potter, Massachusetts


When people walk into Harry Potter's funeral home in Massachusetts, they are often surprised to be greeted by a funeral director with such a famous name.

"I think it helps lighten the mood," said Harry, who is a co-owner and director at Potter Funeral Service Inc. where he runs its New Bedford funeral home. "I have a small Harry Potter figurine on my desk and it helps to put people at ease.

"I get a lot of recognition about my name. Over the years, I've been interviewed on several radio stations, been in magazines and appeared on TV three times, including nationwide once. I've read the books and watched the movies, and collected various paraphernalia."

Aged 50, Harry started in the funeral business when he was 19 and has remained in the job since then for all but six years. The business was originally co-founded in 1892 by Harry L. Potter – Harry's great-grandfather.

Harry would never consider changing his name but admits that he sometimes hesitates when introducing himself.

"There have been problems ordering things by telephone and making reservations because people think it is a crank call," he said. "I usually get a long pause and then they ask if it really is my name. I always speak with these people about the coincidence and we always have a good laugh. I was once invited to speak to a church children's group. I have also gotten autograph requests. In general, it has added a bright spot to my life. I have even been given free movie tickets and received special attention when visiting some places."

Or how about this one....... even better......

Harry Potter, London


Being called Harry Potter has been a distinct advantage for Harry Potter from London, who is a barrister in criminal law, a qualified Church of England priest, a published author and a local government councilor.

"It's not a problem in the least," said the 50-year-old. "In fact, it is very beneficial. I’m a barrister and it helps me in court. It helps me to win clients, and judges can't believe it when they hear I'm Harry Potter. It's a wonderful ice-breaker - everyone has a laugh and then we get down to business. Everyone knows who I am in the courts - that's a help.

"The first Harry Potter book didn't really change anything for me. The second one became a huge hit and then things changed. Personally, I think the stories are OK but they don't compare to Tolkein or Kipling.

"Before becoming a barrister, I was prison chaplain and I still preach in churches. When the vicar introduces me, I can see everyone look up. Children, who normally leave after Sunday School, refuse to leave the church because they want to listen to me. It's most peculiar - you could say it's bizarre but benign."

Being Harry Potter has several other advantages. "I ran for election as a local government councilor and I went up against the mayor," said Harry, who has also worked as a college chaplain at Cambridge University "I won quite easily and I know he was saying he lost because he was up against Harry Potter. I would campaign by knocking on doors and introducing myself. I had dozens of children following me."

Harry's prized possession is a hand-written letter from JK Rowling, creator of the fictional Harry Potter. "When the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, was published, I decided to write to JK because I too was working in chambers full of secrets at the law courts," he said. "She wrote a lovely letter back explaining the origins of the name - her neighbors called Potter and Harry being her favorite boys' name. It's probably worth thousands of pounds."

London's Harry Potter is also a published author with three history books to his name - Hanging in Judgement (1993), Bloodfeud, and Edinburgh Under Seige (2003).

"When I was working as prison chaplain, I met many prisoners with life sentences who would have been executed under old laws," he said. "Someone asked me to write something about my work and realized that no one had ever written about capital punishment since the last British execution in 1964, so I wrote the book.

"The other books were inspired by my nostalgia for Scotland - I originally come from Glasgow. Bloodfeud and Edinburgh Under Seige gave me excuses to visit Edinburgh castle and explore. Again, I realized nobody had written about the siege which lasted from 1571 to 1573, so I decided to do it."

There are loads more at this site: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/harry-potter/biographies.shtml

[sadolakced acid]

what you have done is the equivalent of me finding a man named jesus christ and claiming that jesus was the son of god.

let's look at your circles.

there are two circles in a larger field. before you prove or disprove jesus's existance, possibility is that entire field. when you prove he existed as a man, possibility narrows to only include the larger circle.

becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

if you were to prove there was a harry potter who lived at number 4, privet drive with the dursleys, then it would be easier to prove he were a wizard.

likewise, finding a man named jesus christ proves nothing.

but finding a man named jesus christ who had 12 apostles and threw moneylenders out of the temple, was crucified, etc. helps to validate the bible- thus helping to validate it's claim that jesus was divine.

[forza]

what you
becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

In whose mind? That is founded neither by Christian doctrine, nor by most common sense.

[ghetosmurph]

what you have done is the equivalent of me finding a man named jesus christ and claiming that jesus was the son of god.

That was the point..... the two aren't related........

let's look at your circles.

there are two circles in a larger field. before you prove or disprove jesus's existance, possibility is that entire field. when you prove he existed as a man, possibility narrows to only include the larger circle.

becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

You missed the point of the circles completely...... they have nothing to do with probability...... It's called a Venn diagram...... OK, label the big circle animals and label the little circle unicorns....... you are telling me that because animals exist, the probability of unicorns existing increases? Unicorns are the perfect example...... there is no proof for the existence of unicorns just like there is no proof for the divinity of Christ.... it would require faith to believe in either...... it has nothing to do with probability...... it has to do with the fact that you can prove that prove animals exist while in no way helping to prove the existence of unicorns.

[sadolakced acid]

i do not believe you understand probablility then, if that's what you say.

okay, if you want to use unicorns.

say there is an invisible unicorn. that's pink.

is it easier to believe there is a invisible pink unicorn when you have irrefutable proof of the existance of invisible unicorns?

[ghetosmurph]

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

[*decadence*]

OF COURSE! JESUS IS A MOD.

.. yeah, so hate me. I know all the debate rules and such, but I just couldn't help myself.

[ghetosmurph]

^ Make a point please. Spamming is not appreciated.

[sadolakced acid]

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

your logic works in funny ways.

you are tiring me.

out of curiosity, how old are you?

[*I Shot JFK*]

anna is above the law. silence, freak.

[femmefatale4160]

Actual man. No question. Whether or not you believe that he was the son of God, he existed. There are mountains of historical evidence to back it up.

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

Whoa...trippy...

[*I Shot JFK*]

hmm. i might have been converted to the church of the prancing unicorn... at least it would be pretty