The Existence of Jesus

[Dogmudgeon]

There is a lot of talk 'round these parts about the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth, considered (variously) as Savior, Fraud, Redeemer, Terrorist, Rabbi, Mystificator, Healer, Badass, and overall charming devil.

There are a number of people who are willing to go to the proverbial mat to argue whether (H/h)e DID or did NOT exist.

I am an atheist; and I lean very slightly toward accepting the existence of Jesus, if only because there is a paucity of objective evidence for many (if not most) historical personages up until as late as the Renaissance (and some would argue "up to last week"). Still, if more evidence turns up, I will accept or reject the question of Jesus' historical existence as the evidence indicates.

However ... I do not think it is particularly important EXCEPT in the context of history. The contrarian insistence (contrary relative to the accepted version) that Jesus never existed is, to me, likewise an issue of history and not theology. And in terms of "confessed" Christianity and reverence for the message of Jesus, I contend that one need not believe in his literal existence to have a genuine faith and/or self-deception (depending on one's interpretation of belief).

Of course, I could be wrong.

This poll is NOT about "Did Jesus Exist?", but rather "Is Proof or Disproof of the Existence of Jesus Important?"

(Note: The word "theologically" is used in the poll. For the purpose of brevity, that is "in the context of religion, not history". Thank you for your forbearance.)

--d!

[BlueJazz]

1. Seems I read that "Jesus" was (and is) a very common name in some cultures so...

...Yes: Jesus Existed. THE Jesus...I don't know.

[elocs]

6. "How Did the Name Jesus Originate?" Interesting article about the name.

http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua. Our Saviour’s Name in Hebrew is IaHUShUA (read from right to left). The English name “Jesus,” which later employed the letter “J,” is a derivation from Greek “Iesous” and the Latin “Iesus” version.

This name “Jesus” commonly used in Christianity today did not exist and would not be spelled with the letter “J” until about 500 years ago. This article will also discuss the grammatical errors involved in the transliteration of Yahshua into Greek and Latin, which radically changed the form of Yahshua’s name.

more at the link

[pleah]

2. Yes, he does exist!

I see him every time I make a cheese sandwich! :evilgrin:

[Warpy]

3. Whether the NT reflects the teachings of just one man

or is an amalgam of teachings from a certain sect attributed to one man who never existed is moot. The validity of those teachings irrespective of the origin should be what is being examined.

We know the myth was cobbled together out of a lot of myths around the eastern Mediterranean. The man himself might or might not have existed.

[zeemike]

13. No we don't KNOW that but some do speculate.

There is no way we could know what was and was not cobbled together 2000 years ago.
And i am always shocked when seemingly science (or those who subscribe to science) says things like that. Real science never presents theory and speculation as fact.

[Warpy]

18. Excuse me?

We know most of the myths in the region, some of which date back much more than 2000 years ago but which were still current then. We know how much the Jesus myth resembles these myths in great part. These are not up for debate.

Whether or not the man himself existed is.

[zeemike]

19. there is that we know thing again.

If we know most of the myths 2000 years ago then we know how many there were...how did we come by such knowledge? Do we now have a copy of all or most all of the literature that was around then? Do we know most of the oral traditions too?

[Warpy]

21. The written record is actually fairly complete

You do know that stuff was written down, don't you?

[zeemike]

22. Yes it was written down

On parchment and paper that did not survive more than a hundred years. Some of the clay tablets and other media survived but not much of that ether. We have only a tiny fraction of what was produced then and to say we know most of it is not believable.

[liberalmuse]

4. He exists in many people's minds, if anything.

If God/Jesus doesn't exist, will we eventually create him? Though neither I nor anyone else knows if he actually existed on the planet--well, not the Jesus the Christians worship today, anyway. There's just not enough evidence. There is evidence that the virgin birth/christ/sacrifice/conquering death myth had existed for thousands of years before the supposed Jesus character came into being. There is also very strong evidence that the entire Jesus story and current Christianity was lifted from ancient superstition and paganism. It seems too important a story to humankind to be discounted. It's really very fascinating, like some sort of puzzle that the human mind has been trying but unable to solve for centuries.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Betsy Ross]

5. Jewish Talmud has references to someone who

may be the NT Jesus.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Pretty sure that there was an itinerant rural Zealot rabbi named Yehoshua

who preached a heavily reformist and social-equality oriented message, got a few followers, then headed into the big city and got nailed to a cross for inciting rebellion. That's such an unexceptional story I'd be shocked if someone had to make it up.

