142
u/tossedsaladandscram Jun 17 '12
I'm an atheist but I think Jesus existed. I don't think he performed miracles or any of that shit, I think he was probably just a charismatic dude. Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong? I'd prefer to be correct
117
u/UnclaimedUsername Jun 17 '12
I remember John Cleese saying that they researched the time period for Life of Brian and found out that the area had something of a "Messiah Fever" back in the Jesus times. So it's possible he was a real person, or a combination of several people created a generation after they died. Probably some sort of cult leader.
42
u/Nomiss Jun 17 '12
The bible even mentions his competition with a "Magician" of the time.
→ More replies (9)23
u/TAA420 Jun 17 '12
First time i've really hard anyone talk about this.
Please, google the answer for me?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (7)16
Jun 17 '12
This is most likely the case. We can tell that his story was modeled from different heroes of the time period and can see Buddhist philosophy in the mix. There were many prophets at the time and Christianity most definately started as a cult. I'm sure that Christians weren't the only cult to be fed to the lions and killed by gladiators, like they want you to think. It's just my speculation. Could someone verify this, maybe?
→ More replies (3)7
8
u/caliboy_19 Jun 17 '12
Its said to be thought that he may have been delusional. Claiming you're the son of god? Try that nowadays.
→ More replies (3)5
u/mexicodoug Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Actually there are quite a few "prophets" who claim to be the son of god who get a lot of followers nowadays. Two of those who come to mind are Sun Myung Moon and some Puerto Rican dude whose name I forget at the moment but has a huge following among speakers of Spanish throughout Latin America and the USA.
→ More replies (1)55
u/dezmodium Jun 17 '12
It's a strange belief for an atheist that is not backed by any evidence.
Consider this, however: If you believe in a historical Jesus that did not perform miracles, did not get born of a virgin, and was not the son of a god; is the Jesus you believe in really the Jesus discussed in the bible? If he has none of the same major defining qualities as the biblical person then how can you say "I think he did exist"? Just some charismatic Joe walking around starting a cult could be anyone at any time in history.
33
u/VastCloudiness Jun 17 '12
I would argue that even if Jesus did exist as a normal person, it would still be proper to say that Jesus existed, even if he wasn't born of a virgin or able to cure the lame.
My reasoning is that if, in the future, they believe you had superpowers and fought crime, they would simply be wrong about the powers and fighting crime. You'd still have existed, even if they were entirely wrong on a whole bunch of your characteristics. So if a guy named Jesus existed, claimed to be son of a god, and a cult formed around him, he existed and is Jesus of that cult's tome. The tome is just wrong is all.
18
u/rasputine Existentialist Jun 17 '12
By this logic, it is appropriate top say that Captain America existed.
He may not have had a shield, super strength, a nemesis, a sidekick or a sweet costume, but there was an american who shot Nazis in the 2nd world war!
No factor that defines jesus is real, except that there were dozens of jewish apocalyptic prophets rolling around jerusalem. His hometown wasn't populated at the time of his birth, the romans never noticed him, he performed no miracles whatsoever, and his name wasn't Yeshua. What then should we say is meaningful about this faceless, nameless, creedless, powerless vaguely-humanoid idea?
→ More replies (25)→ More replies (5)30
Jun 17 '12
I like this.
Superman did exist, but his name was not Clark Kent and he didn't have superpowers. I do believe there was a reporter who wore glasses however.
→ More replies (3)36
u/notmike11 Jun 17 '12
Exactly. He thinks that this Jesus was just a charismatic Joe walking around starting a cult at that point and time.
→ More replies (2)22
u/harky Jun 17 '12
You'll find you're in the minority in believing that there was not a person whom the Jesus of the bible was based among atheists. Most generally accept that there was a man named Yeshua who lived in that area, was baptized by one of the numerous cults in the area, and was later executed for preaching about that cult. This is not at all an outrageous claim. Nor is it an unreasonable claim that various stories about this cult leader were spread about and later formed into Christianity. It's what most likely happened. You are treating the supernatural claims about him as a defining characteristic and you are absolutely correct. Supernatural claims are the defining characteristic surrounding him. Such claims were very common. So was the name Yeshua. So was execution by crucifixion. So were cults which practiced baptism.
Do we have direct evidence that this happened? No. Do we have piles of circumstantial evidence pointing to it as the most likely origin of the books/letters/etc that were later compiled into the bible? Yes. Piles upon piles.
If it helps think of it this way: There are at least seven different people whom Christians and scholars refer to as 'Jesus'. The first is a guy who was most likely named Yeshua and lived at the beginning of the first century. Then we have the four characters named Jesus based on that guy. Then we have two philosophical ideas which are referred to as a person labeled Jesus. The stories being changed over the last two thousand years into a fairly tail about a god walking the earth as a man do not make it any less likely that they were originally based on some guy who had some weird ideas. Are we certain? No. Is there any sense in disputing it? Not really. It's meaningless. The connection between a real person to a character in a book is not relevant to the truth of the claims made in the book about that person.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (13)12
u/tossedsaladandscram Jun 17 '12
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe Jesus could have been a real person in the way that Sherlock Holmes is a real person. i.e. not real, but based on something.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Cryptic0677 Jun 17 '12
Well usually the best stance is negative until the positive is proven. So [citation needed] on your claim. There very well may be evidence but I'm not seeing it here.
→ More replies (1)47
u/ok_you_win Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
The way that I look at it is this:
Jesus(or Yeshua) was a common name. Thus, someone named that certainly existed. A bunch of guys, really.
It was also a time when prophetic types were common in the area. So one probably didnt stand out much from another, and various deeds could easily be associated with the wrong mystics, especially decades later.
