'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

[Tiggs]

Hmm? The issue before us at the point I first posted was Keosen's claim that Jesus was indistinguishable from Zeus Odin or Osiris, about whom "there are countless books and writings... from writers that actually were alive while claiming that this gods existed."

Then, as usual, we're talking at cross-purposes.

I was merely noting that Paul's historicity is disputed by many Mythicist's. Nothing else.

[Tiggs]

Given the definition of contemporary or contemporaneous, any legitimate writings of Paul are contemporary historical evidences, as Paul fits the basic definition of the word.

Providing you can prove that Paul existed and that he actually wrote those letters.

As opposed to, let's say, being forged by Marcion, in the second century.

[Tiggs]

Where are you when you consider the 8 veils of Slavery?

I'm at the "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" Veil.

[Mr Walker]

Providing you can prove that Paul existed and that he actually wrote those letters.

As opposed to, let's say, being forged by Marcion, in the second century.

That was inpart my point It becomes necessary for revisionists to dispute the existence of paul, to disprove the existence of jesus via his writings.

That is why i wrote any "legitimate" writings of paul. Increasingly one needs a conspiracy mindset if one is to believe that jesus the man never existed, because one has then to believe that his existence was a conspiratorial fabrication created some time later.

That is just silly because of the historical evidences of churches worshipers and roman references to christians well before such a plot could have been constructed. ie at least from 50 ad to 100 ad and probably earlier (if one accepts roman historical references to christian cultists, and separates them from the refernces to jewish cultists.) Its pretty clear that by about 50 AD the romans were distinguishing between, and discriminating against, both these groups, for similar reasons.

The roman histories of nero, from about AD 55 to 68, demonstrate the widespread and increasing numbers of christians by that time. Nero saw them as a considerable threat (or at the very least as scapegoats) and thus persecuted them, along with other "jewish" people, who had long been persecuted in rome, but who were in open revolt against rome from 66 AD to about 72-73 AD, ending with the seige of masada.

[Jor-el]

I'm at the "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" Veil.

I'm Sure you don't but I don't take personally.

[Leonardo]

I understand what is at stake for the harder mythicists (harder than, say, Carrier, who cites Paul with apparent ease of mind in your link). Paul thinks the man he encountered in a vision was somebody who once lived during Paul's lifetime. That places Jesus in a different literary category from Zeus, Odin and Osiris.

Did he, eb?

Paul does relate, in Galatians, of "the revelation of Jesus Christ", but he also states that God revealed his Son "in me". One might take this that God /Christ revealed himself to Paul, or that Paul had a revelation which he later associated with Jesus of the Christians. In any case, Paul does not relate a vision of Jesus.

In Acts 9, it is only related that Paul heard a voice which claimed it was Jesus, there was no vision of Jesus. Furthermore, Acts is not in the first person and is dubious as to whether it is an accurate rendering, by another, of Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus.

It appears the reports of Paul "having a vision of Jesus" are somewhat exaggerated.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

Galatians is the usual indicator epistle for Paul because it contains both his name and autobiographical material. By secular methods of comparison, there are good reasons to believe that the author of Galatians is also the author of 1 Corinthians. That epistle's 9: 1 asks, rhetorically,

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

This would seem to justify my saying that Paul had a "vision" of Jesus. Whether it came down as Luke writes in Acts isn't really the topic here, nor did anything in my post rely on Acts.

[Leonardo]

Galatians is the usual indicator epistle for Paul because it contains both his name and autobiographical material. By secular methods of comparison, there are good reasons to believe that the author of Galatians is also the author of 1 Corinthians. That epistle's 9: 1 asks, rhetorically,

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

This would seem to justify my saying that Paul had a "vision" of Jesus. Whether it came down as Luke writes in Acts isn't really the topic here, nor did anything in my post rely on Acts.

Fair enough, eb.

Might be veering away slightly from the main theme of the thread, but what do you think of comparing Paul's 'vision' of Jesus, with Jung's 'vision' of Philemon?

[eight bits]

Might be veering away slightly from the main theme of the thread, but what do you think of comparing Paul's 'vision' of Jesus, with Jung's 'vision' of Philemon?

Actually, the biggest difference is pretty squarely on topic, I think. Jung was always aware that Philemon came from within, and that his visions began at a time of unusual psychological stress. Jung never felt that Philemon was, or was even "based on," an actual person.

Paul seems to have accepted the reality of his experiences, including that he was literally communicating with somebody who had died fairly recently.

