Honestly, I do not think Jesus had a historical existence. Please watch this before responding: youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
After studying Richard Carrier, I think people are dumb to ever have believed in a historical Jesus in the first place. It's so obvious. There is just a lack of evidence.
The early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation, and the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (ie "Euhemerism").
Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.
Also, there are way too many parallels to the death and resurrection savior gods to take the Jesus myth seriously.
jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm I've found Doherty also has good articles on the subject. He knows greek but be warned that he only has a bachelor's
Gabriel Reyes
I'm an atheist but some of these conjectures are a little flimsy. I'm not suggesting Jesus was real but you got to think about it and study it and not just throw out random assertions without arguing the points
>The early epistles and Paul treat him as a celestial being that people know through divine revelation
Of course, because Paul never met him. How else would he receive his gospel unless through divine revelation.
But Paul knew and met with people like James the Just and several other followers of Jesus.
His point of having his own revaluation was to distance himself from the Jerusalem church and assert his own independence and authority over his own churches.
He is quite vocal in announcing how his own authority is just as strong as any of the 12 Apostles given that his gospel came straight from Jesus and not second hand account thus his work is purely worded as Jesus talking to him.
>the Gospels were altered a lot in the beginning by early Christian rival sects to give the impression of Jesus being a historical figure (ie "Euhemerism").
The Gospels have been altered sure but that's mostly through translation and changing some words to fit the doctrine of the Trinity better and they're really obvious. None of the earliest Greek codices have any evidence of "Euhemerism", the all posit Jesus as a historical figure
>Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus are not reliable evidence too for obvious reasons.
In as much as Plato and Xenophon are not reliable evidence for Socrates. He left no writings. Plato and Xenophon don't give the same picture of Socrates, so we would have to conclude he isn't a real person either on that unreliable evidence
>Also, there are way too many parallels to the death and resurrection savior gods to take the Jesus myth seriously. This doesn't suggest that he wasn't a real person, only that his cult was influenced by local cults just like any of the cults of Roman emperors who became gods upon death. They were real people
Parker Murphy
*tips fedora*
Owen Roberts
New to the thread, but honestly, what I would think is the single most important note as to Jesus's non-existence would be the quick and almost complete fragmentation of the early church.
You've got a huge number of "heretical" sects springing up at around the same time as "Mainstream" Christianity, with enormously divergent views concerning Jesus's divinity, how it co-existed with his physicality, the relationship to pre-existing Judaism, etc.
If there was one central figure running around Judea preaching a message, you'd expect things to stay relatively unified until he got nailed to a tree, and to gradually drift apart, with heresies becoming more and more pronounced.
Instead, you have almost the opposite effect, with a plethora of varying opinions from the start, and only around 70-100 do you see real efforts to bring everyone in to the same line.
Brody Watson
No he's a goy. Parents are Christian and he even converted to Taoism as a young man. That's how white we're talking.
Eli Foster
To the contrary, I'd say the plethora of opinions on Jesus's supernatural nature &c. while the outline of his "historical/material" life is generally accepted is evidence that this was a real person being interpreted in different ways.
Owen Campbell
Well it's not like the New Testament is clear on it either. It's too easy to change words and sayings to fit your worldview.
Mark has moments where he inserts his own opinion into the narrative like when Jesus is eating with "unclean" hands and just straight up assets "Thus Jesus deemed all foods clean" when Jesus said nothing of the sort.
Then the author of Mathew is writing down his Gospel and sees that line in Mark and takes it out because he doesn't agree with anti-Mosaic law stuff.
The Synoptic Gospels aren't even clear on who Jesus is, he just keeps calling himself the "Son of Man" and quotes Psalms that are really about Davidic Kings. It's only in John that you get the whole "I AM" stuff and John was obviously written almost 70 years after Jesus's supposed death with all the anachronisms and later inventions of doctrine
Ryder Sanchez
The thing is, Jesus didn't set out strict rules like Mohammad. Much of the early church's theology was trying to figure out what the fuck he meant. Jesus didn't say "Gentiles have to be circumcised" so they had to figure that shit out for themselves.
Add to that how the church spread, in small, underground and separated communities, I don't think it's odd that Christians diverted so quickly.
Angel Gomez
>Richard Carrier That's your problem there.
Christian White
right click hide
Ian Wright
not an argument
Brandon Allen
No need for one. Carrier's more or less the equivalent of a Dark Age preacher when it comes to this. Seriously, he considers the lack of contemporary references for someone who isn't Caesar or an equivalent amount of fame during their time alive to be good.
Brandon Williams
*good evidence
Jacob Sullivan
We know the 12 Apostles existed and we know Mary existed.
Aaron Taylor
Worth noting that Richard Carrier only gives about 2/3rds probability that his theory is true. His position isn't so much, Jesus didn't exist and we know this for sure. More like, "Given the evidence we do have and the evidence we don't, it's more likely that he didn't exist".
Mason Kelly
it's a bit more than the lack of contemporary references in the histories. the early epistles have no references to any sayings or actions of jesus. Paul even says that Peter and all the other apostles recieved their gospel from revelation just like him
Elijah Wilson
>"Given the evidence we do have and the evidence we don't, it's more likely that he didn't exist". Yeah, that's what I meant. OP here.
Connor Wood
>please watch this one hour and ten minute video I will post instead of actually formulating an argument of my own get fucked cunt
Cooper Hall
>the early epistles have no references to any sayings or actions of jesus >Paul even says that Peter and all the other apostles recieved their gospel from revelation just like him I'm going to need a citation here & evidence that this means anything. References to even many people are often dated many decades after their deaths.
Jace James
That doesn't really mean much nor is saying "fuck you & die" going to make your point any stronger.
Ethan Kelly
jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm here's a good explanation of Paul not believing in a celestial christ I can't really give you a reference to the epistles not referencing sayings of Jesus since it's the lack of references. you'd have to read the NT yourself
Robert Diaz
*believing
Juan Russell
I should name some unanswered parts. The book of Galatians has verse 4:4 saying "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law "
I find it odd that I can see references to Galatians there without a mention of this verse especially. The guy definitely seem to believe in a historical Christ.
I find myself questioning why Doherty thinks "questioning its authenticity and judging it as a likely interpolation" works here. He also seems to question if the "women" he was said to be born of too is mystical, I find that to be darn odd. He then proceeds to say things like "Surely he isn't including Jesus when he says those bad things about the Jews" when clearly this is supposed to be a letter & the "You" addressed to whoever's reading it. He talks about context but I highly doubt Paul is writing this to a non-breathing & living person. Similarly, I highly doubt he's trying to say "Each & every Jew does these awful things" given he & the disciples would be included in the criticism. Overall, I don't find reason to support what he says.
Similarly, I see legitimate reason for Paul trying to avoid mention of his crucifixion. Paul once wrote "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" & considering how being crucified was treated socially, I say it's understandable why someone would try to avoid drawing attention to it. Being crucified was almost considered to be cursed & abandoned by the gods. A benefit of being a Roman citizen was being less likely to be crucified in those times.
Overall, I think poorly of Doherty has written. I think that he should read more of Middle Platonism for one.
Jackson Peterson
William of Occam would have a heart attack there. How contrived are some of those? It's almost like he's digging for the smallest "Paul prefers to write his verbs in capitals thus he couldn't have written those" in some desperate attempt to save his thesis. No wonder this hasn't made a big impact in the academic level. Guys like him & Carrier make even the atheist historians reject his shit.
Dylan Hill
Everything we know about the ancient world often comes from a SINGLE reliable source. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth has multiple sources showing his existence is quite remarkable
Ayden Thomas
Especially for his social status. No one, not even the bible, claims he was the emperor's kid or some rich man's brother or anything like that. High class folk don't always get anything yet he does.
Ryder Turner
>The fact that Jesus of Nazareth has multiple sources showing his existence is quite remarkable
Not doubting you, I just need something that doesn't come from some hyper-christian website that hasn't been updated since 2002.