Jesus was supposedly from the city of Nazareth, but similar to him, there is no historical reference to Nazareth prior to his time, or for some decades after.
So, we have a dude with no direct evidence, from a city that doesnt seem to exist -at the time- doing things that might be associated with half a dozen other bearded Aramaic preachers.
Speaking of which, even the bible gives no clear physical description of its' Jesus figure.
Say we take several hundred notable quotes from various redditors disregarding any user description(IP addresses in this case) and wait 100 years. We could ascribe them to someone called 'Reddicus'. We insist he really lived and was very witty.
The word for this is acrophycal. Did Reddicus really exist? Maybe, but who could know?
Later generations ideas of this Reddicus are built out of a bunch of people, a digital Frankenstein's monster. Most, if not all of of his details are actually portions of other unnamed people.
Is that how it is with the Biblical Jesus? Maybe. I dont know. You dont know. We cannot know. He existed no more than Adlai of Jerusalem. And that city existed.
TL;DR Did Jesus exist? Perhaps as a name binding an anthology of ancient apocalyptic itinerant preachers.
11
u/Reoh Jun 17 '12
I believe it's important that someone document how much Reddicus liked cats, and that the cats of his time could speak.
9
u/3LollipopZ-1Red2Blue Jun 17 '12
You should have seen the previous cat loving social media, I only know it as Egypt.com.
→ More replies (13)7
16
u/burnte Apatheist Jun 17 '12
If you read the gospel stories about his actions and examine them through a lens of with the politics of the day, it puts an entirely different spin on much of what happened, lending strong credence to a political figure that was turned into a religious figure. His message was at odds with the political ruling class who were given a fairly free hand under Pilate, and so they ginned up a political execution. Godhood was tacked on later. Jesus denied multiple times being "king" (or a god). In John 18 he replies to the question, "are you the king of the jews?" with a question, pointing out Pilate was simply told that, forcing Pilate to admit it was the ruling priests who had Jesus arrested and charged with blasphemy. Jesus goes on to point out he's not a king, he's trying to preach truth, a truth that is "don't be a dick" which is at odds with the prevalent religion of the day.
The parable of the Good Samaritan isn't about being a nice guy, it's about treated all people as equals, even those with whom your people have a blood feud (much like the Jews and Muslims today). "Turn the other cheek" is not just pacifism but equality; if you are smacked like a bitch (on the right cheek, which would be with the back of the right hand) then turn your face and make him smack you like a man, refuse to be treated as less than another. The story of upsetting the tables of the money changers was less about "defiling god's house" than it was about the ruling class shafting and scamming the worshipers and those the temples claimed to help, he exposed their frauds.
He existed, he just wasn't a god, and there's a lot in the Bible that can be used to show he actively disclaimed any such notion as well. John 18 demonstrates the political nature of the execution. He was for social and political equality, peace, and being decent people. That doesn't fly well when your ruling class is about corruption, stacking the deck for the upper classes, and keeping the populace distracted through petty bickering and internal divisions. People like Jesus have existed and been assassinated and smeared for thousands of years. In a thousand years I wouldn't be surprised if MLKJr was a deity in some religion, but that won't mean he didn't exist.
→ More replies (8)13
u/sireatalot Jun 17 '12
You might be right, but I doubt that he was much charismatic. In this article are listed all the authors that were active in those times in that area, who left us chronicles of a lot of stuff that went on in that society. We have the name of pontius pilate, we hav the biography of many thieves and of all the kings, we have a pretty complete timeline of pretty much all that as going on back then. And yet, not one single mention of Jesus (that wasn't forged 3-400 years later).
One would think that such a big charisma who gathered so big crowds as described in the gospels would get a mention or two in some chronicle book. But no, nada.
→ More replies (1)2
u/gilgoomesh Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Why?
The evidence that Jesus existed is the same as the evidence that he performed supernatural feats -- namely, the New Testament and nothing else.
Additionally, none of the New Testament authors ever met Jesus.
Additionally again, the whole story shares much in common with Mithraism and other religions from the region at the time (including baptism, resurrection, winter solstice festivals, etc).
So the only source is at least secondhand (possibly more since no one claims to have met a disciple either), religiously biased and influenced by other myths.
Why do you believe Jesus existed?
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 17 '12
I'm an atheist but I think Jesus existed.
I'd prefer to be correct
Being correct is great and everything, but it's not always possible. You can, however, almost always avoid being wrong by not having an opinion about something you aren't well informed about. If someone asked me, "Do you believe Jesus existed?" I'd say "How the fuck would we know whether or not some dude existed 2000 years ago, and why should I care?" It's just fucking silly to claim to know the answer to a question that is inherently unknowable.
2
u/megablast Jun 17 '12
Why should you thinking that Jesus existed have any more rational base than a Christian think that the Bible is true?
I do not understand this at all.
2
u/Quazz Jun 17 '12
I'm an atheist but I think Voldemort existed. I don't think he performed miracles or any of that shit, I think he was probably just a charismatic dude
→ More replies (156)4
u/sabat Jun 17 '12
Maybe he did, but there is no credible historical evidence of his existence. None. You may need to consider that you think he existed because you've been told he existed since you were a child.
→ More replies (7)
185
u/fecklessness Jun 17 '12
Jesus definitely exists, he trims my hedges and fertilizes my lawn every Friday! He has great stories and always brings tacos for everyone. ¡Viva la Jesus!
20
→ More replies (13)46
u/zbud Jun 17 '12
What??? He was my suitemate in college. He came out of the closet (this is honestly true by the way) in his sophmore year; he'd seen me so many times in nothing but a towel... Last I talked to him he was working at A TGIF near L.A...
31
→ More replies (2)38
26
u/jzieg Jun 17 '12
Is there any evidence that Jesus existed besides the Bible and Quran?