Philemon never performed any "miracles," and I don't recall that Jung ever asked him to. Paul does seem to have some spooky stuff going on in his churches. I wouldn't be surpised if using Jesus' name during a satisfactory exorcism, for example, might have helped to reinforce the idea that it was really Jesus who inspired Paul's mission.

Conversely, Paul tells us that he scrupulously isolated himself from anybody who might provide a "reality check" (anybody who knew Jesus in life who might contradict something Paul's spectre said about Jesus' biography). Nevertheless, he has a recurring complaint about people seeking out him or his converts, and teaching "different gospels." They're just wrong, of course.

With Philemon, there was no publicity, no ontological status to check, and no hard facts to shield the psyche from lest factual lapses disturb the spectral experience.

Anyway, those are some of the differences that come to mind.

[Tiggs]

That was inpart my point It becomes necessary for revisionists to dispute the existence of paul, to disprove the existence of jesus via his writings.

Then I'll rephrase:

Both Richard Carrier and Robert M Price are sterling examples of people whom are both agnostic towards the existence of Jesus and have no requirement whatsoever to dispute the existence of Paul.

Because, as they stand - the writings which people claim to have been written by Paul in no way supports an historical existence for Jesus.

That is why i wrote any "legitimate" writings of paul. Increasingly one needs a conspiracy mindset if one is to believe that jesus the man never existed, because one has then to believe that his existence was a conspiratorial fabrication created some time later.

In my experience, religion and fabrication tend to go hand in hand.

Unless, of course, you're telling me that Europa really did sleep with Zeus?

That is just silly because of the historical evidences of churches worshipers and roman references to christians well before such a plot could have been constructed. ie at least from 50 ad to 100 ad and probably earlier (if one accepts roman historical references to christian cultists, and separates them from the refernces to jewish cultists.) Its pretty clear that by about 50 AD the romans were distinguishing between, and discriminating against, both these groups, for similar reasons.

The roman histories of nero, from about AD 55 to 68, demonstrate the widespread and increasing numbers of christians by that time. Nero saw them as a considerable threat (or at the very least as scapegoats) and thus persecuted them, along with other "jewish" people, who had long been persecuted in rome, but who were in open revolt against rome from 66 AD to about 72-73 AD, ending with the seige of masada.

Firstly - there is no generally accepted archaeological evidence for Christianity in Rome prior to 72 AD. Or actually anywhere, for that matter. The earliest confirmed church is from the Third Century AD, for example.

Secondly - the earliest extant piece of Christian Papyrus is generally thought to be P52, a fragment from the Gospel of John, which dates to the early half of the second century. So there's no physical written evidence, either.

Thirdly - In terms of Roman history - Suetonius and Tacitus's reports, at absolute best, indicates that a movement called Christianity existed.

Proof of people worshiping Christ does not equal proof of Christ. Just as proof of people worshiping Thor does not equal proof of Thor.

[Tiggs]

I'm Sure you don't but I don't take personally.

Which veil am I at?

None. Because the veils are just another figment of your imagination.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Tiggs

[+Paranoid Android]

The difference is that nothing was written about Jesus till 90 years after his death. Romans are well known for there record keeping.

I think you'll find several of Paul's writings about Jesus date to 20 years after Jesus' death (possibly as few as 15 years, if you believe some historians). And if the Q Hypothesis is right, then the text on which three of the four gospels are based is about the same age - 20 years after Jesus. I'm not sure where you get your 90-year gap, because even if you are only referring to the gospels, Mark can be dated to approximately 40 years after Jesus (circa 65-80 AD). Edited April 23, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Jor-el]

Firstly - there is no generally accepted archaeological evidence for Christianity in Rome prior to 72 AD. Or actually anywhere, for that matter. The earliest confirmed church is from the Third Century AD, for example.

Secondly - the earliest extant piece of Christian Papyrus is generally thought to be P52, a fragment from the Gospel of John, which dates to the early half of the second century. So there's no physical written evidence, either.

Thirdly - In terms of Roman history - Suetonius and Tacitus's reports, at absolute best, indicates that a movement called Christianity existed.

Proof of people worshiping Christ does not equal proof of Christ. Just as proof of people worshiping Thor does not equal proof of Thor.

Incorrect and you know it.

There is ample evidence of christianity in Jerusalem, all predating 72 AD.

Everybody has heard of it, it is the polemic Jesus tomb and associated tombs, all of which are christian and date to the mid 1st century. People can argue all they want if it is or isn't the Jesus family tomb, to me, it merely shows a christian tomb.

[Tiggs]

Incorrect and you know it.

There is ample evidence of christianity in Jerusalem, all predating 72 AD.

Everybody has heard of it, it is the polemic Jesus tomb and associated tombs, all of which are christian and date to the mid 1st century. People can argue all they want if it is or isn't the Jesus family tomb, to me, it merely shows a christian tomb.

A shape to align tomb lids does not a Christian tomb make.

[Jor-el]

A shape to align tomb lids does not a Christian tomb make.

We shall have to wait and see if your position is borne out over time.

[Tiggs]

We shall have to wait and see if your position is borne out over time.

Given it's current reception, It's got about as much chance of acceptance by the Archaeology mainstream as an orange crayon drawing of Jesus on a Raptor, dated 17 AD.

I'm only interested in mainstream accepted archaeology, as undertaken by actual archaeologists. As opposed to the Ron "I have a Red Sea chariot wheel to sell you" Wyatt variety.

[Jor-el]

Given it's current reception, It's got about as much chance of acceptance by the Archaeology mainstream as an orange crayon drawing of Jesus on a Raptor, dated 17 AD.

I'm only interested in mainstream accepted archaeology, as undertaken by actual archaeologists. As opposed to the Ron "I have a Red Sea chariot wheel to sell you" Wyatt variety.

I'm not interested in the fact that it isn't "The Jesus Family Tomb"... great surprise. I'm interested in the fact that it is a christian tomb. Please let us not confuse the facts here. The "current reception" link doesn't address the issue.

[barnsey]

Just curious, but stepping back 2000 years, how many people living during that time could be said to adhere to the criteria you require for Jesus? I think if you are honest you will find that 99.99% of all ancient people fail your criteria. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove by saying we have no artefacts attributed to Jesus, or works of carpentry (what, did he sign all his works with "J.C" just to make sure we all knew who he was).... Only a small elite can be directly traced through the historical records. Even those who allegedly wrote things themselves have no original documents to prove it was them.

Just saying,

~ PA

True to a point! But most historical accounts of individuals come from others who at least there at the claimed to and lifespan of accounted for person.

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons.

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

[Tiggs]

I'm not interested in the fact that it isn't "The Jesus Family Tomb"... great surprise. I'm interested in the fact that it is a christian tomb. Please let us not confuse the facts here. The "current reception" link doesn't address the issue.

Then feel free to provide evidence that the consensus of Mainstream Archaeology is that it's a Christian tomb.

[Jor-el]

Then feel free to provide evidence that the consensus of Mainstream Archaeology is that it's a Christian tomb.

The consensus as far as I know is that it isn't the "Jesus Family Tomb" which is what some have been trying to demonstrate, I don't think there is a doubt that the tomb contains visible evidence of christian usage.

But I will get back to you on that tonight.

[Tiggs]

The consensus as far as I know is that it isn't the "Jesus Family Tomb" which is what some have been trying to demonstrate, I don't think there is a doubt that the tomb contains visible evidence of christian usage.

I think you'll find that there most obviously is.

Because, otherwise - it would totally dash James Tabor's new, recent and most thrilling groundbreaking discovery - that the random squiggles on the ossuary in Plot B make it the Earliest Christian Artifact In the History of the World Ever™ (Book Release Pending / Not a James Cameron Film this time, however, after getting severely burnt last time around).

Edited April 24, 2012 by Tiggs

[Mr Walker]

name='Tiggs' timestamp='1335159312' post='4273788']

Then I'll rephrase:

Both Richard Carrier and Robert M Price are sterling examples of people whom are both agnostic towards the existence of Jesus and have no requirement whatsoever to dispute the existence of Paul.

Because, as they stand - the writings which people claim to have been written by Paul in no way supports an historical existence for Jesus.

LOL no more than people after a caesar writing about that caesar support the existence of caesar.

In scientific terms history is replete with lack of evidences but in historical terms this is not so. For example, paul referred to a figure he believed to exist. Why would he " believe" this figure existed within a decade or two of its death? He would "know" whether it did or not.

Supposedly, he met and talked to this figure's brother. So IF paul.s writings are genuine, then there is no reason to disbelieve he was writing about a real historical figurewith whom he was familiar, and logic /common sense would head us in that diretion unless we had a strong pre-existing bias.

To whom would paul have been writing, for example, if an extended network of believers, in a number of diverse locations and churches did not already exist.? What would have been the purpose of his life or beliefs? This was not a man living centuries after an event, but one living at the same time as it was happening. He was able to talk to those involved and meet with others who had met the man.

You have to deliberately discount all that as a lie or a conspiracy, to then think that christ did not exist.

In my experience, religion and fabrication tend to go hand in hand.

