Central to the doctrine of various Christian sects is the belief that a man called Jesus walked the earth, performed no-touch chi knockdowns and was finally put in a crucifix by a Roman catch wrestler.

Of course no reasonable person believes that someone used to raise the dead and cure blindness, but the belief that there must have been someone behind the myths is pretty much taken for granted in the West. So what actual evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus?


There are no eyewitness records. Nobody who supposedly knew him personally bothered to write anything down.

None of the historians of his age wrote anything about him.

The earliest extra-biblical mention of Jesus was by Josephus. Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died, so it wasn't a contemporary source. The passage is widely regarded as a later forgery, possibly by Christian copyists. Amongst other reasons, one odd thing about the passage is a glowing rut-ride of a Messiah Jesus. Why would a loyal Jew like Josephus call Jesus the messiah and ride his balls?

As for the bible itself, the only parts that make mention of Jesus are the Gospels, which were written decades after his supposed death.

The Christian myth is nothing new. Get a little Mythraism, add a dash of Zoroastrianism and stir in some pagan myths and you ahve yourself some Christianity. Most of the main themes in the Christian myth such as the resurrection, healing the sick ect are found in pre-existing mythologies.

Jesus is the man. Stop bad - mouthing him on the internet. Or he'll come sue you for libel.

So what actual evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus?
Beyond the movement itself, you mean; Christianity does need an origin-point. Itinerant preachers / healers / would-be-messiahs were extremely common in the Jewish community during the period in which Jesus was supposed to have lived, so even if we don't have historical evidence of this particular Yeshua bin Nazereth, I can think of no better atheistic explanation for early Christianity than a cult centered around one of these charismatic figures.

Karen Armstrong's A History of God constructs a pretty good narrative about the schisms and conflicts in the Jewish faith during the first centuries BCE and CE, along with the difficulties faced by the community in general, which led to a deep feeling of need for the return of the messiah in some quarters. This explains the nomadic "healers" and "miracle workers" and "exorcists."


There are no eyewitness records. Nobody who supposedly knew him personally bothered to write anything down.
There's a lot of first-hand material about figures like Jesus, though, particularly among Jewish historians.


As for the bible itself, the only parts that make mention of Jesus are the Gospels,
That's just not true. The Gospels are just the only parts that describe him in detail. Paul's letters predate the gospels, and all mention him. Acts mentions him. Revelations. Pretty much the whole New Testament mentions Jesus.


which were written decades after his supposed death.
The so called "synoptic problem" posed by the unusual similarities and differences in the first three gospels has led to a general belief on the part of biblical scholars that those works were the product of a longer oral tradition. Not that oral traditions are renowned for their verisimilitude.


The Christian myth is nothing new. Get a little Mythraism, add a dash of Zoroastrianism and stir in some pagan myths and you ahve yourself some Christianity. Most of the main themes in the Christian myth such as the resurrection, healing the sick ect are found in pre-existing mythologies.
Yeah, but again, I think the narrative Armstrong provides in her book is more compelling. There are details that are inconsistent with a figure made up out of whole cloth, too: I don't know why they'd spend so much time in the gospels blaming the Jews for killing Jesus if there never was a pre-existing movement (which would have to have had a leader, religion is not democratic) that felt frustrated at the rest of the Jewish community. A semi-historical Jesus is a pretty good explanation.

Yeah, Socrates was a wet dream of Plato's. He just wanted to sound like a badass who went around killing people's beliefs, and then playing martyr for it.

Plato wrote a book and Socrates didn't, that's why we know he existed.

The Gospels are all the real resources we have for Jesus.

I have faith in Socrates. Do you have faith in Jesus?

There are no eyewitness records. Nobody who supposedly knew him personally bothered to write anything down. .

What the hell are the gospels?


None of the historians of his age wrote anything about him..
Why would they? In nonreligious terms he was only a peasant carpenter or something.

Three words: Shroud of Turin, explain that.

What the hell are the gospels?
Seriously?


Three words: Shroud of Turin, explain that.
This has got to be a joke. But just in case,

Two words: medieval forgery.

Two more: carbon dating.

For someone who makes a faith out of St Occam and his ever sharp blade, you seem awfully willing to invent grand cross continent conspiracies to create one particular fake messiah in a time and place where the real thing were a dime a gross.

For someone who makes a faith out of St Occam and his ever sharp blade, you seem awfully willing to invent grand cross continent conspiracies to create one particular fake messiah in a time and place where the real thing were a dime a gross.

It was hardly so simple, but yes many of the most well known facets about Jesus' "life" were later additions for various reasons.

Lets say, hypothetically, that Jesus did exist, but he couldn't walk on water, or raise the dead. Lets say, a guy named Jesus walked around preaching. His message would still be the same. Basically, "Hey, be cool. Quit being a dick. "

From what I understand, Yesau, Jesus, Hay-sus, whatever, was not an uncommon name in those days. So there could easily be some guy walking around telling folks to love one another, help each other out. The question is, could he perform miracles.

Another question would be, WHY did he perform miracles. ( or why do Christians say he can) Well, who's going to listen to a broke ass carpenter. So now you have a religion based on the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He was the Son Of God, and he had to prove this fact by performing miracles. So that people would believe him, and follow his teachings, which went along the lines of "Be cool, quit being a dick."

This brings us to Christianity. A religious group the majority of which is people who seriously need to be cool, and quit being a dick.

It was hardly so simple, but yes many of the most well known facets about Jesus' "life" were later additions for various reasons.

There is a big difference between questioning individual aspects (that aren't even necessarily consistent between sources) and saying that the whole thing was made up whole cloth. Most of the wackiest stuff (virgin birth, miracle stories) was par for the course for any famous figure in that time and place. You can find similar stores about everyone from plato to alexander the great. It would be more unusual for a holy man not to have those kinds of stories than to have them.

Even if he was real, he was just a whacked out cult leader folowed by the only people stupid enough to believe his bullshit. At least if he wasn't real we couldn't hate him for being a total fraud.

**** who we kill then?

Beyond the movement itself, you mean; Christianity does need an origin-point. Itinerant preachers / healers / would-be-messiahs were extremely common in the Jewish community during the period in which Jesus was supposed to have lived, so even if we don't have historical evidence of this particular Yeshua bin Nazereth, I can think of no better atheistic explanation for early Christianity than a cult centered around one of these charismatic figures.

I think the most likely reason for there being so many Christians is that there was a guy named Jesus Christ.

The question is, was what he said actually true? (The son of God stuff.) And did he really get resurrected?

If you ask me, there is no way you can actually prove this--you just have to believe. End of story. :godtroll:

Back when I was in school and sitting in the library, I used to browse through an journal called the Biblical Archaeology Review. I'm not sure if it was peer-reviewed, but it was a serious publication and it didn't seem to be backed by any one religious group. Most of the archaeological discoveries actually do support the Bible stories. I'm not religious, but I do think the Bible does contain actual historical records of varying degrees of accuracy, together with a bit of fancy and a lot of interpretation. Some of it, I think you have to take with a pillar of salt.

Yeah, Socrates was a wet dream of Plato's. He just wanted to sound like a badass who went around killing people's beliefs, and then playing martyr for it.

Plato wrote a book and Socrates didn't, that's why we know he existed.

The Gospels are all the real resources we have for Jesus.

I have faith in Socrates. Do you have faith in Jesus?
FUCKING FALSE. Several authors have written about Socrates, and you just succeeded in irrating me mightily. There is indeed a 'Socratic problem', there have been four figures, several of which were probably eye-witnesses of the man (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes might have met him- or at least, enough to include him in one of his plays). I don't know about Aristotle.

I think it's rediculous however to suggest that his existence is a matter of faith- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

PS: Plato's earlier works are considered fairly accurate to the man, while I think Xenophon is generally considered a good authority, since he wasn't a philosopher with his own ideological agenda.

Double PS: I've read Josephus' Wars of the Jews. My copy didn't even have the lines about Jesus, and here's a link to a wikipedia article about the contraversy surrounding Josephus' and Tacitus' works on Jesus. Although I can corroborate the fact that there were 'false messiahs' running around at the time- Josephus mentions one coming from Egypt, a bit before the general outbreak of violence.

There's a thread on this in sociocide. A big thread. A good thread. It has me in it!

I think the most likely reason for there being so many Christians is that there was a guy named Jesus Christ.

Wrong. Christ is a title, and Jesus is a transliteration.

Damnit, where'd I put that Sociocide thread?

Wrong. Christ is a title, and Jesus is a transliteration.

I'm aware of that actually, but in common usage He's the big "JC". The more important point is that there are millions of damn Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDC_(band)), so what's the most likely explanation for their existance?