Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Gday,

Originally posted by skajkingdom
But this is the case with many other personalities of ancient times (Alexander, Genghis Khan, ...).

Alexander came several centuries before Jesus,
yet there is more evidence for him than Jesus,
although it is true we do not have any 1st hand eye-witness accounts.

But we DO actually have a contemporary account of Alexander :
www.livius.org...

And there is a great deal of physical evidence for the actions of Alexander - such as cities he founded including Alexandria - it is not possible for Alexander NOT to have existed.

The evidence for Alexander is HUGE and unquestioned.
(But it does not include a 1st hand eye-witness account.)


So to recap,
Let's make sure my argument is clear :

My #1 main point here on this thread is :
There is NOT ONE genuine 1st hand eye-witness account of Jesus.

(But I am NOT saying : "therefore this lack proves Jesus did not exist".)


However,
My wider argument does go as follows :

* it is quite surprising that there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus(considering how influential he is said to have been, and considering we DO have many books from early Christians, even some forged in the name of his various followers.)

(Of course, if we DID have several genuine 1st hand claims of personally meeting Jesus (such as the genuine accounts of Cicero meeting Caesar) then that would be very strong evidence that Jesus DID exist.)

* this lack of 1st hand evidence, combined with much other evidence of different kinds that Jesus did not exist - leads me to conclude Jesus was a myth.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
What I was saying is that someone citing Him who personally met Him isn't a litmus test or requirement for His existence.

The lack of 1st hand accounts, coupled with other lacks, and other evidence that Jesus was not historical - all argues for the conclusion that Jesus was a myth.

Originally posted by texastig
You can look to other things than that to get proof.

"Proof"?
What proof?
If you had proof you'd have posted it.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
There's other proofs of Jesus being real.

In fact there are no "proofs".
If there was, you'd post them.
All we've had so far is beliefs and claims.

Originally posted by texastig
Kapyong's OP isn't a litmus test that Jesus isn't real.

If there WAS some 1st hand eye-witness accounts of Jesus, that would be good evidence for his existing.

The LACK of such accounts, amongst many books, including forged followers' books; combined with other lacks, argues AGAINST Jesus beign historical.

Originally posted by texastig
Talk about children? Did you see where Kapyong said, "I win". Will you call him a child also so it's fair?

THIS post is about
Claims to have met a historical Jesus.

We have seen there is NO SUCH 1st hand claim to have met a historical Jesus (just Paul having VISIONS, and later people making claims about OTHERS.)

So I did win on that specific point.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by schuyler
OP seems to think he won something. He hasn't won a darned thing. Zip. Nada.

In fact I have shown conclusively that there is no genuine 1st-hand eye-witness accounts of Jesus. I won that point. The point of THIS thread.

The larger point of whether Jesus existed - that is much more complex, and is certainly not proven by the lack of eye-witnesses, nor have I claimed so.

But this lack of eye-witnesses is just another lack, another missing layer of what COULD be evidence for a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by schuyler
The religion exists. The gospels exist. The tradition is there.

Therefore ...
Therefore what?
Of course the religion exists, the Gospels exist, the tradition exists - so what? No-one ever denied that.

Your unspoken claim appears to be : "...therefore Jesus existed".

Well, that conclusion does NOT follow at all, let's see how it works for other examples :

Scientology exists. Dianetics exist. The tradition is there.
Therefore Xenu existed.
Fail.

Hinduism exists. The Gita exist. The tradition is there.
Therefore Krishna existed.
Fail.

Tradition and beliefs can, and do, form around mythical origins.

Originally posted by schuyler
I'm reminded of the old Carl Sagan quote: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

But Sagan is wrong there.
The absence of evidence CAN BE evidence of absence.

Some people believe in faeries,
but
The absence of evidence for faeries IS evidence of absence of faeries.

Some people believe in leprechauns,
but
The absence of evidence for leprechauns IS evidence of absence of leprechauns.

Originally posted by schuyler
That's where the whole argument falls down like your pants around your ankles. You don't have an argument, but like the Emperor with no clothes, you seem incapable of realizing that.

Rubbish.
My main argument remains :
there is no 1st hand eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

But the wider issue remains open - whether Jesus existed.
So far no-one here has come up with any hard evidence for Jesus existing.
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
There is no certain historical evidence for Jesus.
You didn't even bother TRYING to present any - you just leapt right in with the childish insults - a sure sign you HAVE no case.

