Did Jesus Actually Exist?

[pretty_snowdrop]

I realise that the facts surrounding his birth and death are open to debate, however did he ever exist?

[solvitquick]

Sorry I can't give you a reference but somewhere I read that John, although older than the "alleged" Jesus of Nazareth lived in the same era.
It may have been in "The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail". Sure that's a mix of fact and conjecture. Anyway Baigent and co-writer were as believable as the christian bible if not more so.
Even if right, it does not mean that the book of John was actually written by him.
I find it amazing that so many people believe that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by these "apostles" in the immediate post-zero A.D. era.
SIQ.

[chakka35]

Kromovaracun, Tacitus wasn't born until AD55 and was writing in the 2nd Century. His very brief mention hardly counts s historical evidence.
,

[chakka35]

solvitquick, the gospel called John was written sometime around AD90-120 and the idea that it could have been the apostle of that name is risible. John the apostle was a horny-handed Galilean fisherman whose language would have been Aramaic. That he could have been writing at a ridiculous age a gospel in Greek full of mysticism and Hellenism is not be taken seriously.

I am not including you but those you mention who think that apostles wrote all the gospels must surely know that there were no apostles called Mark or Luke. Matthew was a tax-collector called Levi, and, again, would have been writing in his dotage (about 85-90) with no claim to have been an eyewitness.

[solvitquick]

Dear chakka35,
Ty so much for your two posts. Extremely educational to a much greater extent than I had hoped. Apart from my question re John, like Kromo, I have also cited Tacitus and now realise that this is an invalid thanks to your factual statements.
With Very Best Wishes,
SIQ.

[modeller]

IF he existed and IF he was special ( let alone being the Son of God ) why did he waste all those productive years in his 20s before preaching. ?
Why wait until the age of 30 and die a couple of years later.

If you Google that question you get the usual cop-out answer : God had to wait until it was the right time .! Didn't he know ?
Obviously not , judging by the amount of evil that has flowed from that event.

[piggynose]

christ knows, pardon the pun

[naomi24]

SIQ, too many ‘Johns’ in this puzzle. According to the biblical account, John the Baptist was a little older than Jesus, but he is not to be confused with any of the anonymous authors.

[naomi24]

Modeller, Luke says of those missing years that Jesus “went down with them [his parents] and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them…and increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man”, so perhaps that’s what he did and the years aren’t missing after all.

However, if you want legends of Jesus’ as a child try reading ‘The Infancy Gospel of Thomas’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

Nonsense, of course, but according to that the child Jesus was a bit of a brat who was not averse to malevolently striking playmates – and a teacher - dead. Oddly enough (or perhaps not) one particularly bizarre incident where Jesus is alleged to have brought clay models of birds to life was seized upon by Mohammed and included, as fact, in the Koran.

[goodlife]

You see in law courts of today the judges and the jury are inclined to accept the witness given by mere men and women who are imperfect.

Why than should we not rather accept the witness of the perfect and never-mistaken Almighty God, Jehovah? Every legal reason exists for us to accept his infallible testimony.

If we do not do so, it means that we are rejecting his testimony and we are making him a liar.

This is the argument of the apostle John, in 1 John 5:9-12: and for some that as far as they can see.

[Peter Pedant]

Modeller has given you the one-source theory of the Gospels.
Problem is that it explains the similarities but not the differences.
Enter the two-source theory.

Remember we agree the apostles werent the evangelists - some confusion there. So the argument they couldnt ve written greek fails at the first fence.

pappius whom we have no problem thinking existed write that Mark followed Peter around, noting down his teaching higgledy pickledy but also this is quite clearly NOT the 'sayings of Jesus' [Q] which if it existed at all is separate.

and no one has mentioned Josephus altho his mention of J is thought to be an interposition/addition.

Would four different people have written four different versions about someone who didnt exist at all- ? I can imagine one.

[Peter Pedant]

Dont read Gospel of Thomas that closely
Caused great excitement in 1890s - as it is the first oxyrhynch papyrus to be printed ( ta logia tou iesou) as the sayings of Jesus
and people wondered if this were 'Q'

No it isnt... damn.

It aint in the New testament - is described in antiquity but was lost
and now it is found again !

Probably Gnostic

Dont read it before you have read the NT ( all of it )

[Tillyella]

Apart from the gospels there are other writings that refer to Jesus. The Romans had no reason to support the existence of Jesus but Tacitus, who was no friend of Christianity wrote "Christus, the founder of the name had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius." This was written about 100 years after the event. It is strange that we readily accept the existence of people like Henry V111, Hannibal, and other historical figures without ever seeing them, we rely on what the history books tell us. Why do we have doubts about the accounts about Jesus?

[beso]

goodlife //Why than should we not rather accept the witness of the perfect and never-mistaken Almighty God, Jehovah?//

Because you and your kind are serial perjurers.

[clivebeca]

Is the Pope a Catholic?

[beso]

TillyElla //Tacitus, who was no friend of Christianity wrote "Christus, the founder of the name had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius." This was written about 100 years after the event. //

This is to say no original witnesses were alive to report.

//It is strange that we readily accept the existence of people like Henry V111, Hannibal, and other historical figures without ever seeing them, we rely on what the history books tell us. //

These figures are part of history. They appear in numerous unrelated contemporary sources.

//Why do we have doubts about the accounts about Jesus?//

There are many reasons. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in contemporary sources. Even when he does get mentioned a century later it is always in the context of the believers' hero.

Moreover the claims made about his abilities read like a Harry Potter story. What he is supposed to have done is obviously fiction. This suggests his very existence is fiction.

Jesus conveniently fulfills the "prophecies" of the Old Testament. This book talks about men who lived for many hundreds of years. Obviously more fiction.

It is all fiction to anyone with even rudimentary logical skills.

[naomi24]

//It is strange that we readily accept the existence of people like Henry V111, Hannibal, and other historical figures without ever seeing them, we rely on what the history books tell us. Why do we have doubts about the accounts about Jesus? //

Could be something to do with his alleged reputation. I don't think Henry VIII et al were renowned for walking on water or for raising people from the dead.

[Hypognosis]

Reductio ad Potterum?

I've been waiting for that since page one of this thread. Had to resist the urge to do it myself. :-D

[solvitquick]

Dear Tillyella,
Re why should we believe in "Henry VIII, Hannibal and others?"
My answer is that, although printing had not been invented writing had.
However scriptographers were probably expensive learned scholars and only employed, for their own or their masters' reasons, to record epic events. Sure Hannibal's invasion of Rome was about 200 B.C. but few, if any, modern historians dispute the Punic Wars,
As argued by others any evidence of Jesus' life is not significantly recorded as the "witnesses" were Aramaic and hence only written by the Greeks later.
However, I stick by my earlier contention that "handed-down word of mouth" was probably far more important then than it is today.
Why? 'Cos apart from fairy-tales it must have been a survival mechanism.
Hence I believe "Jesus of Nazareth" did exist but only as a Roman irritant: maybe a fall-guy, maybe an early illusionist with supporters in the "crowds", or just a deluded man. Hence not a significant person in history - the very impotant rest is later fiction (in my opinion only).
If you chose to believe, carry on and be good and happy.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Sorry Naomi, you are obviously right throughout this thread, just thought a bit of expansion was required by Tillyella - I hope I got it right - but corrections from ab'ers accepted gratefully.
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear beso,
Agreed on all points you make but just a logical doubt:
You say "What he is supposed to have done is obviously fiction. This suggests that his very existence is fiction".
This is a non sequitur surely. He could well have existed despite the (agreed) fiction re the miracles etc.
Kind regards,
SIQ.