Was Jesus for real?

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no doubt that Jesus historically existed but the question is did he REALLY proform all those miricles which are attributed to him?

Oerdin:

Do you believe in miracles of any sort?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned

But, when did Jesus unambiguously state that he was God?

Yes he did.

[Bosh]

The attempts to support the hypothesis that Jesus never existed that I've read concentrate a lot on the difference between the Epistles and the Gospels. It is a bit strange that there is almost no biographical information about Jesus whatsoever in the Epistles whatsoever, and then a good bit after the Epistles were written the Gospels pop up brimming over with biographical information. This leads to conjecture that the Cristos was origonally a mystical being that was never really human and who was Crucified in some middle realm between earth and heaven (a lot of this being drawn on attempts to conflate Christianity with contemporary Mystery Cults) and then all the biographical information got back-filled later after splits within the Christian community which resulted in some Christians deciding that Jesus was more human than had been previously believed.
Now obviously this should be taken with lots and lots of salt but its possible, especially since we have little record of ideological diversity within the early Christian community (besides the Gnostic Gospels) with was probably immense and included many groups vastly different than the people who put together the NT.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Yes he did.

"Son of God" was what he actually said. However, he clearly was human as he suffered and died. Gods do not suffer and die.

But whether being the Son of God makes him a god, a demi-god, or merely human is an old debate. I find it a bit strange that Christians would say to someone like me that we have to accept Jesus as God in order to find value in his teachings. Nonsense.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Yes he did.

No, he didn't.
Merely repeating something over and over, doesn't make it so.

[Jack the Bodiless]

We have no writings from Jesus himself (not even any writings claimed to be from Jesus himself).

Nor do we have any writings from eyewitnesses (the gospels were anonymous compilations not attributed to the apostles until much later).

So we can't say that "Jesus said he was the son of God".

I find it amusing that some people reflexively turn to their Bibles when attempting to answer this question, even when addressing atheists or agnostics. "Yes, he did, it says in this book...".

It's like attempting to resolve historical issues about Robin Hood (who may or may not have been a real person) by quoting from Costner's Prince of Thieves.

[XarXo]

My question is: Jesus was the king of bananas too?

[Japher]

We have no writings from Jesus himself (not even any writings claimed to be from Jesus himself).

Nor do we have any writings from eyewitnesses (the gospels were anonymous compilations not attributed to the apostles until much later).

Jesus was a product of the poor education system that existed over 2000 years ago, and did not know how to write...?

So, the mistake with the bible is that those who wrote it should of kept all their books separate instead of combining them all into one? At least then we would have cross references, and would therefore make it more credible?

I don't like that argument. Claiming evidence is not a fact because it is the only evidence is silly. If that were the case a lot of things would be different... I think arguing the plausibility of the events that occured in the bible would be a better approach to discrediting it, and thus eliminating it as a fact, not merely stating that there is only bible and therefore it is wrong.

[gunkulator]

If he is/was real, it is certainly within his power to let all of humanity know this. His silence speaks volumes to me. The only way people find out about Jesus is when somebody tells them. I have never heard of a non-Christian spontaneously converting, a la Paul.

So what I believe is that some people will always believe a well told yarn, which is what I suspect Christianity actually is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher


Jesus was a product of the poor education system that existed over 2000 years ago, and did not know how to write...?

So, the mistake with the bible is that those who wrote it should of kept all their books separate instead of combining them all into one? At least then we would have cross references, and would therefore make it more credible?

I don't like that argument. Claiming evidence is not a fact because it is the only evidence is silly. If that were the case a lot of things would be different... I think arguing the plausibility of the events that occured in the bible would be a better approach to discrediting it, and thus eliminating it as a fact, not merely stating that there is only bible and therefore it is wrong.

Given the general literacy of Jews, I doubt Jesus was illiterate. Especially if he is supposed to be God.

But not even that they are are no writings by Jesus--there aren't even any contemporary accounts of him! The earliest writings about Jesus at all are Paul letters, done at least 10 years after the supposed crucifixion--and he gives not a single detail of Jesus's life! He never met Jesus, after all.

The problem with relying on the Gospels as fact is that not only was the earliest gospel, Mark, written 30-40 years after Jesus's supposed death, it contains details it would have been impossible for the author to have known. Then, thanks to the synoptic problem, we can see that Luke and Matthew are clearly derivative of Mark, embellishing the tales to a point of silliness. We're to believe an author writing post-70 AD, could quote Jesus, without any first-hand documentary evidence citing what Jesus said?

We don't even know WHO wrote the gospels, because the only source attributing their authorship comes from someone living in 110 AD who had no way of knowing it! And, I might add, the earliest Greek texts found don't even give an attribution as to the author!

As for John--the Gospel of John was in no way written by the supposed disciple named John. It's earliest appearance is in 110 AD, and the line wherein he claims to have witnessed the actual events wasn't in the original Greek texts that we have, it was added later. Not to mention that John contains many events of such magnitude not mentioned in the other gospels--how could those authors so carelessly omitted such things?

We can dismiss the Bible as a reliable historical evidence of Jesus's existence, since no author in it giving an account of Jesus can be verified as reliable. We have as much evidence that Gilgamesh or Osiris was real.

[Japher]

Good job Boris

Now thats an argument. One I whole heartedly agree with.

I also understand Jack's argument now... If this Jesus guy was so huge than why aren'y there more books on him?

Heck, I can go to the book store and find more than that on Tiny Tim or that kid that played Screeched.

Jesus was definitly not a pop idol... if he truly did exist.

[Ned]

Just a hypothetical: If there was a contemporaneous Jewish account of Jesus, it may have been destoyed in the Jewish wars in 67-70 or 131-135. According to Boris, the first Gospel was written circa 70 - after the destruction of Jerusalem. The gospels may have survived because they were copied and distributed outside of Judea and Samaria by Roman Christians. However, the earlier Jewish records may have been burnt during the war or wars.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good.

Jack's come out from lurking.

Also addressed to Boris:

Nor do we have any writings from eyewitnesses (the gospels were anonymous compilations not attributed to the apostles until much later).

From the Gospel of John:

John 21:24

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."

This attributes the Gospel to a disciple of Christ, an eyewitness.

But who wrote this Gospel? How do we know? All excellent questions. One thing we must note is that many secular sources are just as anonymous as the Gospels, yet historians feel confident that they have attributed the writings to the correct author.

How do they attribute authorship?

This source, I'm citing, uses the example of Tacitus. If these arguments are sufficient to establish the authorship of Tacitus, they are also sufficient to establish the authorship of the Gospels.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

"To this end, Hengel [CarMoo.Int, 66] has argued that the Gospels must have received their titles immediately - not in the second century. For an anonymous author to have penned a Gospel, and have it accepted as from the hand of one of the Quartet or any authoritative person, would have required them to first produce the Gospel, then present it as the work of another; they would have to concoct some story as to how it came peculiarly to be in their possession ("My grandmother knew Matthew and he gave her a copy...I don't know why she never told our family about it!"); get around the problem of why a work by such a person disappeared or was previously unknown; then get the church at large, first in his area and then throughout the Roman Empire (and would not the claimed discovery of such a document cause a sensation, and controversy?), to accept this work as genuine!"

Now, what seems more plausible?

The scenario suggested above, or accepting the titles applied to each Gospel?

Boris:

But not even that they are are no writings by Jesus--there aren't even any contemporary accounts of him! The earliest writings about Jesus at all are Paul letters, done at least 10 years after the supposed crucifixion--and he gives not a single detail of Jesus's life! He never met Jesus, after all.

How do you explain Paul's conversion if he has not met the risen Christ?

What about contemporary accounts of Christ's life?

Let's look at Paul's account in 1 Corinthians, usually dated in the early 50's.

1 Cor 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


This looks like a summary of Christ's death, resurrection and his appearances after his death.

For this time period, this is very close to the date of Christ's death, compared with any other historical source.

The problem with relying on the Gospels as fact is that not only was the earliest gospel, Mark, written 30-40 years after Jesus's supposed death, it contains details it would have been impossible for the author to have known.

Usually dated anywhere from 58-65 AD, 30-35 years.
As for 'impossible' details, Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness. Instead, he relies on eyewitness testimony.

Not to mention that John contains many events of such magnitude not mentioned in the other gospels--how could those authors so carelessly omitted such things?

John was closer to Christ than many of the other Apostles. Besides, none of the Gospels deny that these events occur, they simply do not talk about them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also,

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_JN.html

In conclusion, we have some rather poignant evidence that John wrote bits of his Gospel with readers of Mark in mind -- and this goes a long way towards explaining his divergence from the Synoptics. John was writing as a complement to a known account and didn't need to be out repeating what the other had already said.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


No, he didn't.
Merely repeating something over and over, doesn't make it so.

Does too.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
We have no writings from Jesus himself (not even any writings claimed to be from Jesus himself).

Nor do we have any writings from eyewitnesses (the gospels were anonymous compilations not attributed to the apostles until much later).

So we can't say that "Jesus said he was the son of God".

Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Not even close. Tut, tut, you are really slipping Jack.

You are saying that the only we way can be sure someone said something is if they wrote it down themselves. That's loopy and clearly wrong