It is you with no clothes.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Um im a little confused you said "We have DOZENS of writings from early Christians. "Many from allegedly those who knew, followed, or were RELATED to him."

Why do you find that confusing?
Did you not know many NT books are claimed to be by followers and relatives?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
"allegedly" or not is this not what you are looking 4?lol

lol what?
Did you not know that modern NT scholars agree they were NOT actually written by anyone who met Jesus?

James - forged, not by James his alleged brother.
Jude - forged, not by Jude his alleged brother.
Peter, John also forged.
FORGED books in the name of followers and relatives.
But NO real ones.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
What are you saying is what im asking?

So, you still don't actually know what I am saying?
Perhaps you should try, you know, like - READING my posts?


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong
Perhaps you should try, you know, like - READING my posts?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9dc95b221493.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 7/14/2010 by skajkingdom]

Gday,

Originally posted by d60944
He left a church,

But you are just assuming your conclusion - that Jesus existed to leave a church.

What we actually see is :
* a church
* that is based around Jesus

What we DON'T see is a connection between a historical Jesus and the early church. That connection is assumed, but it's missing.

The 1st layers of the NT are about a spiritual Jesus, not a historical one. If there HAD been a historical Jesus, then people who knew him, and his relatives, would have power after he had gone.

That's exactly what we see with Islam, Scientology, Theosophy and many more - different relatives and followers split into sects - each one trumpetting his closeness to the founder.

But we see something very different in Christianity :
Paul, the founder, says :
* he got his Gospel of Jesus from revelation, and scripture
* NOT from a man or from leaning
* that HE is just as much an apostle (not disciple) as James and Peter
* that they all had visions of Christ (opthe = vision)

James and Jude were allegedly brothers of Jesus, but their letters show NO sign of that.

The Gospels came LATER, but they are now FIRST in the bible, which gives a false idea. In fact Christians don't show any knowledge of the Gospels until early-mid 2nd century or so.

Most notably, Christian knowledge about Jesus explodes just as knowledghe about the Gospels also happens. This is clear evidence that knowledge of Jesus came FROM the Gospels.

And where did the Gospel(s) get ther ideas ?
From the Tanakh (the Jewish scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament)
www.michaelturton.com...

So,
it started with a spiritual Risen Christ, a son-of-God - the historical Jesus came later. NOT with a historical Jesus with legends added.

In fact - I don't think Paul, or the other early NT epistle writers had ever even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

If you read just Paul, James, Jude, John you would know nothing definite about the life of Jesus.

Originally posted by d60944
oral traditions,

Every sect and cult and legend has that.
But what we do NOT see is a historical Jesus at it's base.

e.g. -
allegedly, Jesus himself TAUGHT the Lord's Prayer directly, personally to his disciples.

We would expect this much vaunted oral tradition carefully recorded it word for word, right?

Nope.

Just the opposite - many different variations, two different Gospel versions even, and various minor variations. The Lord's Prayer is actually one of the MOST varied parts of the NT.

Oral tradition failed there, like it failed to record the details of Easter morning.

The 'oral tradition' is a fake, a story made up to cover the huge gap before the Gospels were written.

Originally posted by d60944
and the apostolic fathers. The first two still exist.

But not ONE genuine account of meeting Jesus, or anyone who ever met Jesus.

Just lots of FAKE claims of such.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong
My #1 main point here on this thread is :
There is NOT ONE genuine 1st hand eye-witness account of Jesus.

Not true. Paul sates in 2Cor 5:16, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

It is too bad that your other current thread was consigned Below. You might want to write a mod to revisit that decision, since the problem may have been the combination of its title and its being spammed by off-topic posts from the guy who met Jesus in a hotel room.

But, on to the business at hand. I agree, of course, that no first-hand written report of seeing Jesus survives. Unsurprisingly, I would draw more modest conclusions from that than you do.

Not to say that it isn't a problem, just not much of a datum either way on the existence question. In a world where the majority of people were illiterate, and with respect to a guy whose tactical choices led him to hang out disproportionately with illiterate people, we find no written memoirs of meeting him. Two thousand years later. So what?

The problem for the truest of the true believers (although not much for the median Nicene Chrisitan, I don't think) is why the apparent delay of decades in anybody writing anything about Jesus. That has an explanation within the received story: his first followers thought he was coming back, and in their lifetimes. There was no point, then, in writing down what was going to be irrelevant very soon.

