"No historical evidence of Jesus"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

iacrobat

War Child
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
585
Location
Toronto
I remember another thread a while back on this guy and his book.

From the Toronto Star:

The rest here

Ever since the publication of The Pagan Christ, literalist clergy and others have been hammering away at the theme of the alleged historicity of the Gospels. Yet, Bible scholars today know that the Gospels never were historical biographies even though they may appear to be such.

Listen to the genius Dr. Albert Schweitzer, in his landmark book The Quest Of The Historical Jesus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give it its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb."
 
Last edited:
Most historians, however, religious or not, believe that Jesus of Nazareth did, at the very least, exist. Mention of him is included in enough histories of the time that most can agree that such a person did indeed live and behave much in the way he is depicted in the Gospels.

I agree that much else is a matter of faith, but it was my understanding that there was little doubt that Jesus really did exist.
 
paxetaurora said:
Mention of him is included in enough histories of the time that most can agree that such a person did indeed live and behave much in the way he is depicted in the Gospels.


actually, I think the bible is the only one that mentions him

not saying that I don't believe in him (or Him as nbcrusader would prefer)
 
The way or methods used to discredit that Jesus existed could also be used to discredit the existence of other things from 2000 years ago. Dr. Albert Schweitzer seems to simply be interested in attacking and discrediting other peoples religion.
 
Jesus' teachings, however they originated, are more important than if he existed or not.

(i write this having just left a service at St. A. P. Church:wave:)
 
There was an interesting historican in Germany who claimed that 500 years of Mid-Ages history of europe didn't exist at all, they were just stories made up later so that the kings had historical reasons why this land belongs to them...
...well it was almost impossible to proof that man wrong
 
Klaus said:
There was an interesting historican in Germany who claimed that 500 years of Mid-Ages history of europe didn't exist at all, they were just stories made up later so that the kings had historical reasons why this land belongs to them...
...well it was almost impossible to proof that man wrong

Good point Klaus.
 
In a history class we looked at a non-religious text that mentioned Jesus and I believe also mentioned that he had been captured and crucified.
 
Well, there are two points brought up worth noting:

1) History isn't always what it seems. "The Renaissance" and the "Byzantine Empire" are both inventions; the former by 19th century humanists, who had an obsession with everything "Greco-Roman" and the latter by an 18th century French historian. The empire existed, yes, but it referred to itself as the "Roman Empire" or "Romania." In other words, there is a good portion of history that we take for granted that is really incorrect; but, because it was a long time ago, we really have no way of knowing one way or another, as part of the general public.

2) "Jesus' teachings, however they originated, are more important than if he existed or not." That was also the Gnostic POV, and there is a theory that Jesus was invented by early Gnostic Christians. Then, as Christianity expanded decades after Jesus lived, no one would really be the wiser; and that wouldn't have bothered the Gnostics. After all, whether He existed or not, to them, really didn't bother them.

(I don't particularly believe #2, but I thought I'd put the idea out there.)

Melon
 
Damn. It looks like I screwed up when I claimed in my class on the Turks that the "Byzantine" Empire wasn't called that until the nineteenth century. Shame on me, sloppy research. :reject: :help: :banghead: :eek: :censored:
 
Further along in the article he mentions certain historical sources, but says they are questionable, if not bogus.

For example, he says that Josepus' reference was added to his histories by later Christian scribes. I do remember studying the authenticity of that text in university.

Melon, are there any Gnostic sources that pre-date the gospel of Matthew? Around 50-60 CE if memory serves? Or Paul's letters?

In response to the article, I would ask why on earth would historians of the empire care about a tiny sect of Judaism? They crucified thousands, why would they worry about one more?

If Jesus was an invention, what was to gain? And even if he was, his teachings still ring true.
 
I don't know if the Gnostic gospels pre-date Matthew, but some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written around the time of Jesus, and they mention him.

There's a copy of an encyclopedia on the Scrolls in my school's library, and it, it says there was a Jewish sect that lived not too far from where Jesus was preaching, and he is mentioned in the Scrolls as someone who actually lived.
 
Last edited:
I'm reading the Gnostic Gospels at the moment and the book dates some traditions to predate and others as early as the gospels of the New Testament.

Example the Gospel of Thomas was compiled in c.140 but much was written earlier.
 
The dead sea scrolls, were mostly written by a sect of Jews who kept to themselves, felt other Jews were not living as pure as they should, and had their own super-pious colony, called the Essenes I think. They also copied a lot of the what is called the Old Testament of the Bible. Dated before Jesus was on earth.

