I hope all of my prayers and church going was for something.

Crucified by Pilate and then had a brother James who was murdered. As a Christian I believe he was fully God and fully man and will return to judge the livingg and the dead. But that is my faith. Not historical knowledge .I can seperate those two parts of my life.

I'm not a historian, so I have to look to those who know, for proof.
You see, millions of people having faith in something simply isn't evidence that it happened.
Please note, I am not trying to attack you here; you said "as a historian" and I wondered where you find your evidence.

Ans his rhesis was that Jesus was in fact a real peeon.

You would agree, I imagine, that the Bible is not historical evidence? None of it was written by eye-witnesses or at the time when Jesus was supposedly alive.

There is no more historical or archaeological evidence for Jesus' existence than there is that Jewish people were ever enslaved in Egypt, or for Noah's flood (Ken Ham and his bunch of sad lunatics aside).

I assume you have read it since you are comvinced he disnt prove his thesis.

Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?In DID JESUS EXIST? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

http://vimeo.com/m/38880782

when you made your snide opening comment.

I read Dawkins, and Hitchens. Dont agree with all of what they say. But a lot and they make me think.

But there are problems with that: firstly, the same thing is claimed by those seeking an historical King Arthur, an historical Robin Hood or an historical Hercules; and secondly the real figure need have nothing to do with the legends that become attached to them. It is like the old Classicist joke, Homer did not write the Iliad, it was another Greek with the same name.

Ehrman essentially says the following:
1) that there was a person alive in early 1st century CE Palestine whose name is now transliterated as Jesus. Now I have no argument with that; such a name (Yeshua according to Rabbinic tradition) was very common in Palestine - although it is more usually transliterated as Joshua.

2) That one such person was prominent in a religious reform movement, an anti-Roman resistance movement or some form of apocalyptic prophesy movement. Again very likely, the Zealots, for example, were all three and are the best known of such groups for which we have positive evidence and they had a fairly wide membership; this contrasts with the named followers of Jesus who do not really show up until the 2nd century CE.

3) That this person inspired prominent followers and others (primarily James and Paul) to found what became Christianity. This movement used the many parables that were common currency in the area, compounded them together with theological teachings from the many sects round Judaism and philosophies from the Greeks and Romans.

Personally I find Ehrman's thesis so fuzzy as to be meaningless. It is also interesting to compare the "reality" of Jesus with the reality of another Saviour myth, that of John Frum and his brother Prince Phillip; check it out sometime.

Or maybe a printing press. Wasn't easy to get your 15 minutes of fame when you depended on a bunch of sweaty scribes. Anyway, I wouldn't hold my breath, but apparently he's due back anytime.

This summarizes my arguments pretty darn well.

that's pretty funny. Even on a Friday after a long frickin' week.

If that's some slam on my intellectual capability, not so much.

... Whatever the ultimate solution may be, the historical Jesus of whom the criticism of the future, taking as its starting-point the problems which have been recognised and admitted, will draw the portrait, can never render modern theology the services which it claimed from its own half-historical, half-modern, Jesus ... The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma ... What surprised and dismayed the theology of the last forty years was that, despite all forced and arbitrary interpretations, it could not keep Him in our time, but had to let Him go. He returned to His own time ... The historical foundation of Christianity as built up by rationalistic, by liberal, and by modern theology no longer exists; but that does not mean that Christianity has lost its historical foundation ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity ... History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it ... There was a danger of our thrusting ourselves between men and the Gospels, and refusing to leave the individual man alone with the sayings of Jesus. There was a danger that we should offer them a Jesus who was too small ... Many of the greatest sayings are found lying in a corner like explosive shells from which the charges have been removed ... We are experiencing what Paul experienced ... "If we have known Christ after the flesh yet henceforth know we Him no more." And further we must be prepared to find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion. But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it ... He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not ...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

All because it inspires some florid dramatics and some banal and oversimplified good/evil stories that sounded nice at first and made a lot of simple folks happy for a while but ended up getting all fucked up with rewrites and riddled with fatal continuity errors with the prequels?

Jesus really *is* like Luke Skywalker.

I like poetry just fine. But nice words and nice thoughts do not become true because they are nice. If you make life decisions, for yourself and for others based on things that sound nice to you but are not true then you are likely to make more poor decisions than good ones. And the difference between people who believe every word, and people who don't, but act as though it were "true" anyway, is the difference between a deluded fool and a fool on purpose.

I have more fear of the deluded. They apply brute reason, but they apply it to unreality. They don't care about beauty, they care about the propagation of an error. To sway them, you have to convince them reality is more real than their fantasy. That is difficult, but at least possible. I have less respect for the ones who do it on purpose. They are entirely immune to reason. To sway them, you have to convince them that reality is prettier than their fantasy. That's like nailing a fucking angel feather to a wall.

There is no account of Jesus' life by any historian living at the time, despite there being several in the areas he would have lived.

It's all made up.

This is a fun little video that walks through the evidence:

Iife and times od jesus of nazaeeth. Is the muslim antiquities scholar who made the fox news woman lookblike an idiot. The other is ehrmans Quest for the Historical Jesus. He is an atheist. Both aurhors have different theses regarding his ministty but both agree he existed.

any means. It may never be definitive.

I can't watch your video, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that based on the graphics I can see, I would not put this in the category of serious, scholarly or thoughtful debate.

In any event, there is no evidence for the existence of a Jesus, historical or godly in any history of the day.

and they are populated by people much more knowledgable than you and I, I feel pretty sure.

You have reached one conclusion. Others have reached a different conclusion.

Lack of evidence does not prove anything, and there are those who present what they believe to be very credible evidence.

It's a circular debate that goes absolutely nowhere.

Those that take a hard stand and believe they have the only correct answer are all mistaken, imo.

The best they have is someone who identified that a cult of Christians existed 2 centuries later.

That isn't evidence.

I understand that a whole bunch of people are highly invested in being right about this, but neither side is ever going to convince the other that they are right.

Is it just about the intellectual debate?

Why does it matter so much to you whether people discuss this issue? Why do you feel the need to control topics and discussion?

Why argue about global climate change, or evolution, or tarot cards? Obviously those invested in their respective answers aren't going to give an inch.

But there are fence sitters, and for that reason I think anything is worth arguing about, even if the majority are fixed in their opinions.

Concerning Jesus specifically, I don't think many are going to abandon their faith because some guy on teh internets said Jesus is a hoax, but it may help prod them towards a more historically accurate portrait of the man, and come to understand more completely the limitations of our knowledge. A little humility never hurt anyone.

Belief in creationism impairs the science education of our children. Big difference.

Tarot cards, I would agree. No point in arguing about that.

I do not for a minute think that those currently invested in climate change denial or creationism won't give an inch. Not for a minute. And that's because there is clear and compelling evidence. It's all in how it's presented.

But whether Jesus really lived or not? What difference would it make? To make people humble? To "save" them?

Not necessarily because it makes one humble, but because it makes one consider their positions with greater care than a person who is absolutely confident in their belief. Exposing the dubious historical authenticity of the New Testament could lead to people taking a more libertine position on their religion. I don't think anyone here would think that is a bad thing.

And tarot, believe it or not, can be pretty dangerous. Tarot relies on manipulation, and a skilled tarot reader can easily manipulate his or her client in unsavory ways. Even for readers who go into it with the best intentions may find it difficult to resist the temptation to abuse the power they have over their clients.

Religion has been known to work in much the same way.

A side note: I'm partially playing devil's advocate here. I don't reject a historical Jesus (whether or not the historical Jesus is the Jesus described in the Bible is another matter), and, more to the point, I don't accept that arguing about this won't change peoples' minds. Most atheists were believers at one point or another. Their minds changed, did they not?

to being able to consider other positions, as well as the POV of others.

For me personally, the existence or lack thereof of Jesus makes not a bit of difference.

I realize that there is room for abuse and manipulation whenever you are dealing with someone's uncertainties, their hopes and dreams. It is something that people in some fields train for years to become aware of in themselves so as to not fall into that trap. I would include in that a well trained clergy person. But charlatans also abound.

I'm not sure that most atheists were believers at one time. I think some may have wanted to believe or pretended to believe or convinced themselves that they believed. I am becoming increasingly convinced that belief and non-belief may not be a choice.

And proving or disproving the existence of Jesus wouldn't change a thing about it anyway.

I'm really not getting that feeling from you.

Just a little would be a great start. Otherwise, let's focus our energies on useful things for which we have evidence.

that can neither be proven nor disproven.

No one is going to give you any real evidence when it comes to the existence or a god, and I doubt that the issue raised in this OP is going to resolved by evidence either.

So, perhaps we should just live and let live when it comes to these beliefs.

Josephus for one.

The part where Josephus mentions Jesus as a messiah is considered a forgery.

HE was also alive after the death of JEsus.

by the church was his description of miracals. He wrote ofn Jesus brothers murder and explained who the brothers were.

Then of coirse there is Tacitus another non biblical reference to Jesus. And Tacitus thouhht he was a nut.

It would seem more logical to have one of the disciples carry writing implementations, or something.

To have no historical record other than a minor reference and a book filled with errors seems like a poor choice.

Ifbwas not until literate writers of the gospels started putting down the various oral stories in writing that we got the gospel we know today - hence the differences in some of the stories.

It seems like an ineffective way for an all-powerful being to send a message is my point.

is no evidence for or against. To say there IS or IS NOT a Jesus would require evidence. 33 AD communication was pretty bad. He was considered 'just another prophet' coming on the heels of John the Baptist. Just another 'backwater prophet'.....word of mouth is slow, skeptics are not a 21st century product.

There were historians at the time of Jesus' reported lifetime that kept notes of 'just another prophet(s)' and 'backwater prophet(s)'. Neither Jesus nor his followers were recorded by any of them.


Why should I believe that Jesus existed and not the Tooth Fairy?

(I forget which one, Asimov, Heinlein, or one of 3-4 others) wrote about a time machine which sent a hardy explorer team back to JC's time and place. He did, indeed, exist, and was pissed as hell that any non-Jew would follow his ways. "I am a Jew, and what I say is for Jews only. Not you Gentile scum!"

It was written in such a shocking, yet hilarious way, one could not help but laugh, especially with the pointed questions posed by a couple of the religious time travelers. The author managed to point out the worst of today's conservative sects and some of the worst offshoot cults like faith healers, Mormons, etc. That he could capture it so well in so few words was a thing of art.

Michael Moorcock's "Behold the Man".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_%28novel%29

from Wikipedia with no actual comments or statement.

Yes Jesus existed, but was it the one you are thinking of?

Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

The long version of the name, Yehoshua, appears another few hundred times, referring most notably to the legendary conqueror of Jericho (and the second most famous bearer of the name). So why do we call the Hebrew hero of Jericho Joshua and the Christian Messiah Jesus? Because the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Greeks did not use the sound sh, so the evangelists substituted an S sound. Then, to make it a masculine name, they added another S sound at the end. The earliest written version of the name Jesus is Romanized today as Iesous. (Thus the crucifix inscription INRI: "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum," or "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.&quot

The initial J didn't come until much later. That sound was foreign to Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Not even English distinguished J from I until the mid-17th century. Thus, the 1611 King James Bible refers to Jesus as "Iesus" and his father as "Ioseph." The current spelling likely came from Switzerland, where J sounds more like the English Y. When English Protestants fled to Switzerland during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary I, they drafted the Geneva Bible and used the Swiss spelling. Translators in England adopted the Geneva spelling by 1769.

In contrast, the Old Testament was translated directly from the original Hebrew into English, rather than via Greek. So anyone named Yehoshua or Yeshua in the Old Testament became Joshua in English. Meanwhile, the holy book of the Syrian Orthodox church, known as the Syriac Bible, is written in Aramaic. While its Gospels were translated from the original Greek, the early scribes recognized that Iesous was a corruption of the original Aramaic. Thus, the Syriac text refers to Yeshua.

Bonus Explainer: What was Jesus' last name? It wasn't Christ. Contemporaries would have called him Yeshua Bar Yehosef or Yeshua Nasraya. (That's "Jesus, son of Joseph" or "Jesus of Nazareth.&quot Galileans distinguished themselves from others with the same first name by adding either "son of" and their father's name, or their birthplace. People who knew Jesus would not have called him Christ, which is the translation of a Greek word meaning "anointed one."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/12/happy_birthday_dear_yeshua_happy_birthday_to_you.html

Historians disagree who and what he really was in terms of his ministry. No argument here.

I have read this Wikipedia article and privately noted how it fights to stop from offending the religious classes. These "scholars of antiquity" it cites are made up of three different groups:

1) Biblical scholars, whose primary focus is trying to decide what was actually original text in the Bible and how that aligns with faith;
2) Biblical historians, who focus on aligning the very great deal that is known about the various periods with the biblical text;
3) Biblical archaeologists whose job is to excavate and find artifacts relating to Biblical text.

Every one of these groups start with the a priori assumption that the Bible is, at heart, correct. Additionally all these groups are funded by organisations with a vested interest in showing the text of Old and New Testaments is largely factually accurate. Finally the Biblical Archaeologists are restricted by the need to get permission to excavate from a Government that needs biblical accuracy to provide legitimacy for that Governments claims. This is a toxic environment for any unbiased research.

In respect of the life of Jesus (or whatever his actual name was) the article state clearly that the only two events subject to "almost universal assent," (emphasis mine) are the baptism and the crucifixion of the Saviour. Note that for these there can be no confirmatory finds in a documentary or archaeological context for JtB did not keep baptismal records and no records of the crucified were kept.

A note on crucifixion; it was actually a specific punishment for those who had acted against Roman authority either by attempting revolt or by being an escaped slave. Generally the punishment administered by Roman officers was slavery and sentencing to the arena (as a slave). Those with Roman citizenship or the leaders of conquered groups were not generally subject to these punishments. They were sentenced to the Carcer (hard "c's&quot where they would be strangled or have their neck broken, bodies could be thrown from the Tarpean Rock into the Tiber.

Specific to the possible crucifixion of Jesus is the description of his companions in shame is translated as "thieves" a term used to transliterate sicarii, literally dagger men or assassins. In Palestine this term applied to a group of zealots who might best be described as terrorists.

Classical antiquity (also the classical era, classical period or classical age) is a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, comprising the interlocking civilizations of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, collectively known as the Greco-Roman world. It is the period in which Greek and Roman society flourished and wielded great influence throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_antiquity

gives the context to the idiotic phrase "scholars of antiquity" as if antiquity is only concerned with the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. The study of the cultures of the Mediterranean Basin include not just Graeco-Roman but also Carthaginian, Egyptian, Macedonian, Thracian, Pontic, Achaemenid, Ibero-Celt, Numidean, Syriac and the comparatively insignificant Palestinian cultures. The idea that the history of the Mediterranean began and ended with Greece and Rome went out 80 or more years ago.

The vast majority of historical and archaeological scholars (who are included in the literal meaning weasel words "scholars of antiquity"} have no interest in the fragment of the world described in the Bible and have nothing to say about it. In actual practice only biblical scholars continue to use the term. as it presents an air of ivory towered isolation.

One thing I do note you have not commented on is the opinion that the entirely unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) baptism and crucifixion are the only elements of the story of Jesus these biblical scholars present as being the actualite

In addition to the tours to the alleged places of the New Testament, there are excursions to the "Sea of Galilee" area to assist in archaeological digs to search for towns mentioned in the New Testament. In my opinion, most of such locations mentioned in the New Testament never existed. Those excursions are promoted with enough scholarly-sounding BS to cause certain wealthy retirees, some of whom are well educated, to part with considerable sums of money for the privilege of sitting in the heat and sifting through dust in dubious searches for artifacts which, in the best case, could never be positively linked to any specific era or culture.

As someone who has studied the origins of Christianity myself on a graduate level, I think it's a pretty good (and well written, i.e., not written in dense academese).

None of it happened, no such person.

Do you stop being a believer?

to most current religions.

I would still be a person who looked to the teachings attributed to as how I should live my life. In fact aI would still go to Mass to affirm those teachings and fellowship with the like-minded.

of the wealthy. Fixing one's self and not condeming or judging others. Yes those are not specific to Christianity. But it isnwithin that tradition I understand and am most comfortable.

so why not just drop the voodoo and live a good life as you think jesus taught you should do?

But what you call voodoo I call a personal preference and familiarity

The unsupportable nonsense, and by "nonsense" I mean myths that are non-sensical, that defy what we know about reality and that require a belief that cannot be supported by evidence, is taught by authoritarian principals: believers are told they must believe this that and the other because those are the rules of their belief system as ordained by generations of belief ordainers and ultimately by some magical being outside of reality who is supposedly in charge of everything. It is a hierarchical, generally patriarchical, authoritarian system that proclaims "what is so". There are exceptions, but in general this is how religion works.

"personal preference and familiarity" is the part of belief that I have characterized, in a deliberately provocative manner, as "thoughtlessness", it is unexamined, learned, comfortable and familiar, but nearly mindless. All of which is fine as far as it goes.

But it gets worse, and almost all of us here know that it gets much worse and that there really is a problem with religion. The "authoritarian hierarchical paternalistic" system is, and has been for as long as we know, abused and misused. It is an instrument of the state used to keep people subservient and obedient to the wishes of rulers. It is an instrument of disinformation, used for various purposes to keep people ignorant and confused for hidden purposes and agendas. Perhaps almost half of the population of this country are in thrall to the controllers of religious belief systems, and those controllers are manipulating those people to vote against their own self interest, to hate and despise the other half of the country, to fear progress and science, *to believe utter nonsense* about what is going on in the world. Religion is a mechanism that trains people to believe utter nonsense as long as that nonsense originates from the proper authority figures.

The mechanisms of religious indoctrination are not limited to belief in harmless myths and stories. If that were the case I would not care what people believed and how they came to believe it.

I am a member of a Church that ordains same sex unions and believes in evolution, global warming, and the equality of all people. As far as the mythology part, yes the Book of genesis is Hebrew mythology. But I believe it was inspired by God its value lies not in its status (lack thereof) as a science or history text. But to me it is an allegory about God having a plan and a hope for humanity. There is a lot of misogyny, approval of genocide and other horrible things in the Bible because though, imo, inspired by God, it was written by humans who were products of the age in which they lived. Yes, I believe Jesus was fully man and fully God. But I don't know that and as an historian I would never try to pass that off as a historical fact to a student or anyone else. When I argue with people here about the existence of a historical Jesus I am arguing nothing more than; he was Baptized by a man named John, was executed by the Romans and his brother James was later murdered. Maybe these things didn't happen but they are the few things about the man generally accepted by historians. That he rose from the grave and sits at the right hand side of God the Father is not something any historian would tell (at least in their role as historian.)

I think I know how you feel to some extent because it floors me when I talk to otherwise intelligent people who think the story of Noah was a historical fact. And I am sure you feel the same way about liberal Christians who take much of the Bible as allegory but nevertheless believe in God. Now I say all of this to help you understand me, not to convert you. I am not an Evangelical who thinks non-Christians are going to some hell when they die. Ironically many of those people's ideas about and belief in a literal hell come more from Dante and Renaissance paintings, not the Bible.

Anyway, I appreciate your post. We can disagree - even passionately without personally insulting one another. I have been as guilty of that as anyone. And I apologize for having done so to you in the past.

it is a good ethical value in my opinion too.

But I do also know some Christians who can serve as a model of their faith to others.

I consider myself a Christian but many Christians would disagree. I've had a number of Christians tell me that I will burn in Hell because I don't believe as they do. I merely laugh and point out that passing such judgment on others is far above their pay grade.

I do not accept that the Bible is a history book or a science book. Yesterday I was talking to a Christian and mentioned that I believe in evolution. That didn't work well but I did suggest that the individual should read the first two chapters of Genesis carefully. There are two different versions of creation in Genesis and the details do not match. Like most Christians she was unaware of this and had combined parts of both stories into one.

My son in law who is agnostic at best compares the Bible to Aesop's Fables as both contain stories that teach important lessons on life. He also feels the story of Christ is the Santa Clause myth for adults. Who knows, there may be a lot of truth in what he says.

I personally believe in a creator. However, I feel I lack the intelligence, knowledge and ability to understand such a power or force. I don't believe that God is an old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud. Perhaps he might be better described as The Force as depicted in the Star Wars movies.

I found my version of faith has enabled me to have the strength to deal with some recent tragedies in my family including the death of my only child. Faith my be just a crutch but sometimes a crutch is very useful.

In general I try to avoid discussing religion with very faithful Christians as I fear I may cause them to question their faith.

Years ago I read Matthew chapter 7 verse 7:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Well I did some seeking and what I found was far different than I ever would have suspected.

just not as he is perceived by many...

Closer to the tradirional portrayal

(actual questions I don't know enough about)
Is there evidence outside the Bible for John the Baptist?
If so, what evidence is their that he baptized Jesus?

My opinion (worth nothing more than a guess based on a little knowledge) is there was a man named Yeshua who preached that later became the focus of the mainly fabricated stories in the Gospels.

It is my understanding that even the mythicists (who believe Jesus Christ did not exist) are of the opinion that John the Baptist in fact exited. The mythicists believe that he was executed on grounds of sedition or heresy. They do not believe that he was executed because a ruler gave in to the request of a woman who demanded such.

Josephus, in his work Antiquities of the Jews, refers to John the Baptist. There has been debate between Christian apologists and mythicists as to why the first reference to Jesus Christ in Antiquities does not appear in close proximity to Josephus's reference to John the Baptist. (Of course, the apologists insist the two passages referring to Jesus Christ in Antiquities are genuine. On the other hand, the mythicists insist that the first passage is the result of a later-century interpolation and the second passage refers to a certain Jesus other than Jesus Christ.) Each side advances rationale as to why the non-proximity of the John the Baptist passage and the first Jesus Christ passages to each other are supportive of that side's respective argument.

Here over an hour long debate among university scholars who have done much study,research, reading and writing on the issue.

If you want to watch just the debate, fast forward 9 or 10 minutes before the premise of the debate is presented.

,