In this case, I think it is the explanation of the superficial problem that reveals the deeper difficulty.

While competent prophecy includes ensuring that you never get caught wrong (What was the "generation" that hasn't passed away while awaiting his return?), it does seem that Jesus' earliest followers understood him as having promised to come back in their own lifetimes. There is even gospel witness for that, in the last chapter of John.

Paul seems to have been the one to realize that even in the short term, writing has many uses. Biographical writing appears to have been a reaction to Paul. Maybe the old guard, Paul's rivals in the movement, were playing their strong suit, that their leaders had actually met the Founder in the flesh.

But the nub of our disagreement, yours and mine, is

it is quite surprising that there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus

I don't think it's surprising at all. There is better evidence for John the Baptist, a contemporary in the same business who came to a similar end, and who was Jesus' mentor, with a substantial intersection in their prominent followers.

I don't doubt that John the Baptist lived. No written first-hand meeting memoir surives about the Baptist, either.

As you know, I also think that John the Baptist is far and away the more reasonable comparison with Jesus than Alexander or Ghengis Khan. There is no Nicene Chrisitan claim that Jesus ever carried a weapon against an armed opponent. The population, the sheer numbers of people, who could have seen Jesus was minuscule compared to the population who could have seen the conquerors. And even for them, written first-hand memoirs of personal encounters are thin on the ground today.

kap, you don't have a case. There's nothing there. Address the issue:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Do you get that part?

You seem to feel that because we have no written first person accounts of Jesus that somehow the entire Christian religion will fall into nothingness. Let me tell you something:

It does not matter whether Jesus was a 'real' person or not.

You certainly have not proven Jesus was not a real person. All you have proven is that we don't have a first person written account. If you presented this as 'evidence' in a court of law you would be laughed out of court. You are not presenting a logical argument. It is logically defective.

What you are saying is irrelevant to the Chrisitian religion. 2,000 years of Christian ideas are out there, well documented. And about a billion or so people believe there's something to it. So your unproven idea doesn't really matter.

Look at it this way. Mormon's don't smoke. Why is that? Well, one day the Mormon elders were in a closed room discussing church business. Everyone was smoking so the room became intolerable. The prophet Joseph Smith stormed angrily out of the room. A few minutes later he came back in and proclaimed, "God told me you guys can't smoke!"

Do you believe God actually told Smith smoking was prohibited? I don't either. That's total BS as far as I'm concerned.

But Mormons don't smoke.

reply to post by Kapyong


Oh here we go. Forged? who says? A few people? ok and can they prove it? Can you send me the link with this proof.
Now if you want to get technical your right because like the book of Enoch he did not write the book because his kids coped it by re-writing it just like all the books in the Bible scribes rewrote the books.

Like i said before if the books author did not say he met Jesus then what does that matter? I said what are you asking. I should of said what are you trying to say in a pointless round about way?

And if anyone shows you then you just say its forged but who did "imitate falsely" the books and why?

You asked "Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?" You did not ask who can show me a book that was not forged were 1 guy said hey i met Jesus thanks for reading.


I know how this plays out you don't want people to show you anything you don't want the answer. In the end you just want people to believe what you say as you believe what a hand full of people have said.

About the forged books just ask your self if they had 100% proof then why would it not just be known as fact? How would anyone say i disagree because blah blah blah?

And don't get mad its all good kid. I really don't care because this is one of the many things on ATS that can go on and on and its just funny.

I don't care what you believe in or anyone else for that matter.

I was a hardcore atheist that set out to prove every belief out there wrong but i did it unbiased with an open mind but because of what i found and seen im Christen today.

And do you care? No (see my point) so count to 10 and relax.

reply to post by GunzCoty

I was a hardcore atheist...

I just like to point out that it's not rare for an atheist to believe in an historical Jesus. I'm an atheist, and I believe it's possible that a man named Jesus once walked the Earth.

K supported his points well in this thread and it seems quite likely that all accounts of Jesus' life are simply hearsay.

For me however, whether or not Jesus was or wasn't an historical figure is of little importance. I'm 100% certain that he wasn't a godman. For one, if he had performed all those miracles, he would have been prominently mentioned outside the NT. (he isn't)

Also, remember that upon his death, Saints throughout the world supposedly rose from their graves. The chances of something like that happening and no one mentioning it in their own writing is impossible. Imagine zombies walking around everywhere and not a peep about it by any historians or any official scribes.

