http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/





Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).



Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.



Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

ok... he awaits you on the day of judgement..

morefire:
ok... he awaits you on the day of judgement..

And let me guess: To throw me into an eternal fire, right?

plaetton:


And let me guess: To throw me into an eternal fire, right?

haba i didnt talk about hell now...

on judgement day we are all would know if indeed there ever lived Christ or not!!!

now that you mentioned fire I guess we also would find out where we would be....

plaetton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/





Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).



Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.



Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

The article didn't even attempt to refute the existence of Jesus. Enemies desperate to discredit the lord. The article itself is even malicious, I should have known better.

And we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free....from mental incarceration

I have no problem with it being based on a real person(though no evidence supports this), its the claims of divinity that are harder to prove...

john 12:49 "For I did not speak of my own accord"
maybe he existed 'cos he drove a Honda but didn't talk about it

paulGrundy:


The article didn't even attempt to refute the existence of Jesus. Enemies desperate to discredit the lord. The article itself is even malicious, I should have known better.

You must have read a different article. Or more likely, you're just brainwashed.

morefire:
ok... he awaits you on the day of judgement..

In other words, ''I am too brainwashed and ignorant to reason with the author or ponder upon his points, so I'll just threaten him with hellfire for not being as dumb and stupi.d as me''.

ROSSIKE:


In other words, ''I am too brainwashed and ignorant to reason with the author or ponder upon his points, so I'll just threaten him with hellfire for not being as dumb and stupi.d as me''.

na ll this yarns i no de like.... i have not told u ur going to hell

na una talk say evidence shows Christ no exist, the way I see this thing is simple I believe in Christ and I believe he existed and came to die for me... (Having said this I also might be wrong) now you believe he never existed because there are conflicting evidences well guess what you can only either be wrong or right too....

But on the day of judgement he awaits us and am sure all our questions would be answered.

plaetton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/





Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).



Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.



Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

Mr atheist I will like you to read this.

I will paste the link for you latter.

In Darwin’s time there was an idea among the
nobility that their genetics were superior to those of
the rest of society. Many families including Darwin’s
took this belief to extreme levels by practicing incest
as a tradition.
They thought that if adolescents were to marry within
their own family then not only would all the wealth
stay in the family, but the “good” genes would also.
This also ensured that the family fortunes would be
retained for many future generations. This practice is
very common in aristocratic families, which explains
why they are all extremely mentally unstable. Darwin
came from a very classist and racist elite level of
society and that is reflected in his work, especially
“The Descent of Man”.
One of the most famous cases of royal incest is found
in the Hapsburg dynasty that produced rulers in
Spain, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands
and the German empire. Around 1700 the Spanish
branch of this empire fell apart suddenly and died
off.
Recent studies of the Hapsburg Family Tree show that
sickness and deformity due to incest was responsible
for the sudden demise of this “royal bloodline”. The
most successful political dynasty in America, the Bush
family is notorious for inbreeding.
In fact, George Bush Sr. and his wife Barbara Bush
are actually in the same bloodline, which is the
Pierce or Percy bloodline. The British house of this
bloodline is named Percy and the American house is
named Pierce. The elite’s family structures are very
complicated with many “houses” and surnames that
are omitted from the public dialogue to avoid
scrutiny and cover up their ongoing eugenics
experiments.

ROSSIKE:


You must have read a different article. Or more likely, you're just brainwashed.

Typical response from a nairaland atheist. I wasn't expecting anything different.

paulGrundy:


Typical response from a nairaland atheist. I wasn't expecting anything different.

I'm not an atheist. I just don't accept your imported 'holy book' as the ''word of God''. And really, you need to be able to differentiate between atheists and those who simply don't accept your christian stories, but yet believe in a supreme intelligence. Surely you're not too brainwashed for that subtle distinction?

And who is washinton post to question the existence of Jesus Christ ?

Btw is washiton post and it authors daft? Didnt they see Nazareth to attest to where Jesus came from., at least if they weren't opportune to meet Jesus physicaly they should go and find out if a place name nazareth ever existed to clear their doubt..

Em i thot athiest dont believe in God or Jesus , why do they then keep using every avenue to search and research if a Diety ever existed why do they keep prying into thiest affairs or maybe athiesm is so boring .{my thought tho}

davien:
I have no problem with it being based on a real person(though no evidence supports this), its the claims of divinity that are harder to prove...