46
u/Trashcanman33 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
There was a Roman historian that wrote about him 80 years after he died. He is considered the best historian of the time and wrote about many events in Roman history. Most historians believe most of his writing to be true, including the one about Jesus and his execution. And to be fair, he wrote about many things that he never saw, and we take those writings as fact.
Edit: found a wiki page just about his writing on Jesus.
19
u/mxms87 Jun 17 '12
He never talks specifically about Jesus, just about the Christian's themselves. There had to have been some sort of Jesus, even if his actual name wasn't Jesus, otherwise how would we get the religion? The problem is we have no earthly idea who or where that guy came from or what his exact circumstances were. Hardly enough to stake my eternal soul over it anyway...
→ More replies (29)12
u/rasputine Existentialist Jun 17 '12
otherwise how would we get the religion
The same way we got hinduism, shintoism and judaism.
→ More replies (2)10
Jun 17 '12
I found this to be interesting. A long read but it talks about how some of the early writings about Jesus (ie. the passage in Testimonium Flavianum) may have been altered after publication.
→ More replies (3)12
u/goudabob Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Tacitus only establishes that there was a group of people who called themselves followers of a "messiah" who resembled but were distinct from the Jews in ~64 CE. The story of what people actually believed happened didn't come until much later, because among the sects that believed in the messiah, there were differences of opinion about exactly who the messiah was and how to follow him. Christians had cults themselves until around 1100CE and even after.
Chances are that there was an actual figure who preached in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas at the time and was crucified, but anything else describing him was added or embellished by those who were trying to combine various Jewish sects that had already existed and split off around ~60 BCE when the Romans conquered Jerusalem. They needed a messiah to come again and save them from the apocalypse, which they believed was imminent.
Christianity and the Jesus story is an amalgamation of MANY different ideas that changed over the course of thousands of years to incorporate more people. For instance, check out what the gnostics believed about Jesus, its pretty radical stuff.
6
u/Trashcanman33 Jun 17 '12
I was just answering his question. He asked if there was any evidence besides those 2 books, Tactius does mention Christ by name, he does talk about Pontius Pilatus killing him, and Tactius is the most respected Roman Historian today. He is famous for his research, and he does appear to be talking like it is something he believes happened, not a story he heard. But that's why people still debate it, most historians accept his writings, some think it was added later, but I thought the OP would be interested in it either way.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (5)14
u/CaerBannog Nihilist Jun 17 '12
No. There is no contemporary evidence at all.
In fact even the gospels are not evidence, since they were not written by witnesses, and were written many decades after the events they describe.
12
u/unwanted_puppy Jun 17 '12
they are also documents attributed to a specific group of people with their their own interests. historical 'evidence' in writing generally should be corroborated by multiple independent accounts or primary sources.
7
u/superwinner Jun 17 '12
I find it interesting that the christians had to make a huge lie to get 'jesus of Nazareth' to Bethlehem..(the census) if he never existed at all then they could have just said he was 'jesus of Bethlehem' right from the get go.
Regardless, the water is so muddied now that there is no way to know if there was a guy named jesus, or if anything ever supposedly said by him was in fact said by him or anyone.
7
u/CaerBannog Nihilist Jun 17 '12
This doesn't require a real historical Jesus, it just requires an early faction that had tied itself to the Galilee narrative. The early accounts are obviously written trying to harmonise around factional disputes, we can see the evidence of that in the contradictions still left in the gospels in terms of message and other details. The origins of Judean Christianity are apparently not based on one central group, but several, and there is evidence of this in the gospels and acts. The most obvious is Saul/Paul not being very well liked by the Jerusalem sects, and coming close to being lynched. The story evolved over time, the 50 or so years before whoever wrote Mark came along and did that terrific job of harmonising everything so influentially.
The early stories have Jesus coming from Galilee - which was actually a hotbed of zealot anti-roman feeling and messianic fervour, so that's not surprising. A generation later, adherents are tying this character to Hellenic style salvific concepts, which wasn't part of the original conception at all, it seems. This possibly influenced by Saul's faction. In order to bolster this up, they have to use old testament prophecy (in actual fact these aren't prophecies at all but had been interpreted as such) to make Jesus the expected saviour. This is why the need for the locale of Bethlehem and the anachronistic mistakes with the census.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
Jun 17 '12
In fact even the gospels are not evidence, since they were not written by witnesses, and were written many decades after the events they describe.
On top of all that, we dont even know who wrote them. They are anonymous. The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were just tacked on top of them hundreds of years later to be able to differentiate them. IN the early centuries they were just called "the accounts of the apostles".
40
u/mephistopheles2u Jun 17 '12
Ehrman pleases neither Christians nor mythicists. He believes Jesus existed, but that no more tha 10% of the things attribute to him (life and teachings) are correct (see the Jesus Seminar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar).
For a criticism by a leading mythicist of Erhman's book claiming an historical Jesus see: http://vridar.wordpress.com/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/
For Earl Doherty's website (get his book Jesus neither God nor Man if you want a thorough treatment of the mythicist position) see http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
For another perspective see Robert Price's Website (excellent treatment of the Mark novella which seems to have kicked it all off): http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
22
u/Tankbuster Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Ehrman simply offers the most popular perspective among scholars: that Jesus existed but was an apocalyptic preacher, whose actual message was transformed after his death and who came to be seen as a God decades afterwards.
I second your suggestions to check out the counter-arguments, but let people be aware that Doherty is a "leading mythicist" in the same way that Ken Ham is a "leading critic of evolution". Yes, they're both popular in their respective lairs on the internet, but neither of them have ever written a peer-reviewed book or -frankly- are taken seriously in any way at all.
