ChatterBank3 mins ago
Did Jesus really exist?
49 Answers
My sixpenn’orth first, please.
Putting aside all religious considerations and all matters of faith, I maintain that if you look cold-bloodedly and objectively at the provenance of the Jesus story you must conclude that the probability that Jesus did not exist is greater than the probability that he did. Here’s why:
STAGE 1: the years 6BC to AD54
Jesus is supposed to have lived sometime during this period but there is no record of such a person. Not a word from anyone who supposedly knew him or debated with him; nothing from the rich men he counselled, the sick he healed or the thousands he preached to. No mention in Jewish or Roman records of the time or by any contemporary historians. So, two possibilities:
A: Jesus did not exist.
B: Jesus did exist but there was a conspiracy of silence lasting over half a century among a large number of people most of whom had no connection with each other.
STAGE 2: Paul’s epistles AD55 to AD60
There is where Jesus first appears. But Paul, who introduces the idea to the world, offers no evidence to back his claims or any eye-witness testimony that we can examine for ourselves. So, two possibilities:
A. Jesus did not exist.
B. Jesus did exist but Paul deliberately kept from us anything that could vouch for him.
STAGE 3: The gospels, AD70 to AD 90 -120??
As with Paul, these four unknown people also offer no evidence or first-hand testimony. So, two possibilities:
A: Jesus did not exist
B: Jesus did exist but the gospel writers continued the conspiracy that had started a century earlier.
Which is more probable - that A is correct or that all those Bs are simultaneously correct? I know where my money is.
Over to you, folks.
Putting aside all religious considerations and all matters of faith, I maintain that if you look cold-bloodedly and objectively at the provenance of the Jesus story you must conclude that the probability that Jesus did not exist is greater than the probability that he did. Here’s why:
STAGE 1: the years 6BC to AD54
Jesus is supposed to have lived sometime during this period but there is no record of such a person. Not a word from anyone who supposedly knew him or debated with him; nothing from the rich men he counselled, the sick he healed or the thousands he preached to. No mention in Jewish or Roman records of the time or by any contemporary historians. So, two possibilities:
A: Jesus did not exist.
B: Jesus did exist but there was a conspiracy of silence lasting over half a century among a large number of people most of whom had no connection with each other.
STAGE 2: Paul’s epistles AD55 to AD60
There is where Jesus first appears. But Paul, who introduces the idea to the world, offers no evidence to back his claims or any eye-witness testimony that we can examine for ourselves. So, two possibilities:
A. Jesus did not exist.
B. Jesus did exist but Paul deliberately kept from us anything that could vouch for him.
STAGE 3: The gospels, AD70 to AD 90 -120??
As with Paul, these four unknown people also offer no evidence or first-hand testimony. So, two possibilities:
A: Jesus did not exist
B: Jesus did exist but the gospel writers continued the conspiracy that had started a century earlier.
Which is more probable - that A is correct or that all those Bs are simultaneously correct? I know where my money is.
Over to you, folks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whether jesus did or did not exist has little relevance to anything. If you believe in christianity you will know he existed. If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in christianity so the question is not relevant. It is pointless to rake over a lot of historical anecdotes of dubious veracity. Jesus was a sideshow in a circus lacking a ringmaster. Unless of course you believe otherwise, as I don't.
DT - you realise that in years to come your teaching will appear as another chapter in the New Testament.
jomifl - The basic concept of Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. If you do not believe that you are not a Christian. There is a large choice of other religions which believe in God and which you can join if you like. Since I do not believe that he was the Son of God, then I am not a Christian, even though I like some of his teachings, and try to live by them. The Sermon on the Mount is especially good, as seadogg says. My son has told me that what I believe would fit in well with the Hindu religion, but as I have not investigated that I am not sure.
jomifl - The basic concept of Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. If you do not believe that you are not a Christian. There is a large choice of other religions which believe in God and which you can join if you like. Since I do not believe that he was the Son of God, then I am not a Christian, even though I like some of his teachings, and try to live by them. The Sermon on the Mount is especially good, as seadogg says. My son has told me that what I believe would fit in well with the Hindu religion, but as I have not investigated that I am not sure.
I have often wondered who actually wrote the complete works of the Bible especially the New Testament because in those days there would not have been many people who could write. In fact most of them were completely illiterate, which is why they were told stories or parables to illustrate what the preachers were trying to tell them.
Hi Starbuck.. It seems to have about 300 years taken to get the new testament cobbled together. Contrary to popular belief it is no more the word of god than the front page of the Sun newspaper and has more mistakes. Check out 'codex sinaiticus' on Wiki. Your questions will be answered but not any about the existence of god.
Not an awful lot of response in kind to my probability exercise.
I asked that religious belief be kept out of it because I'm well aware that Christians believe out of pure faith and are not interested in historical facts. For example, jno talks about the sepulchre being fixed on the spot of the crucifixion by people who knew where it was. How does she know that? What people? How does she know that Jesus was crucified if we have no evidence that he existed? jno believes it because she has faith, that's all.
(Also, when she asks what the point would have been of inventing him she could ask the same question of all the classical Greek and Roman gods and many others.)
To assume that Jesus existed as some sort of good man or ordinary teacher (as naomi does) is to cherry-pick. How can my original analysis lead to that view? Unless you merely mean that there were ordinary men called Jesus, of which there would have been many, it being a very common name, then there is still no evidence of the existence of the NT Jesus even if you strip him of his miracle-working and other magic.
Since naomi is not here to bristle and call me lazy I will use the well-established commonsense route of Occam's Razor. The simplest an most straightforward solution to the question implied in my analysis is that Jesus did not exist.
And that us what I shall assume from now on ... unless, of course, someone supplies some evidence that he did.
I asked that religious belief be kept out of it because I'm well aware that Christians believe out of pure faith and are not interested in historical facts. For example, jno talks about the sepulchre being fixed on the spot of the crucifixion by people who knew where it was. How does she know that? What people? How does she know that Jesus was crucified if we have no evidence that he existed? jno believes it because she has faith, that's all.
(Also, when she asks what the point would have been of inventing him she could ask the same question of all the classical Greek and Roman gods and many others.)
To assume that Jesus existed as some sort of good man or ordinary teacher (as naomi does) is to cherry-pick. How can my original analysis lead to that view? Unless you merely mean that there were ordinary men called Jesus, of which there would have been many, it being a very common name, then there is still no evidence of the existence of the NT Jesus even if you strip him of his miracle-working and other magic.
Since naomi is not here to bristle and call me lazy I will use the well-established commonsense route of Occam's Razor. The simplest an most straightforward solution to the question implied in my analysis is that Jesus did not exist.
And that us what I shall assume from now on ... unless, of course, someone supplies some evidence that he did.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
wow, birdie, your posts are fascinating me!
As an atheist, who believed Jesus did exist, I find all this very very interesting.
The point you make about historians of the time, not recording anything, is certainly something to think about.
I didn't know that about Ra either.
I'm loving this post! Why weren't RE classes at school as interesting?!
As an atheist, who believed Jesus did exist, I find all this very very interesting.
The point you make about historians of the time, not recording anything, is certainly something to think about.
I didn't know that about Ra either.
I'm loving this post! Why weren't RE classes at school as interesting?!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago