Did Jesus exist? Probably not

by The 12 Apostates 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  The 12 Apostates

  Threads about this have been made before, but none have been made for a few years. I was very much on the fence with this one, I never really cared. But I became curious recently, having had a few interactions with street preachers. Based on the limited research I've conducted over the past few days, I've come to the tentative conclusion that Jesus never existed. There were obviously many people named Jesus (or however they spelt it at the time) living in the ancient middle east, but none of them were the 'Jesus'. Not the supernatural Jesus, nor a more earth-bound facsimile. If there was a Jewish teacher called Jesus in 1st century Palestine, then his life will have been so different from the Jesus of Christianity that one couldn't possibly say he was the same person.

  Numerous pieces of evidence brought me to this conclusion, but the final nail in the coffin was the discovery that Nazereth didn't even exist in the 1st century. No Nazereth means no Jesus of Nazereth. I'm even inclined to retract the word 'tentative' from the previous paragraph.

  WHAT DO YOU THINK?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  While I am pretty confident that there was no "Jesus" keep in mind that this is a can of worms.
  
  "They" will tell you that virtually all the scholars, the people in the know somehow, the professors and archaeologists, all of them will confirm that Jesus existed and was crucified. It just isn't so, but because it is so widely believed, it is very hard to present evidence against his existence without them belittling the evidence.
• 

  The 12 Apostates

  It doesn't matter what 'they' believe. Reality doesn't need their approval. However, if they can present some evidence that Jesus was real, then that would certainly be of interest to me. 'So-and-so scholar believes in Jesus so he must be real' obviously isn't going to be enough, but if they can explain why said scholar believes, that would be a start. The onus is very much on the believer to demonstrate that he existed, not on the non-believer to prove that he didn't.
• 

  sir82

  Bogus "Josephus" reference to surface in 3....2....1....

  For what it's worth, I agree with you. There probably was an itinerant preacher named "Jesus" wandering around Galilee in the first half of the first century, who attracted a number of followers.

  Then Paul had a vision of "Christ" and wrote some persuasive letters.

  One or more of Paul's disciples had been a disciple of the wandering Jesus.
  

  Shake, stir, write some gospels, and shebang - over the course of many decades you've got Jesus Christ, the "Son of God".

  Just to save y'all some time, I know that is a gross oversimplification, but I think it is a fairly accurate broad outline.
  
• 

  The 12 Apostates

  There probably was an itinerant preacher named "Jesus" wandering around Galilee in the first half of the first century, who attracted a number of followers.
  ...
  One or more of Paul's disciples had been a disciple of the wandering Jesus.

  Whilst this is entirely possible, perhaps probable, there's no evidence that even a wandering teacher named Jesus existed. There were many Jewish teachers of course, and many many Jewish sects, but we don't know that any of these teachers was called Jesus, and we certainly can't make any connections between any of these teachers (Jesus or not) and the latter invention of the messianic Christ figure.

  Little is known for certain of Paul/Saul and his disciples either, although he is at least known to have existed in some form.
• 

  cofty

  I think there is a serious case to be made but having read and listened to a different versions of the 'mythical Jesus' theories I am unconvinced.

  I think the deification of a real historical Jewish Rabbi is the more compelling explanation. There are some real problems with the idea that he was invented out of whole cloth.
• 

  cofty

  the final nail in the coffin was the discovery that Nazereth didn't even exist in the 1st century

  Actually the case for that assertion is very weak...
  
  
• 

  The 12 Apostates

  A Jewish Rabbi existing and being later transformed by storytelling into Jesus is as good as Jesus never existing if the Jewish Rabbi bears no resemblance to Jesus in any way, which is likely the case given how little of a mark this Rabbi must have made on his higher profile contemporaries (none of them ever mentioned him). All knowledge about Jesus comes from writings that originate years after his supposed death. So whether it's likely or not, his existence remains a hypothesis and must be treated as unknown till proven true.

  The fact that the existence of Nazereth in the 1st century as anything more than a city of the dead remains in dispute still means that the onus is on believers to demonstrate that it existed. As yet it remains at best unproven.
• 

  cofty

  Not so much.

  What basis do you have for asserting that the Jesus of history 'bears no resemblance to Jesus in any way'?

  All knowledge about Jesus comes from writings that originate years after his supposed death. So whether it's likely or not, his existence remains a hypothesis and must be treated as unknown till proven true.

  The same can be said about many historical characters. If you are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus of the gospels was invented out of whole cloth then you have the burden of proof.

  As for Nazareth the claim that it did not exist as an active town in Jesus' day is unsupported by the facts.

  There are just too many convoluted stories in the gospels that make no sense if the writers had total freedom to invent a mythical character. Luke's contortions about the birth of Jesus is a classic example.
  
  
• 

  The 12 Apostates

  Let me flip it around and ask you in what ways this Jewish Rabbi who you think probably existed resembles Jesus? How can you say he does when we know literally nothing about him? I didn't actually say that he bears no resemblance to Jesus in anyway, I was simply implying that we know nothing about him so for all we know he bears no resemblance to Jesus, and the onus is still on the believer to demonstrate a connection. Until a person can even be identified, this is going to remain a tall order. Maybe there was someone, maybe there wasn't, but when you're dealing with maybes, it's always best to err on the side of non-belief.

  We know there were thousands of Jewish Rabbis around at the time in many sects, but we know very little about their life stories. What evidence is there for a Jewish Rabbi who was born in Bethlehem, had 12 disciples and was crucified in the 30s? Those are some of the earth-bound elements of Jesus's story and none of them have any evidence outside of the gospels to support their veracity; gospels which were written decades later by unknown authors. It's not extraordinary to claim that these events didn't happen. Jesus was probably based on many different Jewish Rabbis of the time, at best.

  The convoluted gospel stories could well be based on disagreements rooted in the fact that although the stories are mythical, the motives behind the writers shifted over the decades, requiring earlier parts to be altered with convoluted additions, like the Bethlehem story. The origin doesn't have to have been genuine for that to be the case.