Would you agree that the vast majority of historians believe Jesus Christ existed and was the founder of the religion Christianity?

Do you believe that Alexander the Great lived? If so why?

Also, What do you make of the fact that the famous Atheist H.G. Wells believed Jesus actually lived?

peace,

Jack

PS:Regarding resources...it's been bought and on its way through Amazon.

 There is a lot of evidence however that supports Alexander the Great.  Contemporaries, and the like, wrote about him, and the Empire he built is undeniable - in fact the Hellenistic age is really just the collapse of Alexander's united Empire and a spawning of multiple Empires in specific jurisdictions over the Mediterrainian upon Alexander's death.   

Not to mention the archaeological evidence.  It's also important to understand things from a Historians perspective.  I stated earlier, and I'll state again, that it is OKAT for a historian to accept the existence of somebody in antiquity with little or no evidence for their existence - it's when we see problems with existening evidence (Like the Gospels and early writers) or when the stories are so incredibly ridiculous that OTHER people in antiquity doubt their nature (like Euhemer) when we start to question.  Carrier, in comparing Arrian with the Gospel Evangelists states the following:

"For a good extreme comparison unrelated to the Rubicon question, compare the explicit methods of Arrian with Luke-Acts: Arrian records the history of Alexander the Great five hundred years after the fact. But he does so by explicitly stating a sound method. Arrian says he ignored all works not written by eyewitnesses, and instead only followed surviving ancient texts by actual eyewitnesses to Alexander's campaign. He names them and discusses their connections to Alexander. He then says that on every point on which they agree, he will simply record what they say, but where they significantly disagree, he will cite both accounts and identify the sources who disagree (and he appears to have followed this method as promised, though not always faithfully).

Now, this is not the best method--modern methods have improved considerably upon Arrian--but this is among the best methods ever employed in antiquity. And it is considerably different than just writing stories five hundred years later. Quite clearly, if Arrian did what he says, he is almost as good as an eyewitness source (in fact, arguably better). But notice how Luke does none of this (nor do any of the other Gospel authors). We have no idea whom Luke used for what information (he doesn't even tell us he used Mark, even though we can prove he did). We also have no idea how he chose whom to trust or whom to include or exclude.[17] Luke is therefore not even in Arrian's league as a critical historian. He fares even worse when compared with Polybius or Thucydides. Nor does he reach the level of lesser historians like Tacitus or Josephus, either--who, though they do not give such clear discussions of their methods, nevertheless often name their sources and explicitly show critical acumen in choosing between conflicting or confusing accounts.

The significance of all this is simple: we know for a fact these historians carried out at least some decent research and critically examined evidence and admitted doubt or conflicting information. We don't trust any ancient historian as much as we'd trust a good modern historian--all ancient historians get things wrong on a variety of points for a variety of reasons (and therefore, by extension, we can be certain Luke did, too). But we do trust ancient historians to the extent that they exhibit the qualities of a trustworthy historian, such as being a critical thinker with an explicit interest in checking claims against documents and eyewitness accounts."

So as I was stating, just having testimony of any kind is generally enough for a Historian to accept certain things about a characters historicity - however when we see problems within the Historical documents, questions start to arise and a Historian gets less and less comfortable with a work being accurate to any degree of the term.

As Ehrman put it, "For critical historians, the sources in the Bible have to be treated like every other source from the past – they need to be examined critically to see if they are reliable or not.  Among other things, this involves seeing how they stack up against other sources from the time – to see, for example, if they are contradicted by these other sources, then the historian needs to have reasons.  It isn’t good enough to say that if something is stated in the Bible it is necessarily accurate.  What if in the retelling of the story the biblical writer changed a historical event for reasons of his own?  But on the other hand – and this is a point I need to stress – if there is a source that is outside the Bible that tells a different story (for example, the Gospel of Mary), that source is not necessarily right either.  All sources need to be evaluated to see which ones are more reliable and which ones less so.” (Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, Pp. xxiii)

What has to be done is that articles are weighed against other existing articles (and if none exist - the article is weighed against itself for inner consistancy).  So do I think Alexander lived?  Yes.  It's apparent to me that I have no reason to doubt the existence of Alexander the Great.  DO I think jesus lived?  No.  Because I have sufficient reason to doubt his existence.

I hope that helps.

Atheism doesn't give a pre-requisite for Jesus Mythicism.  Most people, including atheists, are misinformed about the evidence, and feel he did exist - I get cases all the time from atheists claiming that Jesus probably was a man or a prophet.  But again, no grounds can be iscussed and no evidence can be presented for this.

H. G. Wells is an excellent author but he was just as misinformed about Jesus as everyone else.  ANd don't forget, we have just really started to get more and more of the Nag Hammadi works published and translated - a feat not yet accomplished in Wells day.

Well jack, this is pretty widely accepted.  In fact the Nag Hammadi codices are evidence of this.  Many scholars (including Ehrman who believes in a historical personality of Christ) feel that the documents were hidden by monks at a church a few kilometers away as the codices were in great condition and date (the binds anyway) to the mid second century - which is evidence to the stress put on the sects of Christianity - mainly Orthodox Christianity - by Heresiologists in the second and third centuries before and after the Council of Nicea (and perhaps some years into the fourth - only to disappear anc come about again in the 9th and tenth centuries to combat a growing Gnostic movement called Catharism).

I am most grateful.  Just like everyone, you're getting a free copy of my book when it's published. =)

(Sources below)

[17] (This is all from Carrier's debate with Holding on the Rubicon Analogy HERE) Holding continues to make excuses for why Luke didn't do any of this, but excuses don't change the fact that he still didn't do them. So, unlike Arrian, we are not in a position to assess the quality or reliability of Luke's sources or methods.

This addresses the second part of your response.

Carrier says,"If Arrian did what he says, he is almost as good as an eyewitness..."

In Luke 1:2 we are told, "...just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us..." Luke is clear that he was given direct information from the 'eyewitnesses and ministers' themselves and as such why should we not consider this writing evidence that Jesus existed?
We have four accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all of which agree that Jesus lived, why is this not sufficient evidence that Jesus was real?
Despite slight variations of the Gospel accounts we see that they are all included in the Canon. If indeed the church wanted to destroy writings and documents they most certainly could have destroyed all Gospel accounts except one...but of course we don't see such a thing at all. Instead we see that the early church specifically included all four accounts, with full knowledge of the variations, so as to avoid false teachings that may have arisen as a result of relying solely on one account.
These writings (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), unlike those of Arran which were 500 years after the life of Alexander the Great, were in circulation by the late 1st century which is only several decades after the life of Jesus.
Simply because the writers, that give an account of the life of Jesus, did not go to the lengths that Arrian did in presenting the history of Alexander the Great, does not make them any less accurate in their assertion that Jesus most certainly lived.

You make an argument from silence implying because we don't know if indeed Matthew, Mark, and John were the actual disciples themselves and because they don't reference other material, that somehow we should completely discount the fact that they all agree that Jesus most certainly existed. Can you explain?

What writings do we have that date from the 1-3rd centuries that argue Jesus never lived?

peace 

I don't think you are understanding the point in all this Life. Are you reading?

Arrian included the names of his sources such as the memoirs by Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, and the writings of Aristobulos, a man who went with Alexander and worked closely with him. Arrian also used the works of Nearchus, who was Alexander's life-long friend. Due to the increasing Anti-Alexander stories being tossed around by members of Alexander's broken Empire, mainly by Cassander in Macedonia (who had usurped the throne and had had Alexander's mother, wife, and son murdered), both Ptolemy and Aristobulos wrote independantly of each other and tried to clear Alexander's name and reputation. It is unfortunately that these sources have been lost to us. But the fact that he can name his sources, and in fact compare them as he does, leaves no doubt to any historian that these works once existed.

And to be fair, the existing works of Alexander's life (four of them) list dubious sources and are in fact written about 350 years after his death. Most scholars are aware of the dubious nature of these but do consider much of the information accurate.

We also know of the character of Arrian not only from his works but from contemporaries, in that he was unoriginal and relied too much on other extant writings which made his work drab and boring, and often times tedious to read. Historians accept this as more evidence to suggest that he was indeed being honest with his sources, and the manner in which he wrote is evidence for an accurate telling.^[1]

No, please consider what I have written above in the first post to explain why followers do not prove a followee.