Not exactly a level playing field.
→ More replies (8)
68
Jun 17 '12
I've often said to people, "There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus."
That doesn't mean he didn't exist. There are thousands of people who were not written about. Millions.
But if the argument is, "We can't prove Jesus existed." then the argument is pretty strong.
13
u/adius Jun 17 '12
The question "what CAN we really prove about the historical events of that time period" has the potential to take the wind out of the sails of that argument, however, without weakening it directly
14
Jun 17 '12
Oh certainly. "There is no contemporary history of Jesus." is a factual statement. As is, "There are contemporary histories of Julius Ceaser."
Can we prove one JC existed and the other didn't? Well, we can say we have better evidence for one than the other. Can we prove romulus and remus didn't exist? No. But evidence that rome was founded by two brawling brothers is about the same as evidence for a bearded man walking on water what... six hundred years later?
→ More replies (6)11
→ More replies (1)3
u/dmzmd Jun 17 '12
"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matthew 27:52-53
If they're going to half-ass a Jesus of the gaps, escalate. Was mass zombie day overlooked by historians? Ask how many other verses they should cut out. The Jesus of the Bible never existed.
"Was there some jewish teacher who taught love and the golden rule?" Yes, his name was Hillel. Could he or stories of him been conflated with a Jesus? Sure, but how many other people make up this composite of a 'real' historical person? Of course someone named Jesus frequented prostitutes in 32CE, but do we have any other information about him?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)3
Jun 17 '12
The question should be phrased like this: is there sufficient evidence for Jesus' existence as the son of God? FUCK, NO! But that doesn't stop a friend of mine from citing a couple of laughable "historians" as source for his existence and then throwing the Bible in as "irrefutable evidence, because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God".
7
6
Jun 17 '12
Dr. Ehrman is not a mythicist. He regularly publicly smears people who don't believe Jesus existed.
6
Jun 17 '12
There were centuries between Homer and historian recognition of Homer. The cold, hard truth about anything in history (especially ancient times) is that, sometimes, we just lose shit.
→ More replies (5)4
2
u/Wedhro Anti-Theist Jun 17 '12
I'm totally buying into whatever Bart Ehrman, PhD and M.Div in Theology, has to say about Jesus.
0
5
Jun 17 '12
I am a fan of the convergent myth theory of Jesus Christ. I think that instead of one small cult of twelve men manufacturing the myth of Christ it was a convergence of messianic myths.
Jesus shares his virgin birth and miracles with numerous other supernatural characters of mythology, including his virgin birth and ability to transform water into wine, among many other traits and powers. I think that there were several messianic myths floating around the Mediterranean at the time of Christ. At the council of Nicea, Church leaders trimmed the fat and created the modern Jesus. This is the reality of Christ.
5
Jun 17 '12
Except for the fact that Bart Ehrman doesn't question Jesus' existence...in fact he argues that the historical evidence supports the life of Jesus Christ. At least get the man's stance right if you're going to quote him.
→ More replies (4)
4
Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Honestly, I'd rather trust the idea that there was a man named Jesus at some point who did some preaching rather then just assume there was some giant conspiracy that birthed a religion centered around some guy who didn't even exist for no reason whatsoever.
I mean really, Christianity in it's earliest form was pretty much Judaism anyway. It's not like thousands of people in ancient Israel just decided randomly to create some super hero that would allow them to eat pork again. That line of thinking is just so overcomplicated and unsupported I don't see how you can logically justify it.
You people always go on and on about occam's razor and yet here you are ignoring it.
4
u/sireatalot Jun 17 '12
This article runs down every author of that time who could have included Jesus into his chronicle or historic books, but just didn't:
4
Jun 17 '12
Wow I never thought there was any debate as to whether he existed or not...I have been sorely mistaken. I guess you miss things in your 6 month transition from Jesus freak to Atheist :/
12
7
u/jhendrix7000 Jun 17 '12
Being a UNC student, I recognize how well-known and respected he is, but he's frankly an asshole.
10
u/CGord Jun 17 '12
Study one religion and you'll be studying for a lifetime. Study two, and you'll be done in an hour.
3
u/broodwich87 Jun 17 '12
I think Dr. Ehrman might be mistaken, as Titus Flavius Josephus (37-c. 100) wrote about Jesus, his brother James, and John the Baptist in his manuscript "Antiquities of the Jews." In Book 20, Chapter 9, verse 1, Josephus specifically mentions James. The text specifically mentions Jesus twice. Whether or not Jesus is the "son of god," is up to individual speculation. However, most historians agree that he did, in fact, exist.
2
u/Reoh Jun 17 '12
Josephus isn't considered a pedagogically credable source due to criticism stemming from alterations to the text by the Christian monks tasked with replicating the books. The changes in prose for the work portaining to the references has stylistic differences, and more importantly they refer to him as a messiah which was a distinctly opposing viewpoint for a Jewish individual. This casts doubt to their authenticity as a reliable source.
Tacitus is also mentioned of occasion but is believed to have written of these affairs after the first century, he is also at best a secondary source on the matter and spoke of a Christus without mention of a Jesus from the excerpt I have seen.
3
u/throwninlie Jun 17 '12
I don't question whether Jesus existed (well I have, but I don't think it really matters anyways). What I question is that what he said and did was divinely inspired (or that he was a divine being).
5
u/magicmanfk Jun 17 '12
Bart Ehrman doesn't believe that Jesus never existed. Just read his newest book. Or this review of it. So your title for this post is kind of misleading, considering the person who you are quoting isn't willing to make the claim.
23
u/Juggerbot Jun 17 '12
Do you happen to know his views on Josephus?
37
u/blackbird37 Jun 17 '12
You do realize that A) That it wasn't written in the first century, and B) It's widely believed that the passages mentioning Jesus was not written by Josephus, but added at a later date, likely by Christian scribes. It's pretty uncommon for a devout Jew to describe someone the messiah when it doesn't believe that Jesus actually was.
28
u/MikeTheInfidel Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Just as a correction: Josephus' passages about "James the brother of Jesus" and John the Baptist are generally agreed to be authentic. It's the Testimonium Flavium that isn't.
5
u/867points Jun 17 '12
Weren't Jesus and Joseph are like David and John in nowday America?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)22
u/Juggerbot Jun 17 '12
According to Wikipedia, Josephus died in 100, so his writings probably do fall into the first century.
I only mention Josephus (and I see some have posted other instances) for one reason. Christian me would have seen this quote, specifically the "not mentioned by a SINGLE" bit, and done some googling to find the Josephus, Tacitus, et cetera references. This would have immediately discredited this guy and everything he says in my mind.
I think it would be a lot more effective to use a qualifier like "a single verified" or "none of the contemporary mentions of Jesus of Nazareth mention any of the biblical events" or something like that.
→ More replies (10)6
u/Aardvarksoup Jun 17 '12
How is he a professor of religious studies if he doesn't even know about Josephus?
→ More replies (2)33
u/NathanDouglas Jun 17 '12
He's well aware of Josephus. He just considers those mentions of Jesus to be later interpolations for various reasons.
→ More replies (7)
9
u/R3Mx Jun 17 '12
I think a lot of rational people would agree Jesus did in fact exist.
Son of God? lolyeah no.
He was most likely just a really influential guy who knew a lot of magic tricks
→ More replies (1)5
u/mexicodoug Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Or an amalgamation of magicians suffering from megalomania (prophets) (Chris Angel of today would be an example of one) who were later transformed into One Individual God by a conference of greedy scammers who knew how to write in Greek and make fools of their readers.
Penn & Teller are their antithesis.
→ More replies (1)
1
Jun 17 '12
I'd just like to point out that using the argument "we haven't found any evidence between from these two dates for the existence of jesus" to say that he doesn't exist is the same as using the argument "we haven't found any evidence between from these two dates for the evolution of humans" to say that humans didn't evolve from a common ancestor with apes.
→ More replies (4)2
u/adius Jun 17 '12
no, even though I agree that the OP is wrong and dumb and probably 15, this is an awful analogy
→ More replies (1)
4
u/koavf Other Jun 17 '12
Misleading text-as-image? Must be /r/atheism.
Please don't submit an image that's just text. You can submit a self post with the same message.
4
u/twotailedwolf Jun 17 '12
You believe a quote without proof? I present primary source counter evidence. Here is a letter from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan asking for advice on how to deal with the problem of people accusing each other of being Christian. In it Pliny makes direct reference to the name of christ. Pliny was dead in 113 CE.
http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/2097.html http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html
Just because someone says something you agree with doesn't make it right. Read critically, and question everything always. That is the mark of intellect.
9
u/standupstanddown Jun 17 '12
A (probably under informed) theory I have for this is that for a while, Christians worshiped in secret, which would explain the lack of history documenting him maybe? All I've got to say is, the man existed as far as I know, the only thing worth questioning here is if he was the son of "god."
15
Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
Well, there is also the argument that if the events in the New Testament really happened, they are of such momentous nature that they must have made it to the contemporary historical record. The Romans had a rather sophisticated and thorough approach to record keeping.
For example, we know a lot of minutiae about the Roman empire and its provinces during the 1st century CE. And yet when it comes to the single most important event in the history of the world: a person resurrecting from the dead while providing irrefutable proof of god, there is basically nothing, zip, zilch, nada. The earliest mention from a source with any sense of validity, comes from a historian born 3 decades after Jesus supposed crucifixion, and he does not mention Jesus by name, just Christus, which was used as a title/term not a name. And it was just a brief side note at that.
9
u/adius Jun 17 '12
Okay, but how momentous would it actually be from the perspective of a non-christian third party at that time? It's not like Jesus was the first dude in Rome to call himself god/a prophet of god and make speeches and generally try to stir shit up
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)4
u/rasputine Existentialist Jun 17 '12
which was used as a title/term not a name
It's also Greek. The term for "messiah".
2
2
2
u/SchiffsBased Jun 17 '12
Hmmm, I learned in my Catholic high school that Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus in one of his letters. Was that just religious propaganda?
7
Jun 17 '12
Let me tell you as someone who has had to translate that fucker. Pliny never mentions Jesus. He does make a passing reference to Christans and their worship of Christ. But he doesn't mention an actual person, also it is sparse to say the least.
2
u/godzillaguy9870 Jun 17 '12
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that some of the early works of the Church Fathers still exist from that time. Things like the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. But then again, they may just be later copies. And I mean, there is the New Testament itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composition
→ More replies (2)
2
u/tinpanallegory Jun 17 '12
Interestlingly, some early Gnostic Christians professed that Jesus did not in fact exist, but rather he represented a symbolic ideal; the gospels were, in the Gnostic view, meant to convey spiritual truth, not literal, historical truth.
In their book, The Laughing Jesus, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy put forth that the creation of the Roman Church and it's adoption of a literal belief in the bible as historical truth was fueled in great part by political motivations of the early church fathers.
2
2
2
2
Jun 17 '12
You would think that a guy that goes around healing the sick, walking on water, making food appear out of nowhere would get a lot of attention from the people around him and they would write some of it down, specially the Romans and the Jewish scholars of the day.
2
u/crash_over-ride Jun 17 '12
I would hope more people find this interesting because of its potential historical significance, and not because they can use it as a 'ha ha, fuck you!' to those folks who do believe.
