'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

ps. It is quite ridiculous to compare jesus to some of the more well known historical figures this way. There is absolutely no reason why an obscure 1st century Rabbi would be referenced comparably to people who basically conquered the known world. You don't see that as unnecessary and ridiculous (not to mention the logical fallacy)? This is the type of pseudo "scholarly" claim often associated with this area of (quasi) academia and simply makes it look ridiculous.

If you're claiming a magical jesus, that would be fair enough, yet there are no (genuine) historians who believe that in any historical sense. The same as they don't believe the magic associated with the figures you mention.

It might be worth going through the "mundane" claims that the "historicity" of this claim is based on. None of them are really historically plausible, nor are they substantiated in any way.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I remember hearing that Martin Luther said it was acceptable to lie, if the lie was for Christ. And I have no doubt that he would be the first to do so. So while scholars believe Christ existed, their evidence could be bunk anyway.

Meant to read:
And I have no doubt that he would not be the first to do so.

Anyway after some reading, I'm going to say Christ may or may not have existed but probably not. Since there have been many attempts by Christians to forge evidence throughout the centuries, as well as the silence about him by numerous contemporaries, I find the evidence in favor of his existence should not be considered as reasonable proof.

Twelve historical facts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

source

originally posted by: randyvs
Twelve historical facts. unlikely claims.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

source

1. This requires faith, there is no historical evidence of this. The claims around it (regarding the Sanhedrin and Pilate, who did exist) are extremely improbable and almost certainly fiction.

2. Unlikely, you would need to exist first.

3. Is there any really good corroborating historical evidence that the 7/12/20/whatever disciples actually lived as real historical people? It's probable to some extent that Paul (who never met jesus, despite living at the correct time to do so) existed. Yet about half of his epistles (that we know of) are forgeries.

4. Funny thing that.

5. See no. 3.

6. See no. 3.

7. Which means they told lies or were delusional. The resurrection didn't happen. No genuine scholar or academic proclaims that it did. This is the domain of snake oil salesmen, soothsayers and religious charlatans who (erroneously) think they are scholars.

8. Joseph Smith preached a message that jesus also appeared in North America and worked miracles, chose 12 disciples etc. This is every bit as historically (in)accurate. Applewhite preached that he was, in fact, the returned jesus.

9. Like many others throughout history.

10. Big deal.

11. Then he told a few whoppers. There was no resurrection. We understand enough about nature to discount this. Extremely unlikely there was a jesus to begin with.

12. He had a hallucinatory experience and became delusional. So what?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask

So I'm just supposed to take your word for it simply because you claim "everybody says so"?

I seem to be having a bad case of deja vu of my christain upbringing for some odd reason.

See? Your hate for some religion is getting in the way of your world view.

If your feelings towards a church are going to to cause you to ignore the majority of all historians in the world...then you must have been "Godded Up" something awful.

I'm sorry.

That don't change the simple fact...ALMOST ALL historians (even secular ones) think "Jesus Christ" was a real living person. And they have good reason to do so.

If you want to ignore almost all historians and trust your own whimsical hate...go for it. I am siding with history because I'm not into quacks or fanatics...and because the evidence is pretty good showing that Jesus was a real historical person.

MM

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum


7. Which means they told lies or were delusional. The resurrection didn't happen. No genuine scholar or academic proclaims that it did. This is the domain of snake oil salesmen, soothsayers and religious charlatans who (erroneously) think they are scholars.


11. Then he told a few whoppers. There was no resurrection. We understand enough about nature to discount this. Extremely unlikely there was a jesus to begin with.

12. He had a hallucinatory experience and became delusional. So what?

Dude...it is overly clear you are simply trying to hate "Magical Christ" for some strong dislike for religion. The evidence for Christ that historians (most historians in all the world, mind you) think shows Jesus really existed...has nothing to do with magic.

People show you evidence and you ignore it or start screaming "Christ is NOT magic!!!". Come on man...historians for the most part are not claiming a magical human...

And you are not disproving a historical Jesus with your baseless hate for church.

MM

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum


7. Which means they told lies or were delusional. The resurrection didn't happen. No genuine scholar or academic proclaims that it did. This is the domain of snake oil salesmen, soothsayers and religious charlatans who (erroneously) think they are scholars.


11. Then he told a few whoppers. There was no resurrection. We understand enough about nature to discount this. Extremely unlikely there was a jesus to begin with.

12. He had a hallucinatory experience and became delusional. So what?

Dude...it is overly clear you are simply trying to hate "Magical Christ" for some strong dislike for religion. The evidence for Christ that historians (most historians in all the world, mind you) think shows Jesus really existed...has nothing to do with magic.

As a response it was in context and relevant. Can you back your claim re "almost all historians in the world"? Something that might indicate that you are even basing what is really only an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy to begin with, on more than empty claims?

People show you evidence and you ignore it or start screaming "Christ is NOT magic!!!". Come on man...historians for the most part are not claiming a magical human...

Then where is it? Talk about it isn't the same as providing it.

So far you have offered some ridiculous claims re Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. That's your argument?

And you are not disproving a historical Jesus with your baseless hate for church.
MM

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: randyvs
Twelve historical facts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

source

"5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof)."

With all due respect;
Number 5 may be most important but wouldn't hold water as an UFO' sighting.

originally posted by: Observationalist

Kenneth Humphrey, the author in your above link wrote a 500 page book (Jesus Never Existed) to prove what is being discussed in this thread.
500 pages, Really? If Jesus ranks up there with Santa and his elves I would think just a few paragraphs would do.

To me 500 pages shows me this mans insecurities in his decision to not belive, he needed 500 pages to justify his lack of faith.

Why is there so much work to prove Jesus non existence? Are these athiest writers really have our best interest in mind trying to free the "inslaved minds" of the believers, or are they cashing in on people like you who already agree with their conclusions, and will regurgitate anything that is anti Jesus.

Most of these theories are child-like and only creating scenarios like a play but i think some history has been created in this way. Dont recall reading that site and am sure it is no different than the numerous scenarios premised here which are also copy and pasted anyway. One creative scenario has Caesar as actual Jesus but if that was the case why need to make up a Jesus? I guess Napoleon didn't exist either. *sarcasm*

One of my main points in this discussion is inventing people in a similar way as this never happens in real life. Yes...YES, people use pen names like maybe Shakespeare was a pen name but these are only straw man arguments or they include characters where hardly anything is known so you can can basically make up whatever you want.

I'm sure it has already been mentioned but Jesus has more authenticity then certain other historical figures from the BC era.

But for starts both the gospel of Matthew and Mark papyrus have been dated to the first century and to the point even inside the "eye" witness era for Jesus. While others have been dated to the second century, which still isn't that bad considering other BC figures have testimonies in the 500 years later

One needs to remember that the gospels were not one book made at the same time but apart.

originally posted by: Harvin

One of my main points in this discussion is inventing people in a similar way as this never happens in real life.

Ancient history is actually rife with exactly that, particularly regarding heroes/gods/religion, just like Jesus. Never heard of Euhemeris?

originally posted by: Observationalist

Kenneth Humphrey, the author in your above link wrote a 500 page book (Jesus Never Existed) to prove what is being discussed in this thread.
500 pages, Really? If Jesus ranks up there with Santa and his elves I would think just a few paragraphs would do.

To me 500 pages shows me this mans insecurities in his decision to not belive, he needed 500 pages to justify his lack of faith.

500 pages would barely scratch the surface of a couple of millennia of nonsense. Perhaps Humphrey just values academic honesty?

There are plenty of other good reasons to deny this myth (apart from the obvious)... 1500 years or more of Christian oppression, the fact that it clearly and demonstrably has rather negative sociological impacts on every 1st world nation/society that harbours it, that people do still make policy in consultation with their imaginary friend, adhere to morals/bigotry of ancient ignorants, still indoctrinate (brainwash) young minds, use it as a basis to introduce mythology into science classes...etc....etc.

All because of a myth.

originally posted by: CreatedI'm sure it has already been mentioned but Jesus has more authenticity then certain other historical figures from the BC era.

Really? Which ones specifically?

But for starts both the gospel of Matthew and Mark papyrus have been dated to the first century and to the point even inside the "eye" witness era for Jesus.

How do you really know this?

While others have been dated to the second century, which still isn't that bad considering other BC figures have testimonies in the 500 years later

The "500 years later" is misleading. There are some very good histories this way, drawing on contemporary sources (that are now lost) using good historical technique that have corroboration not only from other genuine historical works (including enemies and others that have no underlying motive) but things like archeology, coinage etc. Exactly what christianity/jesus has none of.

One needs to remember that the gospels were not one book made at the same time but apart.

A collection of stories based on many characters and events over centuries, both mythical and exaggerated...all rolled into a fella named jesus who was completely unnoticed by absolutely everyone educated enough to leave an account.

a reply to: Mr Mask

So apparently you have know kind of interest in researching & scrutinizing the evidence that is used to make the claim that Jesus was based on a real person. Since you have provided no links and your last 3 posts directed at me can be summed up as simply a faith based argument that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Jesus Christ may be the most famous man who ever lived. But how do we know he did?

Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. They draw that conclusion from textual evidence in the Bible, however, rather than from the odd assortment of relics parading as physical evidence in churches all over Europe.

That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Livescience.com

See? Your hate for some religion is getting in the way of your world view.

This is simply not true, since for a religion to get in the way of my worldview I would first need to have a “world view”. But there’s not a day that goes by that I don’t look up to the sky into the vastness of the universe we inhabit and wonder to myself why we have the ability to recognise it’s existence, yet not the ability to recognise what it is.

So no, I have no established “world view”, simply a desire to find truth and meaning that isn’t a faith based belief created by people who knew for a “fact” that we were the centre of the universe. When in fact we are not even the centre the solar system, let alone the galaxy or universe.

If your feelings towards a church are going to to cause you to ignore the majority of all historians in the world...then you must have been "Godded Up" something awful.

I find it very ironic that an individual who is so confidently convinced of the teachings of a religion would even use are phrase like “godded up” and then attribute it to being negative. Whether you call yourself a Christian or not is irrelevant, you are still clearly convinced of a faith based belief.

Truth is, religion didn’t particularly have a significant role in the majority of my upbringing. I mean to clarify, I’ve written a thread here about having the faint memory of being involved in an intense prayer session. But my parents got divorced when I was about 8, pulled us out of Christian private school and sent us to a normal public one. Both of my parents then became a ‘I try to attend church once a year’ kind of people and never really talked about it.

My frustration with religion has nothing to do with anything other than a desire for truth and not just settling on a faith based belief, simply because it makes our natural fear of mortality easier to deal with.

That don't change the simple fact...ALMOST ALL historians (even secular ones) think "Jesus Christ" was a real living person. And they have good reason to do so.

What people choose to belief is completely irrelevant. Not to mention that most historians who aren’t just trying to justify there personal belief system (Christian or not) wouldn’t usually risk there careers to bringing attention to the lack of evidence that would actually stands up to scientific scrutiny. Since we all know what the church attempts to do to anyone with authority who uses solid evidence to make claims that go against the beliefs of the church, from Galileo to Darwin and many others who have dared to question dogma.

If you want to ignore almost all historians and trust your own whimsical hate...go for it. I am siding with history because I'm not into quacks or fanatics...and because the evidence is pretty good showing that Jesus was a real historical person.

Again, it’s not hate. My frustration would be better compared to a parent trying to explain to their child that there are no monsters under their bed.

Btw, what defines good evidence to you? Because good evidence to me means it can stand up to scientific scrutiny and if you base the definition of “good evidence” on that, then there is no real evidence that Jesus was a real person.

Thing is, even if there was any solid evidence the character Jesus was based on a real person, the only thing it would be evidence of is that schizophrenia was an issue in the first century and that people attributed it to the paranormal.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask



I find it very ironic that an individual who is so confidently convinced of the teachings of a religion would even use are phrase like “godded up” and then attribute it to being negative. Whether you call yourself a Christian or not is irrelevant, you are still clearly convinced of a faith based belief.

There you go again...saying I am faith based and that you are shocked that I am not showing worshiping skills.

Dude...I don't believe in any religion. I think they are all abusive systems used to control people like cattle.

You keep showing your views are based on hate for a system, not "history".

You say I show no link that almost all historians think Jesus was real..yet you post a quote from livescience saying almost all historians think Jesus existed...its funny.

MM

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask



I find it very ironic that an individual who is so confidently convinced of the teachings of a religion would even use are phrase like “godded up” and then attribute it to being negative. Whether you call yourself a Christian or not is irrelevant, you are still clearly convinced of a faith based belief.

You say I show no link that almost all historians think Jesus was real..yet you post a quote from livescience saying almost all historians think Jesus existed...its funny.

MM

Yes but what you fail to mention is that it also says that there is no actual evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny, so it's simply a belief and not a fact as you keep claiming. your more than welcome to just follow the flock like a simple sheep, but I'd prefer to just stick to the facts.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Mr Mask



I find it very ironic that an individual who is so confidently convinced of the teachings of a religion would even use are phrase like “godded up” and then attribute it to being negative. Whether you call yourself a Christian or not is irrelevant, you are still clearly convinced of a faith based belief.

You say I show no link that almost all historians think Jesus was real..yet you post a quote from livescience saying almost all historians think Jesus existed...its funny.

MM

Yes but what you fail to mention is that it also says that there is no actual evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny, so it's simply a belief and not a fact as you keep claiming. your more than welcome to just follow the flock like a simple sheep, but I'd prefer to just stick to the facts.

First you make me out to be a theist for posting that most historians think Jesus was most likely a real living man.

Now you say I called it a fact?

No sir...I was very careful to use the words "most likely" in each and every post.

You church haters are so funny. Usually worse than even the religious types. Ever notice that? That the New Atheist movement is usually more zealot-like than the actual zealots?

Creeps me out when grown people start witch hunting for "faithful minds" the second someone speaks about history.

Nowhere did I say it was fact. Nowhere did I say I am a man of faith. Yet there you are saying both about me.

I will reiterate my thought one more time since you missed it over and over.

I am not a theist and MOST historians believe Jesus was a real living person....with no magic.

MM

Today I know quite a few people named Jesus. It's not really that uncommon of a name....perhaps also in the Bibilical days.


Will the real Jesus please stand up!!

a reply to: Mr Mask

I am not a theist and MOST historians believe Jesus was a real living person....with no magic.

So, he wasn't born of a virgin, under a star of auspice? No angel saved him the "Slaughter of the Innocents" (that never happened)? He never healed the sick or raised the dead? He never turned water to wine or walked on water?

The contradictory gospel narratives of where he was born have been archaeologically debunked. The accounts of his death, the earthquakes and the eclipse, also debunked.

So who is this Jesus of whom you speak, that most scholars believe existed? Who were his parents? Where was he born? When was he born?

Like I've said before, and other posters have reiterated, Jesus was common name at the time. Josephus mentions somewhere around 19 different Jesuses, but no Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Ben Joseph.

So, Jesus who? Which Jesus do most scholars agree existed?

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

I would agree but these are definitely scholarly findings.

originally posted by: windword

The contradictory gospel narratives of where he was born have been archaeologically debunked. The accounts of his death, the earthquakes and the eclipse, also debunked.

So who is this Jesus of whom you speak, that most scholars believe existed? Who were his parents? Where was he born? When was he born?

Like I've said before, and other posters have reiterated, Jesus was common name at the time. Josephus mentions somewhere around 19 different Jesuses, but no Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Ben Joseph.

So, Jesus who? Which Jesus do most scholars agree existed?

1) I am not a scholar nor am I a historian. Perhaps you need to look up some historic information to answer your questions.

2) Following a small handful or quacks selling books is not going to change the fact that most historians think Jesus was a real person.

3) No...I am not saying a magical man came from God(s) and died to come back to life. But I do notice anyone trying to buck against the accepted evidence of Christ's real existence want to drag any and all who don't agree into some "faith role".

Look man...here is the deal. MOST historians agree Jesus was most likely a real person who shook the world with his presence, trial and death.

AND I FOR ONE think the dude was most likely awesome. In fact, how many of you would face the law knowing it would kill you horrifically for your beliefs?

Say what ya want- if you think Jesus was invented by some conspiracy within a church- that's fine...but you are surely outnumbered by people smarter than you- who are also experts in the fields of history- who say you are "most likely" wrong.

I feel safer trusting countless experts on history...than a handful of quacks, pissed off atheists and book selling goblins.

Go hate all you want...any "real school" will teach you that you are most likely wrong.

MM

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Harvin

One of my main points in this discussion is inventing people in a similar way as this never happens in real life.

Ancient history is actually rife with exactly that, particularly regarding heroes/gods/religion, just like Jesus. Never heard of Euhemeris?

It may be although we are not discussing euhemerisms so it does not apply here/