Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 2112

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

New to this site, first post and I'm starting here though admittedly I only read the first and last few pages. So I'm sure the gamut of opinion has been covered.

Speaking of gamut I guess that over my life I've gone through the gamut of opinions on who or what Jesus was. From a child who thought Jesus was god and whispered "happy birthday baby jesus," into his pillow on Xmas eve, to a teen altar boy who started to see too many parallels with the comic book heroes he was reading, to a young adult who was exploring philosophy and comparative religion and thusly seeing Jesus as a clear archetypal myth but one based on a real guy who was a pretty cool hipster dude who the big bad church abused post-mortem, to completely refusing to acknowledge his existence at all, and now settling into an occam's razor/real politik belief that's sort of a combo of most of the rest.

THis mainly consists of the following: he existed, he had a god complex and or penchant for chicanery that competed along side many other desert claimants who had little more to channel their creative juices and need for attention into and whom had a correspondingly credulous audience to perform for. He tried to fit the O.Testament's prophecies because that was the formulaic Hollywood template of the period, and where he failed his biographers would succeed much later because of a perfect storm of opportunity, personality, social currents, political favor etc.

I understand the perception of him as less than divine but a neat philosopher who loved people. But I no longer think there is enough evidence for that. We certainly can't be sure what he actually said and what he didn't say, but I agree with some of the Christian apologists, particualarly i believe it was CS Lewis of all people (though I'm not sure-it may have been via one of the mid ages guys like Tertullian or Aquinas) who said when you look at the things attributed, what he actually seems to have done and said, you either have to believe he was exactly what is purported, the son of god, or a completely debauched fraud (I'm paraphrasing quite liberally I admit).

Well I side with the latter opinion whereas they went in a more creative direction.

As for him not existing at all, I think there is enough anecdotal stuff combined with little things like the N Testament writers clearly lying or manipulating his history to fulfill prophecy as with the whole census count facade to get him to Bethlehem for his birth. Why not just have him live there? But maybe enough rumor stemming from enough actual people was around to suggest to these people that not only did he exist but he lived in Nazareth. And everybody kind of knew it. Now how do we fix that.

Anyway, good to be aboard. Not many places I can say these things. Go easy on me.
Welcome to the board and the discussion. I don't think you have much to worry about. You seem open to discussion and you're not presenting your opinions as personal revelations. Good to have you.
I believe there was a man named jesus 2000 years ago. I believe lots of guys probably had the name jesus. I think that can be proven as fact. That's about it.....
Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is that there was a person upon whom all the myths have been piled.

Robert Price has written several books explaining the case for believing that he didn't exist. There is no real evidence. Chiefly, it came down to the fact that so many of the myths about him were obviously borrowed.

But, I prefer James Carroll's version in "Constantine's Sword", that Jesus' followers were simply trying to make sense of his senseless death when they started the whole "it was a sacrifice for us" idea.

Besides, if there weren't a real person, then why bother to go to all that trouble to "explain" how the facts about his life "fit" the prophecies that they so obviously don't fit?
Hi Scott,

That's a rather balanced treatment of the issue. One of the chief reasons the Jesus Myth hypothesis is not the best explanation of the available evidence is simply that it requires far more supposition to imagine a grand conspiracy (which nobody at the time noticed) than to imagine a group of disappointed and confused disciples trying to make sense of their leader's violent death; the latter happens all the time (and we can see the process evolve through the various gospels), while the former is an argument from conspiracy and has little precedent.

The fact that many of the elements in the Jesus story are so awkward (so much so that they get downplayed or even omitted in later gospels) like the Baptism of Jesus by John, Jesus' hometown being Nazareth, the humiliating nature of his crucifixion, the various prophecies he has to be shoe-horned into... that it makes much more sense to see this as a self-proclaimed prophet gone wrong. And we can the traces of all these things in the texts themselves.
This, along with the mentions by reliable historians and people mentioning having met Jesus' family, make for a strong case that there was indeed a person on who the legends were based. Price's case does not answer these objections, or at least not in a way that actually satisfies Occam's Razor.

The author of the blog (you?) you quote makes a pretty similar case, though he does get a few things wrong.
First of all, he says that the only passage briefly talking about Jesus is Flavius Josephus. There's actually more than that: in fact, there are two passages in Josephus' works that mention Jesus; one in Antiquities 18.63-64 (which is probably the one he's talking about) and one in Antiquities 20 Chapter 9 which talks about a man called James who is identified as the brother of Jesus. Additionally, Tacitus mentions Jesus in Annales 15.44.
Second of all, it's not correct to say about that passage in Josephus that "scholars believe that this was inserted centuries later by a Christian scribe". That simply is not the case. A study conducted by Louis Feldman found that of 52 scholars questioned on this issue, only 13 of them concluded that the passage was a forgery, with the rest largely arguing for partial authenticity. The consensus (not an absolute one, but still, quite broad) is that this passage was added by a Christian interpolator, but that there was an original passage by Josephus to be added to in the first place. Either way, the author's statement is false. And the other two references to Jesus are believed to be authentic by the vast majority of scholars.
(Which actually enables us to make three cases for the authenticity of Jesus: one from the awkwardness of the story and the way it is constructed, another one from these three references by historians, and a third one whereby we prove that there was a man called James who was identified as the brother of Jesus. Together they make for a pretty solid case, in my opinion.)

