Does anyone here believe that Jesus never existed?

by Newborn 70 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nathan Natas

  LovelyLil2,

  Tell me about this Josephus. When did he live? Do you have access to an original edition of his writings? Is his "testimony" uncontested by people who study such things? In short, is his testimony RELIABLE?

  When I was a Dub-kinder, growing up in the nurturing environment of the local Kingdom Hall, the name of Josephus was invoked by adults in the congregation as if it were a magical spell: "There this JEW, named Josephus, who lived long ago, and HE says there was a guy named Jesus who did great things, so, see -- the Watchtower bible and Tract Society has the truth. There's no reason a JEW would talk about Jesus unless he was REAL"

  That is one awfully big leap of faith you're making; one that Evel Knievel himslf wouldn't be willing to make in a rocket-propelled motocycle.

  Josephus is not the magical key you might have been (mis)lead into thinking he is.

  The fact is that there are no original manuscripts available today that were written by Josephus. The versions of Josephus' work that we have today are the result of a long iteration of copies of copies, and those copies were performed by - who? - yes, catholic priests, wh *might* not have been above "fixing" Josephus' works to harmonize with what the catholics were selling. Some have suggested that all of what Josephus said about Jesus is a complete fabrication with Josephus' name attached to it.

  You can believe whatever you want.

  For my money, anything Josephus "said" is as reliable as anything Aesop said, except that Aesop was honest and tells us these are FABLES.

  There's no reason a JEW would talk about Jesus unless he was REAL, unless what the JEW said was actually written after his death by catholic scribes.
• 

  lovelylil2

  Nathan,

  Thank you for your response. I do not know if you noted the statement in one of my posts about Josephus which was "if you accept this writing to be true" but the reason I said that is that I am fully aware that there is a controversy about whether or not what is written in the book of Josephus about Jesus really was written by him or by a christian interloper at a later time.

  I've read a lot on this subject and have found that the evidence is probably stronger that while Josephus did give a very generic account of a man named Jesus living during that time in history, someone else added more details later on about Jesus being the Christ. I came to this conclusion by reading lots of commentaries about this book as well as looking at evidence provided by the earliest copies of manuscripts of Josephus' writings.

  Believe me my friend, I take nothing at face value any more and have no problem looking at evidence that goes contrary to my belief. If I do not do this, how can I learn to defend my beliefs with non believers? The evidence has not swayed me in any way because part of belief in Christ is based upon Faith and not how much was written about him, or how many people believe the testimony of him. It is simply a personal decision I have made in my life, after wieghing the evidence, to accept Jesus as the Christ.

  The fact that non believers either do not have the same belief in Jesus existance or do not give Jesus the same authority or esteem in their lives than that of being a mortal man is not surprising at all to me. Why would they anyway? Jesus means as much to them as Budha means to me which is nothing at all.

  But I am not going around trying to disprove Budha and wonder why so many try to disprove Jesus? The NT is a collection of letters written by and for people of a certain faith belief and WE (who belong to that faith) have to determine how much wieght to give it in our lives. It really should not concern non believers in any way unless of course you have nothing better to do with your time then try to dismantle other peoples belief? I just do not get it. Life is too short to spend time argueing about a book you do not believe in anyway.

  Wishing you peace, Lilly
• 

  jonathan dough

  Could you at least provide one example?

  I think Josephus mentions him. The Bible is enough for me.

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#35
• 

  lovelylil2

  Jonathan,

  I just sent you a pm. Lilly
• 

  Nathan Natas

  LovelyLil2 stated, "...I am not going around trying to disprove Budha and wonder why so many try to disprove Jesus?"

  The SUBJECT of this thread is "Does anyone here believe that Jesus never existed?"

  I was responding to the question.

  Believe it or not, I don't spend Saturday and Sunday knocking on doors telling people that any minute now, NOTHING is going to happen.

  To paraphrasr Paul, I believe that everyone, theist or atheist, should be "always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for their beliefs, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect."
• 

  Pistoff

  Another point to ponder is this; why are the gospels being held in suspect "until proven true" to unbelievers anyway? I say the burden of proof lays on the unbelievers to prove the gospels are false. The Jews have always had a reputation for oral tradition and keeping accurate records so I do not see why the gospels would be held in suspect. Again, the burden of proof goes the other way my friends especially since no bible scholar claims the gospel accounts of Jesus are a fake.