And that is a form of confirmation bias. Humans are both literal and creative beings. A lot of how we live and think mixes reality and fabrication. We construct beliefs to explain the inexplicable.That does not mean that human experiences of a religious or spiritual nature are either fabricated or necessarily misinterpreted. Again, to think so is a form of bias which will inform ones conclusions. NAturally, i am biased by my own experiences, For example, i have no problem accepting the possibility of pauls experiences, as a contact with a very real powerful physical being.

AND yet i do not unconditionally accept this. I am just more able to. It could have been heatstroke, it could have been an hallucination caused by strees and perhaps guilt. After all before his conversion saul/paul had actually been "persecuting" christians.

I do not know. I do know it could have been real and genuine. Whatever the case it changed the course of human history in perhaps an unparalleled way.

Plus, of course, christ "existed" in the historical context of his time. When you read his philosophies and teachings they are very similar to a rabbi who existed and wrote prior to the time of jesus. This is what one would expect of a young man, educated and raised in that environment with an empathy for such teachings.

Unless, of course, you're telling me that Europa really did sleep with Zeus?

Who knows?

The cases are not comparable. Christianity was born and existed well within the lifetime of its first followers. They would have known if jesus had never existed. No such chronological connectivity existed for Zeus and Europa While we are 2000 years from the time of christ there is a direct chronological linkage to him.

Firstly - there is no generally accepted archaeological evidence for Christianity in Rome prior to 72 AD. Or actually anywhere, for that matter. The earliest confirmed church is from the Third Century AD, for example.

I dont think i mentioned archaeological evidences.

There are historical references to earlier historical references regarding churches where the original documents have been since lost or destroyed.

Secondly - the earliest extant piece of Christian Papyrus is generally thought to be P52, a fragment from the Gospel of John, which dates to the early half of the second century. So there's no physical written evidence, either.

But again there are existing refernces to earlier documentations no longer existing. This is also the case with churches church meetings etc.

Thirdly - In terms of Roman history - Suetonius and Tacitus's reports, at absolute best, indicates that a movement called Christianity existed.

Yes and at the time of nero if not earlier. So how does such a cult develop well within a single lifetime from a non existent personage This cult continues to be documented intermitently in roman records and can again be chronologically linked to the absolute certainty of a christian group in the second century

Proof of people worshipping Christ does not equal proof of Christ. Just as proof of people worshiping Thor does not equal proof of Thor.

It depends what you mean by proof. Evidence, within a life time, of people worshipping another person whom they could have met and talked to, and who is acknowledged as a physical being not an invisible one, strongly tends to indicate that the person existed.

Again one has to have very strong preconceptions not to accept this.

Worship is another matter, like the nature of christ.

For example the stories of thor may have originated with a real historical figure; a strong and powerful norse leader from a preceding generation. That does not validate either his worship or his god hood. It is now accepted that the stories of jason and the argonauts are historically based records, perhaps of one man, perhaps of a number of traders and sea men

I have included a couple of articles, with which i have no serious disagreement, that sum up basically my reasons for accepting the existence of christ as a living historical figure.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/historical_jesus.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

Edited April 25, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Copasetic]

Tiggs

That may be. What historians have for Paul is autobiographical writing, plausible for its ostensible time and place, and written with the evident intention of being taken as truthful. Somebody wrote Galatians. He called himself Paul.

That doesn't ensure that Paul existed. It does ensure that a rational person could believe it, and disregard the contrary as not a serious possibility.

I understand what is at stake for the harder mythicists (harder than, say, Carrier, who cites Paul with apparent ease of mind in your link). Paul thinks the man he encountered in a vision was somebody who once lived during Paul's lifetime. That places Jesus in a different literary category from Zeus, Odin and Osiris.

How nice for the harder mythicists, then, if Paul himself didn't exist. Good luck in showing that. In the meantime, Jesus stands different in kind from Zeus, Odin and Osiris. None of them has a Paul, or even the serious possibility of one.

It's easy for the godly to overplay that hand, and that's why I wrote to Mr Walker about conflating Jesus, a possibly historical person, with the Christ, an opinion Paul held about Jesus, which opinion's verification or refutation isn't a historical matter.

Forgive me, I'm not a historian (or even much of a history buff so to say), but you are going to claim no one, in the history of humans, have made similar claims of the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheon deities (any of them, or any of the demigods) as Paul made about Jesus? Tastes like bull****

[Tiggs]

LOL no more than people after a caesar writing about that caesar support the existence of caesar.