[liberalmuse]

8. It's not really an exceptional story...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_16.htm

[Occam Bandage]

10. Hate to break it to you, but that site is entirely bogus.

I can't find any reference to many of those "saviors" except on copies of that list. Some cannot be found anywhere on a database search of journal catalogs. Some are even linguistically impossible; "Beddru" is not a valid Japanese name, nor is "Ischy" anything that might appear anywhere near Taiwan. Others, while recognizable, are hilariously inappropriate: Odin? Zoroaster? Prometheus? Fuxi? Anyone with a basic knowledge of comparative religion would roll their eyes. Sure, there are a few, such as Mithra, that might seem like reasonable comparisons, but the site is so completely full of blithe ignorance that I am fairly sure the author hit upon those more out of blind luck than through any particular knowledge. And, y'know, the three sub-articles that follow are just as bogus.

For one, Krishna was not crucified, his father was not a carpenter (his biological father was a prince and a partial incarnation of a god, and his adoptive father a cowherd), his mother was by no means a virgin, and to claim that Hindu theology contains anything that might reasonably compared to the Christian "final day of judgment" is laughable.

To continue, the claim that "no Roman wrote about Jesus" is possibly true* but utterly meaningless. Why would anyone record for posterity the unexceptional death of an unexceptional Zealot, to say nothing of one half the world away? The Romans didn't care. The only reason they'd have written about him is if they thought he was God, and obviously if they thought he was actually God incarnate, they probably wouldn't have crucified him.

(*It may well be that his death was recorded on a standard administrative record on flimsy material and was subsequently lost like the vast, overwhelming majority of such documents have been. It may also be that some local writers mentioned him, but their poorly-bound and worthless manuscripts were lost for similar reasons. Most of history has been lost forever.)

Finally, the list of similarities with Horus is kind of strange. Many similarities are universal to religions; comparisons with peace, with war, and with stars are so common they are more a kind of poetry than a kind of theology. Many similarities refer to titles and theological features added to the Christ mythos by the Greeks, who certainly would have been aware of the Eastern cults rolling across the Empire. There were quite a few, after all, and undoubtedly many features were added; anyone who claims Christianity is "pure" or "original" is full of it. Some similarities are from Medieval innovations in Christianity, others are silly tricks of cross-linguistic coincidence, and many others (especially as relates to interpretations of Egyptian religion) are stretches that would snap a gymnast's tendons.

I mean, the site's interesting, but I don't think there's anything there but the standard New Age formula:

(coincidences) + (horribly misrepresented facts) + (made-up bullshit) = (connections!)

[Viva_Daddy]

23. There are many similarities to the Jesus Story...BUT

it's the way Jesus was different that's most important to me. As Walter Wink said: "If Jesus had never existed, it would have been impossible for us to have invented him." He was revolutionary (non-violently) in many ways.

[BurtWorm]

28. That's a totally nonsensical claim.

Utter bullshit. I mean the nonsense about "impossible for us to have invented him." That's utterly meaningless, vapid crap.

[On the Road]

27. Thank You --

I had kept hearing of this list of crucified saviors or messiahs born of virgins, but had never seen the list or a more critical list of it.

The underlying methodology seems to assume that discrediting anything attributed to Jesus is equivalent to discrediting Jesus' existence. I do believe that follows -- it is entirely possible, for example, that "I am the vine" came from Egyptian tradition, but that Jesus either never said these words or perhaps was drawing on Egyptian tradition. Few people besides fundamentalists would argue for the historical accuracy of the Gospels.

As far as there being no contemporaneous mentions of Jesus, Tacitus may have referred to Jesus as "Chrestus" -- it is widely debated and the answer is not clear. In any case, there are no contemporaneous references by Roman authors to other religious or nationistic leaders of the time such as Simon Magus, Judas the Galilean, or the revolutionary referred to as "the Egyptian." Or for that matter to Jesus' brother James, who is was incontrovertibly a real figure. One would hardly expect anything else.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Comparisons of Jesus Christ and pagan gods was not introduced until the 17th century

In the first and second centuries, the deniers of Christ relied on refuting his resurrection, never his existence.
The attempt to link him with pagan gods is unknown until the 17th century. There are no primary documents that support the theories put forth in the 17th century. The originators of this story line would have claimed "extra knowledge". IOW, there was nothing to support their claims other than they were claiming it.

Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected..

Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days"<3>, which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd<4>. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus<5>.

I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was "baptized at age 30", that he "walked on water" (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc.

