Doubting Jesus' existence?

[historia]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

[Thatguy]

But then I read more about how early Christians had many different views on Jesus. Some treated him as if he had only spiritually appeared and not materially. So then I wondered if Jesus had been made up again.

Wouldn't the ones who thought that he spiritually appeared be talking only about after the crucifixion? Did any teach that his only appearance ever on earth was spiritual?

I haven't heard of any early Christians believing that there never was a literal, material, in the flesh Jesus. Hence my inclination to believe that it's more likely than not that there was. But maybe you can talk me out of that provisional acceptance.

[Goat]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

My own skepticism is not properly phrased that way. I wouldn't say 'Jesus didn't exist'.,. I would say 'there is a lack of evidence that Jesus actually existed'. One thing that fuels my skepticism is the modification of evidence by early church fathers to provide 'evidence' of Jesus'... if there was good evidence, why make things up and modify things?

That argument would only work if the modifications were done by those who knew that Jesus did not exist. Since these modifications were done well after the fact, that in turn would require an ongoing secret conspiracy of those who 'knew the truth' and kept it hidden. Since most of the alleged 'Jesus existed' claims are really 'Christianity existed' claims, there is really no need to think they are forgeries.

The scholarly consensus on the famous Testimonium Flavianum is that it is probably a later modification by a zealous Christian of a passage in Josephus recounting material obtained from Gospels. In short it amounts to evidence that the Gospels existed at the end of the 1st century when Josephus wrote.

Yes, in recent years it has been a consensus it was a 'later modification'. For many years, it was consensus that it a total insertion, and it is not uncommon to find it being thought to be a total insertion to this day.

What evidence is there that it was NOT a total insertion? Is there a rationalization trying to say it 'fit'??? Or, do we have a reference to it prior to the 4th century?

Can it be shown that this passage existed before the 4th century? Did anybody make reference to it? It seems to me, despite the current trend to claim it 'modified' rather than inserted, the case that it was merely 'modified' is weak to non-existent.

Since I don't see a reference to this passage earlier than the 4th century (even though Origien quoted from antiquities 18 about John the baptist), it is very likely to be a total insertion, and in any case too corrupted to use as evidence.

[ThatGirlAgain]

But then I read more about how early Christians had many different views on Jesus. Some treated him as if he had only spiritually appeared and not materially. So then I wondered if Jesus had been made up again.

Wouldn't the ones who thought that he spiritually appeared be talking only about after the crucifixion? Did any teach that his only appearance ever on earth was spiritual?

I haven't heard of any early Christians believing that there never was a literal, material, in the flesh Jesus. Hence my inclination to believe that it's more likely than not that there was. But maybe you can talk me out of that provisional acceptance.

The Gnostics went for a spiritual Jesus. This was a consequence of the Gnostic idea that the material world was inherently evil, being the creation of the evil god of the OT and not the 'real' God who made Jesus. What we now know as Christianity had some strange competition in the early days. In some version of Gnosticism, the spirit of the Son of God 'borrowed' the body of the human Jesus at the Baptism and left that human Jesus to hang on the cross by himself because divine beings should not suffer.

The Gospels have a physical resurrected Jesus who eats some fish for example to prove it. But he also leaves his tomb before it is opened (as Matthew tell us) and appears inside a locked room (as John tells us).

[Thatguy]

The Gnostics went for a spiritual Jesus.

Thanks, I was forgetting the Gnostics. They don't change my rough amateur evaluation anyway. Whether early Christians believed in an actual, material Jesus or a spiritual simulation of a material Jesus, the belief was still there that there was, to all appearances, such a man walking around

[ThatGirlAgain]

The Gnostics went for a spiritual Jesus.

Thanks, I was forgetting the Gnostics. They don't change my rough amateur evaluation anyway. Whether early Christians believed in an actual, material Jesus or a spiritual simulation of a material Jesus, the belief was still there that there was, to all appearances, such a man walking around

Yes. It may sound trivial but the many-faceted early Jesus movement was in fact all about belief in some flavor of an actual Jesus saying and doing things in recent historical times.

[Flail]

The Gnostics went for a spiritual Jesus.

Thanks, I was forgetting the Gnostics. They don't change my rough amateur evaluation anyway. Whether early Christians believed in an actual, material Jesus or a spiritual simulation of a material Jesus, the belief was still there that there was, to all appearances, such a man walking around

Yes. It may sound trivial but the many-faceted early Jesus movement was in fact all about belief in some flavor of an actual Jesus saying and doing things in recent historical times.

Hey Girl....calling upon your obvious expertise in this area, could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection? How long after the fact and by what provenance and identifiable and trustworthy authority?

[historia]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

[Flail]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

Based upon the convoluted blathering and diatribe that are contained in Paul's letters, together with his claim of a visitation with the long dead Jesus while on the road to Damascus, I discount all things Paul as nonsense...he was just weird.

[Chase200mph]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Answer: Education …. nothing kills the Christian gods quicker.

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

Answer: I wish(!)….Christianity has murdered somewhere between 40 to 50 million in recent years…you may have heard of these instances…Gay bashing, witch hunts, World War II, Vietnam, the invasion and genocide of the Americas, fleeing Europe and coming to the Americas because of oppression coming from the Church, the Inquisitions, Crusades, skipping back to my favorite, the extermination of Pagans, why do you think Christianity faked the history their great persecution, they needed an excuse to wipe out the compaction and more importantly Pagans where historians (40 of them) that knew there was no Jesus.

[Chase200mph]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

Based upon the convoluted blathering and diatribe that are contained in Paul's letters, together with his claim of a visitation with the long dead Jesus while on the road to Damascus, I discount all things Paul as nonsense...he was just weird.

Forgive me if I’ve already posted this to you…Puals; testament was much like the other 32 scrolls that were omitted from the bible…..a fictional story that happened in a magical realm not of this earth. Pauls’ testament was the exception to the cut because Paul’s encounter was a dream and Christianity needed someone’s writings desperately that closed the gap and was dated closer to the time when they said Jesus had lived.

Apologist claim “It is evident that Paul is here describing losing the earthly body as being ... of Jesus to Paul do not describe that event as a purely visionary experience; ...� http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-bodi ... n-of-jesus
they have too...otherwise the four pillars of the bible fall apart in complete disgrace.