The case for historicity is not as simple as x wrote about y, therefore y exists.

if it were, then both of your Roman witnesses for Christ also wrote about Hercules. Not even the most Christian of Historians believe that Hercules is historical.

In scientific terms history is replete with lack of evidences but in historical terms this is not so. For example paul referred toa figure he believed to exist. Why would he " believe" this figure existed within a decade or two if its death? he would know whether it did or not. Supposedly he met and talked to this figure's brother. So IF pauls writings are genuine then there is no reason to disbelieve he was writing about a real historical figure and logic /common sense would head us in that diretion unless we had a strong preexisting bias.

To whom would paul have been writingm for example? What would have been the purpose of his life or beliefs This was not a man living ceturies after an event but one living at the same time as it was happening. He was able to talk to those involved and meet with others who had met the man. You have to deliberately discount all that as a lie or a conspiracy, to then think that christ did not exist.

Have you met John Frum?

Again - even if you start with a position of historicity for Paul - Paul's entire knowledge of Jesus came through direct revelation. There is nothing within Paul's text that requires a historical Jesus to have existed.

And that is a form of confirmation bias.

Experience is not a form of confirmation bias, unless you use it to pre-color your expectations.

Humans are both literal and creative beings. A lot of how we live and think mixes reality and fabrication. We construct beliefs to explain the inexplicable.That does not mean that human expereinces of a religious or spiritual nature are either fabricated or necessarily misinterpreted Again to think so is a form of bias which will inform ones conclusions NAturally i am biased by ny own experinces For example i have np problem accepting pauls experinces as a contact wih a very real powerful physicl being. AND yet i do not unconditionally accpe tthis I am just more able to It could have been heatstroke it could have bee anhallucination caused by strees dn perhaps guilt I dont know I do know it could ahve been real and genuine. Whatever the case it changed the course of huma history in perhaps an unparalleled way.

Plus, of course, christ "existed" in the historical context of his time. When you read his philosophies and teachings they are very similar to a rabbi who existed and wrote just prior to the time of jesus. This is what one would expect of a young man educated and raised in that environment with an empathy for such teachings.

Who knows?

The cases are not comparable. Christianity was born and existed well within the lifetime of its first followers. They would have known if jesus had never existed. No such chronological connectivity existed for Zeus and Europa While we are 2000 years from the time of christ there is a direct chronlogical linkage to him.

Every single religion in the world was born and existed well within the lifetime of it's first followers.

How else do you think it works, Mr Walker?

I dont think i mentioned archaeological evidences.

But there are refernces to earlier documentatons no longer existing This is aso the case with churches dhurch meetings etc.

We do indeed have a list of prior documents which no longer exist, as preserved by later church fathers. For example, Eusibius details the very text of Christ's handwritten letter. No historian in their right mind believes that that was genuine, either.

Yes and at the time of nero if not earlier. So how does such a cult develop well within a single lifetime from a non existent personage This cult continues to be documented intermitently in roman records and can a gain be chronolgically linked to the absolute certainty of a christian group in the second century

It depends what you mean by proof. Evidence, within a life time, of people worshipping another person whom they could have met and talked to, and who is acknowledged as a physical being not an invisible, one strongly tends to indicate that the person existed.

Again one has to have very stron g preconceptions not to accept this.

Worship is another matter like the nature of christ.

For example the stories of thor may have originated with a real historical figure a strong an dpowerful norse leader from a preceding generation. That does not validate either his worship or his god hood. It is now ccepted that the stories of jason and the argonauts are historically based records, perhaps of one man, perhaps of a number of traders and sea men

Accepted by whom?

Certainly not by any historian that I'm aware of. Again - the case for historicity is not as simple as x wrote about y, therefore y exists.

I have included a couple of articles, with which i have no serious disagreement, that sum up basically my reasons for accepting the existence of christ as a living historical figure.

http://www.infidels....ical_jesus.html

http://www.religious...rg/chr_chov.htm

None of that is new information for me, Mr Walker.

Nor do I have any particular issue with you choosing to believe that Jesus is historical.

My position is essentially agnostic - that it is impossible to tell whether or not Jesus is a historical figure, given the available evidence.

[Tiggs]

Forgive me, I'm not a historian (or even much of a history buff so to say), but you are going to claim no one, in the history of humans, have made similar claims of the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheon deities (any of them, or any of the demigods) as Paul made about Jesus? Tastes like bull****

Eyewitnesses for Zeus? As if:

Acts 14:

⁸ In Lystra there sat a man who was lame. He had been that way from birth and had never walked.

⁹ He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed

¹⁰ and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

¹¹ When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!"

¹² Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

¹³ The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Tiggs