  -The gospels claim supernatural miracles, and call for life changing and life threatening activity. That is a good reason for demanding proof of their authenticity, and historicity.

  -The Jews, by whom I take it you mean the scribes and redactors of the OT, do not have a record of HISTORICAL accuracy, but of preserving faithfully oral traditions. Modern scholarship, from atheistic to catholic, does not take the bible history literally, and does not ascribe nature miracles to Jesus either.

  -To accept the Bible only as the reference for Jesus and the miracles is a circular argument; if you take it on faith, so be it. But you cannot claim to use history, or science, to validate the authenticity of Jesus as the Christ. That is a faith statement, pure and simple; isn't that how you would rather have it anyway, JD? I greatly value the sayings of Jesus, more so because I do not see him as the Christ but as a visionary human who went against the tide and spoke for the lowly ones.

  Lil, I do not dispute the existence of a man named Jesus; I do dispute the miracles attributed to him as being unattested, not believed in by Paul (probably unknown to Paul as they pop up at least 20 years after Paul wrote) and the mantle of christhood that Paul drapes over him.

  Regarding Josephus, my take is that he is not totally unreliable but what he says and about whom must be viewed in the light of his prejudices, first pro jewish and later pro Roman; he wasn't called Flavius Josephus for nothing.
• 

  Pistoff

  From Lil:

  The fact that non believers either do not have the same belief in Jesus existance or do not give Jesus the same authority or esteem in their lives than that of being a mortal man is not surprising at all to me. Why would they anyway? Jesus means as much to them as Budha means to me which is nothing at all.

  But I am not going around trying to disprove Budha and wonder why so many try to disprove Jesus? The NT is a collection of letters written by and for people of a certain faith belief and WE (who belong to that faith) have to determine how much wieght to give it in our lives. It really should not concern non believers in any way unless of course you have nothing better to do with your time then try to dismantle other peoples belief? I just do not get it. Life is too short to spend time argueing about a book you do not believe in anyway.

  I don't speak for anyone but myself, but the reason I think Christian beliefs should be questioned, and the lack of verification about Jesus miracles and resurrection be emphasized is that right now the prominent Christian voices in the US and the UK as well are irrational, exclusionary and extreme.

  It is not enough to be christian for the likes of Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, etc, you must be their kind of christian: radical, extreme and condemnatory, even militant.

  Their voices are the ones most prominent today, and I wish the moderate and liberal christians would shout them down, just like I wish moderate jews and muslims would drown out the crazies on their side.

  Face it; religion is heading out of control, because it is influencing politics and military decisions.

  Based on what? The ideas of writers from the 7th century CE to the 2nd century AD, writings taken literally now that were not taken literally then.

  P
• 

  besty

  Facts 1 Jesus 0

  Fulltime whistle has been blown.

  Move along.
• 

  lovelylil2

  Nathan,

  You are right about just answering the Q raised. Mia culpa!

  for those questioning the miracles of Jesus;

  The evidence of the miracles IS the written record of it in the gospel accounts. It was written down so that future generations of believers may have their faith in Christ strengthend. There is no physical or visual proof anyone can give you. But honestly, would it matter? Maybe, or maybe not. Even the Bible says that many who did literally SEE the miracles of Jesus did not believe. Belief in anything is a personal thing.

  This is why I stand by my statement that the bible, in particular the gospel accounts, should not be any concern for those who do not believe in it. It is simply a faith book.

  Good conversations though, peace to all. I need to get off this thread now and on to another........Lilly
• 

  Pistoff

  The evidence of the miracles IS the written record of it in the gospel accounts. It was written down so that future generations of believers may have their faith in Christ strengthend.

  That is a circular argument; it is the authority, ergo, you must believe it. If you believe in the miracle birth of Jesus, why not the miracle birth of Augustus?

  Assertions of supernatural events do not make them real; proof and attestation from neutral observers might. The gospel writers were not neutral observers, and not present at the events.

  PLEASE answer me why you think Paul does not mention anything of what Jesus said, or taught, or the miracles.

  No answer to my comment that crazies are empowered by their belief that they must be militant for Jesus, especially because the miracles prove God was backing Jesus?