When compared to what were thought to be the oldest copies of the Bible writings, parts of the Psalms and Isaiah, they were 99% the same. Very insignificant difference, and the difference didnt' change the meaning.

hehe thanks, you're making me remember this, I'm going to do quite well on my Bible final for university.

Pliny the younger, Tacitus, roman historians, who make mention of Jesus, or Christos.
 
deep said:
Jesus' teachings, however they originated, are more important than if he existed or not.

(i write this having just left a service at St. A. P. Church:wave:)

I disagree.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19:

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Paul addresses this passage to those who doubt the resurrection of Christ; the comments seem to be equally valid if Christ never existed.

I'm not sure what to say in response to the claims that the message of Christianity is true even without Christ...what is this message? Love God (if he exists), and love thy neighbor? Don't we already know that we're supposed to do these things? Why is there a need to invent another religion that teaches these things?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it "love your enemy" that he said?

That's pretty radical. I don't think most people "knew" that.

No one is inventing a new religion, Christianity takes on many forms.
 
nbcrusader said:
Denying the divinity and humanity of Christ turns Christianity into just another self-help program.

This I don't get.

Christianity is already a self help program for many who believe whole-heartedly in the divinity of Christ.
 
iacrobat said:


This I don't get.

Christianity is already a self help program for many who believe whole-heartedly in the divinity of Christ.

Self-help programs teach us that we can overcome our imperfections through our own power and perhaps the power of positive thinking, meditation techniques, or whatever.

Christianity teaches that we are fundamentally sinful and broken and can only be made whole through Christ.
 
Thanks for clearing that up speedracer, because I was a little unsure.

Self-improvement is self-improvement no matter which way you slice it. Whether its "God" telling you "his plan for your life" or Tony Robbins. Either way, people feel happier and more successful, or whatever.
 
iacrobat said:
Thanks for clearing that up speedracer, because I was a little unsure.

Self-improvement is self-improvement no matter which way you slice it. Whether its "God" telling you "his plan for your life" or Tony Robbins. Either way, people feel happier and more successful, or whatever.

So what is God's plan for your life?

I'm surely violating all manner of copyright law by posting this, but here are the last three paragraphs of C. S. Lewis's essay "Man or Rabbit?", from his book "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics."

---

But still -- for intellectual honor has sunk very low in our age -- I hear someone whimpering on with this question, "Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I'd be better if I became a Christian?" Well, if you must have it, my answer is "Yes." But I don't like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal "sell" on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this giant humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed "moral development"?

All right, Christianity will do you good -- a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won't enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called "good" -- all that about "leading a decent life" and "being kind" -- isn't quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that you can't be "good" (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn't have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different. J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn't know what life was about. The people who keep asking if they can't lead a decent life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did then they would know that "a decent life" is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable; but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear -- the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.

"When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching "a good life" without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up "a good life" as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are "done away" and the rest is a matter of flying.
 
Thats all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really relate to what I said.

The "good life" is the final goal of some Christians.

And I don't like the implication that people aren't moral without Christ.
 
iacrobat said:
Thats all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really relate to what I said.

I think it does, because I think that you fundamentally misunderstand what Christianity is.


The "good life" is the final goal of some Christians.

And I don't like the implication that people aren't moral without Christ.

I can reply to this last statement in one of two ways:

1. If "moral" means "morally perfect", then people aren't moral with Christ, either (at least not in this earthly life).

2. If "moral" means "capable of doing morally good things", then yes, it is true that people aren't moral without Christ. When you do any good thing, it is Christ working in your heart that enables you to do it, whether or not you recognize him.

But that last statement isn't the point that Lewis was trying to make. The point he was trying to make was that if the "good life" is your final goal, then you're basically spending your life chasing your tail, whether or not you're a Christian. Whatever your successes are, they'll always be outweighed by your failures.

You said in a previous post that Christianity is one of a number of self-help programs that help people feel happier and more successful. Fine, the teachings of Christ and the Bible have helped me become a more moral person, but still I continue to fall and stumble, and I'll continue to do so until the day I die. Time and again I come back to the fundamental truth of Christianity -- that I am a fundamentally sinful and broken being, but Jesus loves me and thought that I was worth redeeming. So much so, in fact, that he died so that I could be made whole again.

Of course it's important to do good -- to be merciful, to seek justice for the oppressed, to be honest and upright. Jesus himself speaks about the importance of feeding the hungry and healing the sick in Matthew 25. But our constant moral struggles during this earthly life are just the first step towards our ultimate destiny: an eternity in heaven, made anew, free from the bondage of sin, in the presence of God forever.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom