Who was the first person to claim Jesus never exsisted?

[John T]

As much as I like to discuss Voltaire, Zeus, William Tell, etc., let's try to get back on track, shall we?

Now let's take a closer look at what Peter Kirby had to say about the Talmud.

"Perhaps the Talmud can be mentioned here as well. And we know the arguments, in some outline, that they do make against Christianity.
Does it say Jesus didn't exist?"...Peter Kirby

As we already know, the Talmud came hundreds of years after Jesus and has been edited many times but what does it say about Jesus?

[Peter] "Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[24]

That is to say the Talmud agrees Jesus existed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

So, we have ancient Christian sources saying Jesus was real.
We have ancient Roman sources saying Jesus was real.
We have ancient Jewish sources that Jesus was real.

But we don't have any ancient sources saying Jesus wasn't real?

How many sources do we need before Richard Carrier, et al. will admit that Jesus was a real person?
The Jews have no problem admitting there was a real Jesus because they simply chalk him up as just another false messiah. So, why can't the atheists do the same?

Clearly the problem is not due to a lack of evidence or rational reasoning but out of emotion.

Sincerely,
John T

[maryhelena]

As much as I like to discuss Voltaire, Zeus, William Tell, etc., let's try to get back on track, shall we?

Now let's take a closer look at what Peter Kirby had to say about the Talmud.

"Perhaps the Talmud can be mentioned here as well. And we know the arguments, in some outline, that they do make against Christianity.
Does it say Jesus didn't exist?"...Peter Kirby

As we already know, the Talmud came hundreds of years after Jesus and has been edited many times but what does it say about Jesus?

[Peter] "Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[24]

That is to say the Talmud agrees Jesus existed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

So, we have ancient Christian sources saying Jesus was real.
We have ancient Roman sources saying Jesus was real.
We have ancient Jewish sources that Jesus was real.

But we don't have any ancient sources saying Jesus wasn't real?

How many sources do we need before Richard Carrier, et al. will admit that Jesus was a real person?
The Jews have no problem admitting there was a real Jesus because they simply chalk him up as just another false messiah. So, why can't the atheists do the same?

Clearly the problem is not due to a lack of evidence or rational reasoning but out of emotion.

Sincerely,
John T

[Ulan]

The Jews have no problem admitting there was a real Jesus because they simply chalk him up as just another false messiah. So, why can't the atheists do the same?

Clearly the problem is not due to a lack of evidence or rational reasoning but out of emotion.

indeed. A good way to derail one's own thread with some terribly faulty logic once again.

There is nothing to "admit". While the question of this thread has some merit as data point, it's meaningless for the question whether Jesus was historical or not. Why would anyone in antiquity try to find out whether the hero of a story that takes place in a city that had been obliterated in the meanwhile with all witnesses dead was a real human being? That would be a fool's task, and for what purpose? Most people who wrote against Christians were writing against Christ the God, not against some Galilean guy who happened to get himself killed in Jerusalem ages ago. If I'd take a guess there were enough of the latter kind to choose from. Let alone that this distinction was meaningless to most people of the time, as this thread pointed out.

In this sense, regarding the nature of the religious writings of the Christians, the question whether Jesus was actually walking Earth at some point in reality or not is utterly unimportant. As unimportant today as it was in antiquity. Interesting, yes, but ultimately unanswerable.

[Sheshbazzar]

Christianity wasn't important enough nor influential enough in world affairs till the third century CE for anyone not a member of the cult to even care to about their lunatic claims (which during that time were 'all over the map', fighting and accusing each other of preaching 'heresies')
No one in their right mind would have wasted their time trying to unravel all the strange Christian horse shit that was being preached, just one more syncretized and obscure cult god among the hundreds of such.

And what good would it do? the cult was still in the process of the inventing its orthodox 'history' and neither the theology nor texts were as yet firmly established, and there was as yet no recognized authoritative canon.
Different groups held widely variant claims, beliefs, and practices, and often, upon hearing the latest gospel preacher in town, these being exchanged overnight for a different set of claims and beliefs.
To even try to sort it out 50 years latter, would be like you going to Massachusetts and trying to prove that a man named 'John Smith' didn't preach a few dozen times 50 years ago at some unnamed church. (Go ahead, it was only 50 years ago.)

The then contemporary world shows no remembrance, no record of, nor accounting of any such person as 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
To all intents 'Jesus of Nazareth' is not any known part of human 'history' at all, _until the gospels were penned, long after his, from its inception, highly mythological 'life' as it is presented to us by the gospels. (there never having been found any accounts that do not contain all of the magical mythical godling crap)

No contemporary and truly historical person reports ever having met a living breathing human Jesus of Nazareth.
If any then had even heard of this 'Jesus', they would have known even less about 'him' than you do, not having all of that Christian devised Horse pucky that you can so easily consult in the fabricating your own preferred version of a 'historical' Jesus.


Sheshbazzar

[Clive]

the cult was still in the process of the inventing its orthodox 'history'

Oriental cult

!

And they invented a classic chimera - a godman!

[andrewbos]

...

[neilgodfrey]

The Jews have no problem admitting there was a real Jesus because they simply chalk him up as just another false messiah. So, why can't the atheists do the same?

Clearly the problem is not due to a lack of evidence or rational reasoning but out of emotion.

Sincerely,
John T

What's with this "atheists" thing? I think you can name some atheists who staunchly reject the idea that Jesus is a myth. Surely you've heard of anti-mythicist crusader atheist Tim O'Neill for starters.

I think you also keep sweeping aside the fact (when reminded as you have been here) that there are religious people who believe Jesus never existed: Thomas Brodie is a Christian; and today I am informed of another Christian pastor, Edward van der Kaaij, who says the same, and then there's Tom Harpur, and Rene Salm (I understand) is a Buddhist, and Robert Price quite likes Christian worship from what I hear. And I don't think Freke and Gandy are atheists, either, though their concept of God is no doubt different from yours.

And they are just the contemporaries. Would you like me to remind me of the mythicists of the past generations?

So what's with this "atheists-mythicist" nexus and sinister anti-god motives? I have raised this before but you don't seem particularly interested in any evidence that contradicts the message you want to keep on giving.

[John T]

Neilgodfrey posted: "So what's with this "atheists-mythicist" nexus and sinister anti-god motives? I have raised this before but you [John T] don't seem particularly interested in any evidence that contradicts the message you want to keep on giving."...Neilgodfrey

I shouldn't have to repeat myself but apparently you did not understand what I meant by: "How many sources do we need before Richard Carrier, et al. will admit that Jesus was a real person?"

For clarification; "et al." means 'and others'.

Would you have understood me better if I said; "How many sources do we need before mythicists/atheists like Richard Carrier will admit that Jesus was a real person?

John T

[neilgodfrey]

Would you have understood me better if I said; "How many sources do we need before mythicists/atheists like Richard Carrier will admit that Jesus was a real person?

John T

Why bring atheism into it at all? You seem to be going through hoops to avoid facing the fact that some Christians and some very sympathetic towards and respectful of Christianity -- and to the idea of God generally -- are among those who argue Jesus had no historical existence?

Why are you hung up about atheists? Why can't you discuss mythicism on its own merits without bringing up some emotional vendetta against atheists?

Why not say: How many sources do we need before mythicists/Christians like Thomas Brodie and Tom Harpur and Van der Kaaij and Buddhists like Rene Salm will admit that Jesus was a real person?

[Peter Kirby]

We do of course have some references to critics of Christianity, in Celsus and Porphyry. Even some of their writings, with Julian the Apostate and Lucian of Samosata. Perhaps the Talmud can be mentioned here as well. And we know the arguments, in some outline, that they do make against Christianity. They also bear out the explanation I've made here, in that they do not cross-examine the historical basis of it all in the way a modern would, but rather focus on philosophical points and stray bits of yes-but gossip.

Now let's take a closer look at what Peter Kirby had to say about the Talmud.

"Perhaps the Talmud can be mentioned here as well. And we know the arguments, in some outline, that they do make against Christianity.
Does it say Jesus didn't exist?"...Peter Kirby

Fantastical misquotation and rather brazen too, since to check it you'd only need to look up.

However, if you were a church father and I were some random critic of ancient Christianity, in all likelihood my posts would not have survived and all that remains would be your quote, the way you chose it, including what you left out and whatever twist you may have put on it. Something to chew on when you're so certain of what was and was not said by the non-Christians in antiquity. What is not fact (or "data") is that none of them said this or that. What is data is that none of them are quoted and copied as saying this or that. Which is not quite the same thing.