Seconded. A faith healer claiming to be God is nothing new.

ebenice:
And who is washinton post to question the existence of Jesus Christ ?

Btw is washiton post and it authors daft? Didnt they see Nazareth to attest to where Jesus came from., at least if they weren't opportune to meet Jesus physicaly they should go and find out if a place name nazareth ever existed to clear their doubt..

Em i thot athiest dont believe in God or Jesus , why do they then keep using every avenue to search and research if a Diety ever existed why do they keep prying into thiest affairs or maybe athiesm is so boring .{my thought tho}

Your question is ironic considering that you are in the NL forum on religion. What are you doing here?

ROSSIKE:


Surely you're not too brainwashed for that subtle distinction?

I wouldn't be so sure. You underestimate the profound nature of the infection.

So you will finally be glad if historical Jesus never existed? Come up with a better article next time.

Rendezvou:
So you will finally be glad if historical Jesus never existed? Come up with a better article next time.

Why can't you people just give a straight answer to the author's article?

Isn't it because you have NO answer? All that you can do therefore is inject irrelevant smears and threats, such as the highlighted. Answer the CLEAR queries in the author's article or vamoose. Afterall your bible doesn't ask you not to ask questions...... oh wait!

Weah96:


Your question is ironic considering that you are in the NL forum on religion. What are you doing here?

hey sire, i've always been here..

davien:
I have no problem with it being based on a real person(though no evidence supports this), its the claims of divinity that are harder to prove...

The claim of anything spiritual is hard to prove to spiritual dead people because "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor2:14)
But the problem is why do they keep asking for profe when they know they can't see it even when it's dancing in front of them?

Hiswordxray:

The claim of anything spiritual is hard to prove to spiritual dead people

WOW. Bailout ticket. Have you watched the Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis? There's always a way to prove your sixth sense, if you REALLY have one.

plaetton:


And let me guess: To throw me into an eternal fire, right?

Are you still fighting it by digging for things that will disprove Jesus?
But you know he exist and no matter how you try to lie to yourself and dig up lies, you know the truth deep in your heart.

You don't have to fight it, just let go of that heavy load of lies and you know I would help you.

Weah96:


WOW. Bailout ticket. Have you watched the Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis? There's always a way to prove your sixth sense, if you REALLY have one.

What of someone who wants to remain blind, are you going to force him to open his eye?
Like they say, you can force the horse to the river but you can't force him to drink water.

Hiswordxray:

The claim of anything spiritual is hard to prove to spiritual dead people because "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor2:14)
But the problem is why do they keep asking for profe when they know they can't see it even when it's dancing in front of them?

And how do you detect it,by faith in a holy book?
Faith is not a method to derive accurate knowledge....you can look at a stone and have faith that it created the universe,faith won't suddenly make it true..

davien:
And how do you detect it,by faith in a holy book?
Faith is not a method to derive accurate knowledge....you can look at a stone and have faith that it created the universe,faith won't suddenly make it true..

He detects it by using his sixth sense, the one we lack.
"I see dead people," remember?

Weah96:


He detects it by using his sixth sense, the one we lack.
"I see dead people," remember?

lol..

Faith is tricking yourself to believe something you otherwise wouldn't believe..

davien:
And how do you detect it,by faith in a holy book?
Faith is not a method to derive accurate knowledge....you can look at a stone and have faith that it created the universe,faith won't suddenly make it true..

My faith in God had made a lot of things true. I have seen impossible things happen in my life simply because I have faith in God.
Faith may not be a good method of deriving knowledge but faith in God is the best way of getting knowledge as well as wisdom.

Hiswordxray:

My faith in God had made a lot of things true. I have seen impossible things happen in my life simply because I have faith in God.
Faith may not be a good method of deriving knowledge but faith in God is the best way of getting knowledge as well as wisdom.

Please try to think things through before commenting,if you cannot derive knowledge by faith,then how can you obtain it by faith in something... interchanging derive with obtain doesn't suddenly change what faith is(I.e a re-affirmation of things not known to be true but held as true)
And if I asked you for these impossible events..you'd most likely mention miracles of which I cannot verify,or is there a way to induce and/or test one?

davien:
Faith is tricking yourself to believe something you otherwise wouldn't believe..

Living in lies is tricking yourself to believe something you know that is not true.
Like telling yourself that there is no God when you know that he exist.

When would you come out of that lie you are hiding yourself?