And the third mistake he makes is to mention the myths of Horus, Krishna, Dionysus etcetera, as templates (or similar stories, or whatever) for the Jesus story. That argument actually fails almost completely, and it's not taken seriously by any academic scholar I can think of (and no, Price's non-peerreviewed books don't fall into that realm either). There are certainly a lot of sites that claim that virgin births are common and that everybody had them, and that will be happy to tell you that all these gods had twelve disciples and died in a sacrificial manner, but if you actually look at the relevant texts and try to find out where they are getting these ideas from, you will return very disappointed. These parallels are either exaggerated, misrepresenting an original text, or just plain made up.

All of which I think are reasons why the Jesus Myth is not a skeptical position: it's a position fueled mainly by bias and the wish for an easy argument to disprove Christianity, rather than any sober historical analysis on a quest to find the most reasonably explanation of the evidence.

Kind regards,


I think you misunderstood my point.  I am not saying that the "Jesus myth" is in any way real under any argument. 


I am saying that the idea that there was some guy similar to David Koresh upon whose memory all the myths were piled is simpler than believing that there was no actual person and that some people simply decided to make him up.  Obviously, almost all the stuff they said about him was made up. 


Just about the only parts that are true are probably the parts they try to so hard to fit into the Messiah prophecies.  He was actually born in Nazareth, but because the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem his followers in later years had to make up a cockamamie story about a census, accidentally getting the dates wrong and overlooking the fact that such a huge undertaking would probably have been noted in Roman records, etc., etc. 

Hi Scott,


I understood what you were saying just fine. It's a good argument and one that I've made in just about every post I've made in this topic (and that's quite a lot). The parts where we can see the gosel writers struggling to explaining something awkward (and usually failing rather miserably) are precisely the things we have good reason to believe have a historical basis.


Now that said, I think you are engaging in a little bit of rhetorical exagerration saying that almost all the stuff they said about him was made up. There are lots of little things that they have no reason to make up but are still well attested, meaning we can be pretty certain they did occur. The father of Joseph being a carpenter, for instance, or Jesus having siblings, or him being betrayed, or him being an apocalyptic preacher etcetera...


But as I said, I agreed with most of your post. I only took issue with the parts in the blog post you linked to that I think were false. The alleged (but overblown) simillarities with Krishna etcetera being one, and the inaccuracy concerning the references to Jesus in ancient historians being another.


Take care,



C. There is zero evidence that the Jesus religious people refer to ever existed. His name only showed up in religious documents hundreds of years later. Whether various persons bore the name Jesus is irrelevant.
I love how people come in threads like this without having done the faintest bit of research, and then consider their knowledge secure enough to make statements like this.

Tacitus writes about Jesus:
That's a non-religious document about 70-80 years after Jesus' death.

Josephus writes about Jesus twice:
That's two references in a non-religious document about 60 years after Jesus' death.

As far as the religious documents themselves go (which can't simply be dismissed; they can still be valuable sources if used carefully), the canonical gospels are generally dated respectively 30-60 years after Jesus' death, and the authentic letters of Paul are something like 20 years.

"Hundreds of years later" and only "religious documents"? I don't think so.

You seem to have missed some pretty important aspects of those pages...


but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist


the earliest surviving manuscript containing the passage is an 11th century Christian scribal copy


Confirming my point exactly... I was speaking of original documents, I give absolutely no weight to xtian copied documents.

"You seem to have missed some pretty important aspects of those pages..."


Oh the irony.

I've done my homework on this subject, pal. I suggest you do the same before you stumble into a discussion with no knowledge of the subject.


"but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist"


And had you gone on to read the page in full, you would find out that most scholars agree that the Testimonium Flavianum has been altered to (that's what the word "additions" means), but that there was an authentic reference there to be altered in the first place.

But that's just talking about the TF. The other reference in Josephus is virtually uncontested, and the same goes for the reference in Tacitus.


Which means we have at worst two and most likely three references to Jesus in non-religious documents which were written within several decades of his death. 


Which means your statements were garbage.


"Confirming my point exactly... I was speaking of original documents, I give absolutely no weight to xtian copied documents."


You never actually said that you were talking about original documents, actually.

But that's not even the point: the standard you've set is completely ridiculous. We don't have any original documents of anything that anyone has ever written in the ancient world. Not from Caesar, not from Cicero, not from anyone. All documents we have are copied at least several times (usually by Christians, though not always). So if you're going to dismiss the references to Jesus on the basis of the relevant documents not being original, you might as well dismiss the existence of anything and everyone in the ancient world.


Well done.

Please do your homework and then try to make your case.

You mention other literary works, I am not concerned with the 'veracity' of other literary works. The point is on an issue as controversial as 'Jesus' to take the word of xtian historians written 100s of years later is not a far cry from taking the bible as fact. On this matter, I clearly side with the detractors and you side with the promoters. That is an irreconcilable difference of interpretation of history, and history has been notorious at bad reporting.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service