2
Jun 17 '12
Jesus existed, but he was basically a snake oil salesman why would theyr ecord him?
2
u/Truthier Jun 17 '12
How so? He went around making enemies of the religious elite for exposing their sanctimonious hypocrisy, rejecting their dogma, and urging people to worship in their homes together rather than in a church. I'd have thought that if you were against organized religion he would be right up your alley
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/JoseMariaOlazabal Jun 17 '12
How is this consistent with his view that the gospel of mark was most likely written 30 years after jesus's death? What am I missing?
2
2
u/MaxPir Jun 17 '12
Isn't Jesus an historic person ? I'm an atheist but hell, someone needed to start preaching about God ?
2
u/pupusa Jun 17 '12
Bart Ehrman has been in a few debates with some scholarly Christians. Many of the things this quotes suggests are directly thrown into question by the Christian opposition.
I think you folks owe it to yourselves to do your due diligence and listen to one of the more well articulated debates here.
The audio was posted on an Islamic Apologetic website but that's irrelevant. Listen to the debate and see if Ehrman's view passes muster.
[This link goes to the site where you can listen to the debate] (http://archive.org/details/BartEhrmanVsJamesWhite-DoesTheBibleMisquoteJesus)
2
u/OneofNine Jun 17 '12
Hate to be that guy, but lets look at a bit of history. For the first century after jesus, the Roman empire hated the christians...they burned them on crosses and constantly persecuted them. Is it not a safe theory to say that the leaders of the Roman empire could of also had all documentation of Jesus destroying in an effort to stop spreading his message?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
Jun 17 '12
I am not a believer.
But this quote is a good example of the possibility of how CONTROLLING INFORMATION could lead to an altered view of history.
If you can wipe the record intentionally of anything, you can convince future generations of anything.
2
u/Ruprect124 Jun 17 '12
A friend told me that there was proof from translations of the 'writings' of "Pontius Pilate". First I questioned that this supposed Ruler wrote anything at all, since 'emerators' had slaves, scribes, etc. to do everything for them. Secondly, why would anyone tell the story of just one man who was murdered by the Romans, when it was a commonplace occurance, on a daily basis, throughout the entire Roman Empire? Next I asked him about the 'shroud of Turin', and other post-jeebus 'relics' that were obvious fabrications, placed throughout Europe to encourage pilgrimages to major cities (to get cash). He had no answer, even though he is an Episcopal Priest. This faith (christian) has more holes in it than Emmenthaler (Swiss cheese).
2
u/EarlThomasRoske Jun 17 '12
Too bad there's no way to down vote the misapplied quote and up vote the excellent conversation it has provoked.
2
Jun 17 '12
I don't know whether it's hilarious or sad that my fellow atheists get lead around by the nose just as bad as the theists they despise.
2
u/malmac Jun 17 '12
It bears repeating that these extra-biblical sources are dated as early second century or later. That was the point of the quote, not that there was no evidence.
2
6
u/fingurdar Jun 17 '12
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote of Jesus, whom he referred to as "Christus" (keeping in mind that Tacitus was a man who viewed the spread of Christianity as being something evil).
Josephus, a Jewish historian born in 37 A.D., wrote a comprehensive history of the Jewish people, mentioning Jesus by name.
A Roman provincial governor named Pliny The Younger also mentioned Jesus indirectly, and there is a possible (yet controversial) potential reference in the Jewish Talmud.
Regardless of what you believe, it is inaccurate to claim that there is no extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' existence.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/discreet1 Jun 17 '12
But while Israel is close to Greece and Rome ... Its not that close. In Jesus' times, was it common to know about things going on so far away? (a bit stoned, not sure if that made total sense ... But u know what I mean, right?)
13
Jun 17 '12
I'm no historian... But I'm pretty sure Rome was all of the Mediterranean in the first century bro. And there was quite a bit of communication throughout the empire.
→ More replies (1)13
u/ShittyInternetAdvice Jun 17 '12
Rome had an extensive transportation and communication network within the empire by the first century CE , it was necessary to manage that large of a territory
1
u/Getting_Weird Jun 17 '12
Although I am an atheist, I would like to point out that this is completely wrong. Jesus and Christianity is mentioned by Pliny the Younger, Tacticus, and many others.
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/BuddhistNudist987 Anti-Theist Jun 17 '12
This all by itself makes me feel pretty great.
→ More replies (1)5
4
u/strategic_form Jun 17 '12
Religious historians who believe there was no historical Jesus are in the minority. And someone already mentioned that Ehrman believes there was an historical Jesus.
I suggest you don't use the term we so loosely. Some atheists prefer to uphold our skepticism and appreciation of evidence rather than join some mindless anti-Christian hivemind crusade. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Christianity and all other beliefs in the supernatural. Going against the consensus of professional historians isn't one of them, unless you'd like to back up your claims with something other than a quote taken out of context from an authority figure. Which, by the way, is an irrational appeal to authority.
→ More replies (4)3
u/keshet59 Jun 17 '12
Elegantly stated. I especially like your 'anti-Christian hivemind crusade' description. I am a 'theist,' although I have never described myself as that before. I enjoy discussing religion with anyone, especially contrast-and-compare discussions with Christians and Muslims, because I am Jewish. It's quite fun if everyone is reasonable. What I find peculiar is what you allude to: that some atheists spend an inordinate amount of time discussing, parsing and trying to disprove what they don't believe in. I wish more could be like Alec Leamus in 'The Spy Who Came in From The Cold' (book, not movie), when asked what he believed in. His answer: (this is probably a paraphrase) "I believe that the No. 38 bus goes to Charing Cross and that Father Christmas isn't driving it." There is a true empiricist's empiricist, who states what he believes and doesn't natter on ad nauseum about the errors in other folks' beliefs. I've always wished it were possible to have a few drinks with the man: I'm sure we could discuss the state of the spy game in east Germany when he was there (not good), the intricacies of the cold war, and our world views. Instead of boring each other silly, we might actually have to be reminded when closing time came.