Also, remember that upon his death, Saints throughout the world supposedly rose from their graves. The chances of something like that happening and no one mentioning it in their own writing is impossible. Imagine zombies walking around everywhere and not a peep about it by any historians or any official scribes.

The force of a point like that depends a great deal on whom you are arguing with, and what conclusion you are trying to establish.

However well represented the viewpoint is on the wild wild web, biblical literalism is a minority view, even among Nicene Chritians. So, yes, if someone is on the hook for that bit about dead saints walking through Jerusalem, then by all means make them pay for it.

But if they aren't, then so what? Unlike Luke or John, Matthew is not "self documenting." It does not say that its contents are offered for their historical truth, nor that the purpose of the writing is to teach history. Other motives for writing exist, including to compile the corpus of stories in circulation for their own sake. A modern example would be the work of the Grimm brothers.

Canonicity will not exist for centuries after Matthew, and when it comes, it will not mean "to be taken as literally true." Daniel, for instance, is canonical, even though it is a novel about a prophet, not a record of prophecy. (Biblical literalists believe differently, of course, and that's fine with me.) Other canonical works are visibly poems, proverbs, folk stories, and so forth.

Finally, there is the internal evidence of the text itself. There are plenty of story points that are unique to Matthew, and which are obviously dragged in from a variety of sources, with no indication of what the sources were supposed to be.

In other words, Matthew looks like a compilation of miscellaneous popular tales of Jesus. So, maybe it is just what it appears to be.

Lol, for all we know, Matthew's point was to disparage the Jerusalem church (look at all that silly stuff they used to believe), in order to promote the Gentile congregations (we're too smart to fall for any of that). Yes, religion fans, maybe it's a satire.

For one, if he had performed all those miracles, he would have been prominently mentioned outside the NT. (he isn't)

Again, the internal evidence suggests otherwise. Twice in Acts, apostolic miracles, which are pretty much the same thing as Jesus', are attributed either to secular causes or other religious traditions. Simon famously can do everything the apostles do, except one vaguely described thing, for which he tries to buy the secret. On another occasion, Paul and a companion are mistaken for Roman gods on tour.

In the gospels, some of Jesus' audience thinks he's in league with the demons he's exorcising. He gives a logically dicey, though smoothly literary, reply (A house divided cannot stand. Meaning what? It would never occur to demons to field a double agent or a Trojan horse? Are they stupid?)

And of course there's the one miracle that is a show stopper, raising someone else from the dead in full public view, with lots of subsequent public appearances with the revenant. That one isn't even reported in the majority of gospels.

So, the vast bulk of the stuff Jesus did appears to have been unconvincing even to part of his live audience, probably because other traveling magicians did the same tricks. It would seem that exorcising demons was pretty much what passed for "primary health care" back then, not headline news. As to the big one, if it didn't make the other gospels, then where's the surprise that it didn't make Josephus?

BTW, why is it always Josephus? Could it be that nobody else who knew how to read and write gave a rat's patootie what did or didn't happen in a backward, religiously besotted outpost, best known for its men who mutilated their penises and that had been defeated in such detail that the place was now a complete non-entity in world affairs?

In some sense, Jesus attracting wide secular notice back then would be like Haitian Voodoo feats making the New York Times today.


[edit on 15-7-2010 by eight bits]

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
But I believe 2Peter is true.

Of course you do.
Because you are a faithful believer.
But modern NT scholars agree otherwise for reasons I have posted here many times.
Reasons you just ignore.

Originally posted by texastig
Just because scholars are divided over 2Peter doesn't mean it's not true.

They are not divided.
2 Peter is probably the most obvious forgery of the whole NT.

Originally posted by texastig
I would give the benefit of the doubt to 2Peter.

There is little doubt.
And the 'benefit' of a faithful believer is worthless.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
Here's a great verse that Paul knew Jesus.

Incredible.

According to Christians -
Paul never met a historical Jesus, he just had a vision of the Risen Christ years after the alleged events.

According to Paul -
Paul merely had a vision of the Risen Christ years after the alleged events.

According to texastig :
Paul knew Jesus.

tex - your story is TOTALLY different to everyone else's.
Did you even KNOW that ?

Why don't you just claim YOU knew Jesus?
That would be as believable.