Also lacking is any evidence that he was betrayed by Typhon. In fact, Horus never died, at any time, he later merges with the sun god, Ra -- but never dies and certainly never is crucified, and therefore could not have been buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you want to look it up yourself, you can find documentation of Horus and Isis and Osiris here <6> and here <7>.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#jesus_and_connection_to_other_gods

Mush more at link. Each claim for the comparison between gods is refuted.

[struggle4progress]

29. I examined a few of Graves' claims: the results suggested he was neither careful nor

particularly well-informed

Graves claims Krishna was crucified, and ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=195093&mesg_id=195105

[Why Syzygy]

30. All of these texts rest on a small nest

of "free thinkers" of the 17th century, which all lead back to Madame Blatavsky's "illuminates".

(...)His scholarship was, however, quickly criticized by Reverend John Taylor Perry of Cincinnati. He showed that all sources Graves used were Freethought texts, which in turn had synthesised random, mis-understood and half-digested pieces of mis-information. Graves constructed from this a theory that religion was concocted by priests and made up of superstition and myth. This belief was consistent with the movement in Royal Arch Freemasonry then to revive Gnosticism as a challenge to church teaching.

Graves made leaps of logic similar to those of Alexander Hislop. Graves's central thesis that Christendom is a mere retelling of Pagan myths, mirrors the opposite claim of Alexander Hislop, author of The Two Babylons, that Catholicism, a mixture of Pagan myths with Christian belief, is a Satanic counterfeit of the true Christianity found in Protestantism. As with Hislop, modern scholarship has cast serious doubt on the veracity of such claims, and demonstrated that Graves' scholarship is deficient. Graves massaged his data to fit his thesis, and where he had no data he falsified it.

He often failed to cite proper sources for verification; although, "many of the most important facts collated in this work were derived from Sir Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis"<2>

Historian Richard Carrier, a proponent of the Jesus myth hypothesis, has heavily criticized Graves' work, particularly his book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, as being unreliable and unscholarly.<3>

Brian Flemming, director of Jesus myth hypothesis documentary The God Who Wasn't There, has cautioned against using Graves as a source due to his lack of scholarship and unreliability of his claims.<4>(...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kersey_Graves

Sir Godfrey Higgins

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

See also

* Gerald Massey
* H. P. Blavatsky
* Kersey Graves
* Druidry
* Freemasonry
* The Pandeism of Godfrey Higgins
* theosophy

[struggle4progress]

31. An unfortunate aspect of such axe-grinding is that it tends to eclipse useful insights

There is, of course, no doubt that Christianity contains syncretic elements. One might ask, from a historical point of view, about how these elements were incorporated and how these elements were originally understood. From a theological point of view, one might also ask about the theological significance of the incorporated elements

Answers to such questions might vary. For example, the fact that European Christians adopted a tree tradition for Christmas may indeed reflect the appropriation of an earlier tradition: this is a pleasant custom but without any theological significance. On the other hand, the fact that the first Christians identified a crucified Galilean peasant as the "son of G-d," at a time when Roman emperors were calling themselves by a similar title, not only sheds light on early Christianity as a subversive movement but also suggests a certain theological attitude

[Why Syzygy]

32. I'm not sure of your intent

or meaning. Is the information I posted different than what you have in regards to Graves?
In what way?

"Axe-grinding" doesn't give me enough information to determine the intention of your post.
My primary interest is in showing that the motifs which are so readily accepted as proved and 'obvious' have at their core an opposing religious view, not simply a scholarship.

[struggle4progress]

33. Graves was "axe-grinding": he started from his conclusion and cherry-picked his evidence

Such an approach is quite common. I consider it unfortunate, because some (not all) of the claims made about syncretism in the history of Christianity are true -- and these claims sometimes shed light on historical facts and sometimes may actually provide illuminating insights into the theology

[Towlie]

9. I lean toward Isaac Asimov's view as expressed in Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

Isaac Asimov believed that after all the alleged miracles are set aside in deference to rationalism, there remains a plausible story of a "poor backwoods preacher" who was unwillingly thrown into the role of the prophesied Messiah who would lead the Jews in a glorious revolt against Rome. Jesus was a pacifist who wanted no part of any revolt, yet he was reluctant to turn away his followers, thus the evasive answer he gave when asked about paying tribute to Caesar.

It seems to me that Jesus could have had a nice long career preaching and spreading his philosophy, but his greed for followers prevented him from disavowing the unwanted role of King of the Jews. That was what ultimately led to the Pharisees being forced to eliminate him and defuse the threat of an attempted revolt that would kill them all.