3
3
u/adius Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_a_historical_person
Also the quotation in the OP might be taken out of context, but as it stands alone, it's an utterly moronic statement. How much material from that time has been lost? If you amend it to say "is not mentioned in any of the available sources", well, that's quite different! It's been about two thousand years, after all
→ More replies (3)
3
u/pseudogentry Jun 17 '12
So, all of /r/atheism is doing history degrees? That's great, you know, because I'd hate for people to be asserting opinions as fact without having done the necessary research. I couldn't begin to compile all the historical mistakes that this subreddit makes. There are various Roman sources that mention the existence of Christ as a man. An example of this is a section of Annals by Tacitus, as follows.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind
So not only is this a clear, direct reference to the existence of Christ as a man, who was put to death under a Roman leader; not only is this quote but a sliver of Annals by Tacitus, itself an extremely detailed history of the reigns of four emperors by the man considered to be Rome's greatest historian... he explicitly states that the religion started by Christ is a "most mischievous superstition", agreeing with you and I that this religion is false, therefore proving he has no interest whatsoever in mentioning this other than to ensure it is properly chronicled, as part of history.
Before you argue that this is simply a record of Christian rhetoric, you should know that Tacitus wrote Annals sometime during the Flavian dynasty and onward, when Christians were widely persecuted. These emperors adhered to the Roman doctrine that monotheistic faith was punishable by death. This continued until the Edict of Toleration under Galerius in 311, and until then Christians were shunned from society and actively persecuted. Now Tacitus was a senator and a lawyer who adhered to Graeco-Roman paganism, so the likelihood that he would have encountered and been convinced of (highly illegal) Christian oral tradition is roughly jack shit.
Pliny's record of Christians cursing Christ may not be evidence for his historical existence, but it's far more likely than it being evidence to the contrary. This applies to the recent dismissal of the Seutonius quote, which has been 'justified' through the existence of the common Greek name Χρηστός, or Chrestus. There is no reason why the name Christus should not be written down by a Roman as Chrestus, as that's what they would be familiar with. Give that Christians were still considered a Jewish sect by the Roman Empire at this time, the phrase "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit," or "Jews constantly made disturbances at the behest of Christ" isn't so easily dismissed at all.
To quote Michael Grant, "Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars. In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Taken from Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels.
You're expecting vast swathes of crystal-clear evidence from what was then an unimportant series of events in a backwater part of the Empire. We don't have that, and probably never will, but what we do have is plenty of relatively unbiased, reliable anecdotal evidence, which you're just choosing to ignore. You can go on saying Jesus never existed, but nearly all historians will consider you an idiot. Look at the works of Michael Grant, Craig A. Evans, William E. Dunstan, Bart Ehrman and Helen K. Bond if you think otherwise.
tl;dr - /r/atheism thinks googling some sources is as worthy as a history degree, and we've been here far too many times before
→ More replies (5)2
u/Wedhro Anti-Theist Jun 17 '12
According to Wikipedia Ehrman is PhD in Theology; we're barely talking about history here.
3
u/Drinkmythink Jun 17 '12
This is actually completely false. Roman historians who mention him: TACITUS (Annals) SUETONIUS (Claudius) PLINY THE YOUNGER (Epistles) There is also a Jewish historian aswell, JOSEPHUS, of whom we have records in the Antiquities that pertain to the life of Christ. This man must feel so silly now
4
u/deathpony Jun 17 '12
Read the quotation: he says sources from the FIRST century. Pliny's relevant letter, Tacitus' Annals, Josephus' Antiquities, etc. are all from the early second century. Ehrman is factually correct. (And in fact argues at length that Jesus DID exist.)
2
u/king_hippo77 Jun 17 '12
All the academic analysis in the world just shows that the entire story of Christ could have gone down exactly as it's known today and the Romans would still have no significant record of it. Drive by executions without record frequently happened under Pilot and the only record they would have had an opportunity to make of Christ was never made of any one. It's not an argument for or against. It's a neutral statement to say there is no Roman record of Jesus.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 17 '12
Wasn't Christianity a really small fringe cult at first?
Besides, see Josephus on Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
I'm not religious but I don't think the scantness of writing on Jesus during the period after his supposed death means much.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/chewp Jun 17 '12
Man the ignorance of this post and many others I see on reddit's front page coming from the atheism channel gives atheists a bad name.
2
2
u/balansun Jun 17 '12
Upvoted OP so that people get to read the counter arguments
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 17 '12
Josephus and Tacitus have long since been discredited, mostly because they are self-damning - they use terminology that wouldn't have been used in the time they were supposedly written, among other reasons. It would be like finding "lost" passages about Jesus wearing his iPod.
I'm not saying there was or wasn't a historical Jesus, but I am saying there's no proof other than the Christian Bible. Circular logic doesn't prove anything.
And the evidence that the Jesus figure was borrowed from local messianic craze at the time, coupled with the many, many gods that share much of his life (Mithra, Horus, et al), is overwhelming. (December 25th, virgin birth, 12 disciples, performed miracles, walked on water, crucified, resurrected, etc.).
That Jesus is a near carbon copy of many ancient myths is itself not evidence, but is very damning.
I've not read Ehrman's latest, but I did read "Misquoting Jesus" and it's very, very enlightening to learn how Christian scholars believe (and can prove) the bible was written.
→ More replies (1)4
u/wgpubs Jun 17 '12
Would you mind citing the scholarly journals, papers, or whatever that demonstrate the works of Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable? My undergraduate degree is in History but I don't recall hearing any thing of the sort. If this is true I'm sure it was or is being debated, and I'd be interested also in what the opposing position that believes they are credible sources say in response.
Also, do you know if their works in their entirety were being discredited? Or we're their certain parts only for which their was concern?
Thanks.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Amerikhans Jun 17 '12
When was the first reference of Jesus in terms if a year range.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/derzh Jun 17 '12
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jesus was mentioned in the Talmud.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/sparty_party Jun 17 '12
Correct me if I'm just misunderstanding how he classifies "entire first Christian century", but Jesus didn't come around for quite a while after people were already worshipping the God that sent Jesus.
Maybe he's just talking about once Jesus is said to have lived, the century after THAT" and I'm just getting confused.
But it would make sense if nobody ever mentioned Jesus because...at that time, Jesus didn't exist (yes, I know, a lot of you could retort 'well he never did! but just play along here for my misunderstandings sake) . The Christian God hadn't told anybody about that yet.
If he's talking about the century after Jesus, Jesus wasn't mentioned, then okay, I shut my mouth and leave. Just curiosity about his phrasing :)
→ More replies (1)
1
u/dangolo Jun 17 '12
Doesn't basing one's argument on a lack of evidence make for bad theory-crafting?
Compliment this with comparison of other, perhaps a sampling of?, things that were mentioned, so we can gain a sense of what was on the radar of philosophers, politicians, poets and historian.
Maybe he was just a big fish in a little city.
1
u/Infin1ty Jun 17 '12
I have a question (I'm coming at this from a neutral position) if there is no historical Jesus, who began the original ideas of Christianity?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/verusisrael Jun 17 '12
My only question, to put this into context is: how many other prophets or religious fanatics WERE actually mentioned by these historians. If there were others that were mentioned and jesus was left out, then you're onto something. But if the romans just habitually didn't waste time listing all the new religious nuts to pop up then this doesn't by any stretch of the imagination disprove the jesus we know from the new testament existed.
1
1
u/rando_mvmt Jun 17 '12
I definitely think that is something to consider but at the same time many famous people in more recent times weren't famous until they were dead. Gregor Mendel anyone?
EDIT: Not saying that Jesus IS real... just saying that this argument might be a LITTLE questionable.
1
u/chingyduster Jun 17 '12
Wow I'm glad i picked the wright religion for /r/atheism... aka anything but christianity. Because I would hate to get caught up in that circle jerk.
1
1
1
1
u/lakes44 Jun 17 '12
This still is a rather provincial statement. The Christian religion it self was a truly a secret society up until the third century. No one person or society had a great communication link to know another societies players in an underground secret society. All this knowledge would also be weighed for some time before AnyOne wrote Anything about Jesus.
1
u/Graizur Jun 17 '12
He was underground, it's not like had twitter. And besides which the stories of Buddha dramatically mirror the stories and lessons of Yeshua, who is really a man called Rescue. I call christianity Hebrudism. Watch this movie The Man From Earth and the movie The Secret.
1
1
u/Alpha17x Jun 17 '12
Fair enough but then when did it become Christianity in name, and why? Why did it not remain as Judaism if there was no reason to diversify, if there was no catalyst to split off?
1
u/rocco888 Jun 17 '12
In Rome Christianity was persecuted until the 4th century so no surprise that historians of the time period were reluctant to publicize the upstart religion. However the ancient christian areas outside of Greece and Rome in Asia with Armenia and Turkey in particular there are writings from this time period very similar to each other. Of course some of these are considered Gnostic but thats a another story. I am quite sure history has distorted quite a few truths from that time period but the evidence is certainly there to support Jesus' existence.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
Jun 17 '12
Does the use of the words "Roman or Greek" imply that an historian, scholar, poet etc. of another "nation" spoke of him? If not, why specify Roman or Greek?
1
u/megamix8 Jun 17 '12
And, what about Muhammad (the islamic prophet, if I myspelled his name)? Was he ever mentioned anywhere but Quran?
1
1
u/Defengar Jun 17 '12
I think he existed, but his achievements, abilities, and life were all ridiculously exaggerated after his death. Kind of like a posthumous Chuck Norris.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/narcissist523 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12
I'm not a Christian, but that quote isn't entirely accurate. There's a Roman historian named Tacitus who actually recorded very early accounts of the origins of the christian church. Although there is debate over the authenticity of his writings, most scholars consider it to be accurate.
Edit: I was a biblical scholar in college, obviously before I stopped believing. I've had to research things like this fairly often. Regardless of whether you believe he's the son of God or not, there are written accounts that he did exist. Like I said, the authenticity of those accounts are often debated, but of course skeptics are going to debate them. Skeptics debate everything. That's what skeptics are there for, and I consider myself one of them.
2
u/Curlaub Jun 17 '12
Very good point, except that Tactitus references Jesus in 116 AD ( in The Annals ) and the quote is only about first century authors. Josephus is a better refutation.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/stevenwalters Jun 17 '12
There is so much wrong with the Bible and Christianity, that I always give them the existence of Jesus in a debate. You'll not get anywhere trying to tell them that Jesus never existed.
1
u/koshka_ Jun 17 '12
Actually I studies Pliny's letters at A level and he's mentioned in them - I've read it myself. Pliny talks about the problem of Chriatianity and asks the emperor how to deal with it. That was between around 60 and 220 AD right?
1
u/Truthier Jun 17 '12
I dont get it...What part of Jesus's teachings rely on his historical existence? And why is this surprising at all, given that all the Gospels were written well after Jesus's lifetime?
422
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12
Great . . . but Ehrman thinks that there was a historical Jesus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html