Kap

Originally posted by texastig
Not true. Paul sates in 2Cor 5:16, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

Do you really not understand that this claim is completely at variance with Christian tradition, and Paul's own story ?

Paul did NOT meet a historical Jesus.
He makes many weird comments about the Risen Christ,
he talks about "kata sarka" this and "kata pneuma" that.

But No-ONE - not one single person on this planet apart from YOU, AFAIK, thinks this is a claim to have met a historical Jesus.

Can you explain why YOU think this odd passage over-rides everthing else that Paul and Christians claim?


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by schuyler
kap, you don't have a case. There's nothing there.

I have a strong case which has been conclusively shwon true on this thread :

There are no (genuine) 1st hand claims to have met a historical Jesus.
You certainly did NOT cite any.
It's very strange that you think you have won some point.

Originally posted by schuyler
Address the issue:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you get that part?

I DID address the issue!
You IGNORED my answer, then berated me for not answering?
Dishonesty & hypocrisy.

Essentially,
you are now saying that you believe in unicorns, in faeries, leprechauns.

Originally posted by schuyler
You seem to feel that because we have no written first person accounts of Jesus that somehow the entire Christian religion will fall into nothingness.

I do not feel that at all.
THERE is your problem - YOU got you knickers in a twist because of YOU feelings about what my motives might be.

But, sadly, you totally FAILED to address the issue - about 1st hand accounts of meeting Jesus.

Originally posted by schuyler
You certainly have not proven Jesus was not a real person. All you have proven is that we don't have a first person written account.

Fantastic !
I am glad we agree !
The point of THIS thread is conclusivly shown true.
So why did you get your knickers all bunched up, when we actually agree?

It's funny how believers get all worked up and emotional when sceptics bring up the FACT that we have no 1st-hand accounts of Jesus. Some just CANNOT admit it.

It seems the slightest hint, or suggestion, that Jesus did not exist is like a red-rag to a bull. Why would that be I wonder?

Anyway-
Now that THIS subject is finished with (apart from diehards like text) I may move on to other subjects dealing with the non existence of Jesus.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Oh here we go. Forged? who says? A few people?

The consensus of modern NT scholars says.
Brown, Fitzmyer, Crossan, etc.
Read details here:

Originally posted by GunzCoty
ok and can they prove it?

Oh dear oh dear.
You said "prove" - FAIL.
It seems you are a newbie to all this.

Can you PROVE unicorns don't exist?
Can you PROVE faeries don't exist?
Can you PROVE leprechauns don't exist?
Can you PROVE aliens don't exist?

There is no "prove";
there is evidence, there is suppport, there is to show conclusively.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Can you send me the link with this proof.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Like i said before if the books author did not say he met Jesus then what does that matter? I said what are you asking. I should of said what are you trying to say in a pointless round about way?

Well,
if you don't STILL get my point by now you never will.


Cya round...


Kap

Gday,

tex -

Consider these words of Paul's

"I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "

Paul says he was "crucified with Christ".
Is that a literal or metaphorical claim?

"We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Paul says "we were buried with Christ".
Is that a literal or metaphorical claim?

"that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin."

Paul says "our old man was crucified with Christ".
Is that a literal or metaphorical claim?


Taking Paul's spiritual and metaphorical comments about Christ and "kata sarka" as references to Paul knowing Jesus is just plain wrong.

Paul is talking about a spiritual being, a higher being.
A god-man who he met in VISIONS.


Kap

Kap is right that Paul never met Jesus, nor did he claim to. But this entire issue is not exactly new. Remember Dr. Albert Scweitzer, the army ant guy in Africa? Before the decided to go to Africa he was a noted Biblical scholar and also a musician. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952.

He published a book called "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" in 1908. This book was such a milestone in biblical thought that it effectively ended similar research for decades. I won't go into detail about what he said. The book is still available if anyone is interested, but one of the key points he made is that despite all the studies that had been done of the historical Jesus, not only do we not know Jesus, we CANNOT know Jesus. It's impossible and it will always be impossible.

For modern scholarship I suggest John Meier's four volume work called "A Marginal Jew; rethinking the historical Jesus." I found Volume Three, "Companions and competitors" particularly interesting as a study of the type of stuff that went on back then.

If you are seriously interested in these issues, including whether Jesus really existed, these are the kinds of books that deal with the issue in depth. They are light years better than arguing with a boy on the internet who really doesn't understand what he is talking about.

BTW, I am not a Christian myself.