[zeemike]

14. He was not reluctantly thrown into the roll of the Messiah

But in the story confirmed it several times to both Pharisees and deciples...That whole seen of entering Jerusalem on the foal of an ass was a direct signal to the Pharisees as to what he was. His problems was convincing his followers that "His kingdom was not of this world" and the only way he finally made them see that was to resurrect his body and show them.

[Towlie]

17. I guess you missed the part where I mentioned setting miracles aside in deference to rationalism.

I'm talking about reality and you're talking about your religious beliefs. Or as others sometimes put it, I'm talking about the "historical Jesus" while you're talking about the "Christ of Faith". At any rate, I'm afraid we're in two different worlds and can never connect.

[zeemike]

20. No i am talking about the story as it is written.

And if one knows the story it is clear that he openly proclaimed that the prophesies of the Messiah was fulfilled in him.
And that is with miracles set aside.

[laconicsax]

12. It's an important question.

Jesus' existence is central to Christian theology and there's questionable evidence concerning his existence. I'd say that make the question of whether Jesus existed an important one.

[saltpoint]

16. I like the way you put your post and the poll together.

I hope this post and poll have a long shelf life on DU.

Thank you for that.

I feel that while no clinical evidence exists for Jesus, his role in History is instructive in understanding the era in which he lived. Gradually Rome is reflected here as much as the life of one man, especially given the hinge of conversion from republic to empire.

We have a keen sense from the New Testament accounts of the brutality employed by the local Roman authorities, of the desperate sense of things. Whether one believes a specific Jesus of Galilee existed or not, those nails and that board were likely the fate of many a rabble-rouser.

I like Jesus the figure from History, even if he is not very clear to us. From the fragments and through the murky fog, though, I get the sense of a bright thinker with an evolved sense of justice who was persuasive enough to gather crowds in the service of urging them toward more compassion toward the poor, toward the cast-out, and so forth.

It appears that there is a strong socialist and revolutionary bent to this figure and I like both those things a lot. Given his circumstances it would have been difficult to not be either and still be just.

The woman in the pit, there for adultery, is saved in the account in which Jesus steps between her vulnerability and the village's indignation. They have stones in their hands and are asked not to throw them. The account may be purely apocryphal, but dammit, it's a great tale nevertheless. Go, team.

Great post.

[BurtWorm]

24. Other.

We don't know if Jesus existed. It is interesting to argue because some believe his purported existence is important theologically, some think it is important *historically* and, if he did not exist, then that has some bearing on the alleged importance of Jesus's existence to theology and history.

As an atheist, I'm more interested in the effect the potential proof of Jesus's non-existence would have on history. I tend to think Jesus was more mythical than historical, so I view with some amazement the continued insistence of non-Christians on a historical Jesus and a willingness--even eagerness--to cut off debate on the question.

PS: That cutting off debate suggests a belief in the importance of what is really just an interesting question.

[stopbush]

25. Here's an excellent website that discusses the pagan origins of the Christ myth:

http://www.pocm.info/

Note that the author totally rejects the idea that the Jesus myth is a simple retelling of any particular god story, but that the Jesus myth is a cobbling together of different aspects of what we humans have decided constitutes a god.

Worth a look. From the site:

POCM introduces you to Christianity's origins in ancient Pagan religion. You'll discover the evidence, the scholarship, and the reasoning behind this eye opening understanding of western intellectual history.

You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here. What you'll discover at POCM is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared standard ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity simply adopted those ideas and applied them to Jesus. Ancient people knew godmen did miracles. The first Christians thought Jesus was a godman, so they told stories about Jesus doing miracles. They even had Him doing the same miracles as the other godmen.

The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.

Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.

And they had them generations—centuries— before Jesus was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye.

POCM is about a question you probably never thought about: Did Christianity borrow ideas from other religions? If you're like me, you grew up thinking it didn't. We were taught Christianity began with a big bang—with Jesus. Jesus changed the world with ideas about God that were new and revolutionary.

It ain't so. Our Christianity doesn't come from Jesus and a big bang. It comes from the accumulation of legends and theologies by people who believed in Jesus. The origin of those ideas wasn't Jesus. The origin was the myths, legends, philosophies, prejudices, literature, superstitions, and primitive cosmology of ancient western culture. Christianity was a product of its time and place.

That's what POCM is about.

[Jamastiene]

26. It is my belief that we don't really KNOW if he existed, but

some of the teachings attributed to him are helpful in doing the right thing in life...even if it sometimes feels that no good deed goes unpunished. Sometimes, doing the right thing causes grief in the short term, but brings good at a later time.