You don't understand this do you?

Okay, It was okay to assume the quality of Jesus' historicity if:

• A.) The Gospel Writers name their sources
• B.) Were contemporaries of Christ
• C.) Didn't have any of the miracles in them
• D.) If we has contemporary accounts of Jesus at all (we don't)
• E.) If the existing 'historical' evidence (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, et al) wasn't dubious and for the most part interpolations by later Christians.
• F.) If HUNDREDS of other documents hadn't been written about him during the second and third centuries all giving conflicting accounts, all suggesting Jesus was something the other didn't suggest, and all attributing quotes to Jesus that contradict each other.
• G.) If it didn't take so long for the four evangelists Gospels to be named - and collected.
• H.) If the Evangelists has stated their real names, instead of waiting for Iraeneus to come along and name then.
• I.) If an Ecumenical Countil didn't have to vote on which ones they thought told the true story of Christ - while ignoring some works which existed much earler then the Evangelist Gospels.
• J.) If Paul were more alert as per the historicity of Christ (right now Paul seems to have no knowledge of a historical Jesus, rather he seems to not ever once mention ANYTHING that happened during the lifetime of Jesus - not the miracles, or Jesus coming into Jerusalem, not the wedding at Canan, not the resurrection of Lazarus, not the healing of leppers or the casting out of demons, not of Judas or the Sanhedrin, not of Pilate or Herod, NOTHING - save the crucifixion and resurrection, and he never places these events anywhere on earth - not at Galgotha, not at Jerusalem, not by the Romans or Jews). And Paul is the earliest person to write about Jesus - and he is the ONLY gap-filler which spans about 60 years! Paul only wrote about ten years.^[2]
• K.) If the Apostolic Fathers had relied on documents instead of Oral Tradition (which is what they claimed to have believed)^[3]
• L.) If the teachings and veiws of Christians weren't so obscure in the second century.

All of these problems cast doubt upon a historical Christ. We don't have any of these problems with Alexander. Unlike Alexander, the antagonists are named, and we know what happened during his entire life - all of the stories accounted for in Arrian can be RECONSTRUCTED with archaeological finds and data. Cities were NAMED for Alexander all over his Empire, most of them were Greek Polis' which limited rights of the civilians. Alexander's general, mentioned above (Ptolemis) stationed his fleet in Alexandria (which before Alexander conquered the area was an Egyptian settlement known as "Rhakotis&quot, and we do not doubt any of this. There are Greek coins, as well, dating to the lifetime of Alexander which picture him on them - a full bust and yet we have NONE of this for the existence of Jesus.^[4]

1.) Luke doesn't state he got his information FROM eyewitnesses, just that there WERE Eyewitnesses.

2.) Luke doesn't cite his sources or name the eyewitnesses, which makes his claim here dubious. He could have been talking about Paul, for all we know, and Paul wasn't an eyewitess to the Life of Christ.

This makes Luke dubious. Not to mention the obviously false information in his works which cast doubt on his "history", for example, the following are historical problems in the work of Luke: ^[5]

• Luke 23:33
• If Jesus has been tried, convicted and Executed by the Jews, he would have been stoned to death, not crucified. The Jews did not use Crucifixion, nor was Blasphemy (as it claims in Luke to be the reason for his trial) condemnable by death.
• Luke 3:36-38
• Luke lists Jesus' anscestors, the first ten of which are known via archaeology to have been Babylonian Kings.
• Luke 23:12
• Herod and Pilate never became friends. According to Josephus they hated each other to the day of Pilates recall. Herod was continually plotting to unite Judea and Galilee which was part of Herod's fathers Kingdom, and which his father promised him.
• Luke 2:7
• At this time, "inns" were unknown to the Jews.
• Luke 2:46
• Not until Gamaliel was a Child allowed to sit in the presence of Rabbis.
• Luke 2:1-2
• No contemporary of this period states anything about a census being taken of the whole Roman World.
• According to the KJV, "all the world should be taxed; Augustus never issued a general decree, nor did he attempt a uniform assessment. Taxes were done privince by province.
• Cyrenius (quirinius) did make a census in Palestine, but it took place TEN YEARS after the death of Herod, instead of during his reign like Luke claims.
• If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, as Matthew 2:1 says, Joseph, whether a resident of Judea or of Galilee, could not have been taxed by Augustus since neither province was then a part of Syria. Both provinces belonged to Herod's Kingdom and Herod's subjects were not taxed by the Romans.
• Cyrenius did not become governor until nearly ten years after the death of Herod and Jesus would have been born in the time of Herod.
• Luke 3:1-2
• How could John have gotten the word of God during the reign of Lysanias in Abilene when Lysanias had been dead for thirty-four years when Jesus, a supposed contemporary of John, was born? Lysanias was put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra sixty years before Jesus' ministry began (Josephus, Antiquities B. 15:4:1)?
• At the time mentioned by Luke, the territory of Abila or Abilene was no longer a tetrarchy.
• Two men never held the office of High Priest jointly. Josephus says Gratus, who ruled before Pilate (15-26 CE) deprived Annas of the High Priesthood and appointed Ishmael who was followed by Caiaphas (Antiquities B. 18:2:2). There never was more then one High Priest at a time. It would have been the same as having two Legitamate Popes.

My favorite part is when Luke goes and heals a man's ear back on after Peter cuts it off. Something that most certainly didn't really happen, but in which the Author felt was necessary to add in.

These are but a few of what I could list given more time. The internal inconsistancy is even worse then the historical inconsistancy. And this is true for ALL the Gospels. And when you comapre them all with each other, the results are more then enough to invalidate the Gospels as historical narratives.

Further, Luke wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, and probably based a lot of his work on Josephus (although he of course altered a few things, which makes him more dubious). For example, the similarities between Luke and Josphus as astounding. Carrier did the work for me.

No, because the same problems that applied to Luke above apply to the other three Evangelists. On top of that, they are all conflicting, and for the most part, Matthew and Luke (the other Synoptics) copied from Mark. We know this also through internal criticism. This is what Historians do - we analyze the data present to determine if the material is dubious or suspect, and if it is we determine how and how badly it is. The Gospels fail at every turn to be historical narratives. They simply AREN'T historical narratives. ^[6]

That was decided upon by an Ecumenical Council in 325 CE.

The church couldn't do that - as you seem to think what was decided was decided upon by one man. It didn't work that way. The Ecumenical Council was called because tehre existed at the time of Constantine Hundreds (if not thousands) of sects of Christianity. Although half were considered Heretical and Gnostic, the other half was undecided on the nature of Jesus' Divinity or as "adoptionists" believed - that Jesus was a man, adopted by God as his son at his Baptism - but that he was just a man - but who God rewarded by raising him from the dead and who has seated him at his right hand to judge the end times.

The Christian community was so torn over the idea of how one should look at the divinity of Christ, and at how he should be veiwed all together, that these hundreds of sects fought at times and shed blood over who was right and who was wrong. ^[7] So Constantine, at the dispute between Arius and Orthodoxy, called the Council of Nicea to determine once and for all the doctrine the church - united - would follow.

According to Eusebius ^[8], there were 200-250 Bishops which attended the Council, and vote after vote was taken as per which documents would be included into the New Testament, as up until this time, the New testament did not exist and every sect was using certain books to understand Christ's divinity and his teachings. Out of the hundreds of manuscripts which we KNOW existed - this is not disputable - up until the 1940's- 1950's (1947 mainly), the only Gospels which existed were the four within the NT.

When the Nag Hammadi codexes were discovered in 1947, they were the most significant find known to Archaeology. ^[9] The Nag Hammadi works contained several Gospels and many more smaller works like Apocolypses and Works, and Acts and even a very mutilated work of Plato's Republic written in Coptic. Most of the works dated to before the middle of the Second Century ^[10] and put a completely NEW light on Jesus.

And the sad thing is, there are still dozens more works which we know about which are still missing and probably will never be found. For the most part, the finding of the Nag Hammadi codices was serendipitous.

All the church would really have to do to destroy a work is simply not copy it again, and the work would disappear. It was really that easy ^[11] as this was how writings were preserved (the printing press wasn't around at this time, and wouldn't be for centuries to come). The Gospels in the NT were those which had been selected by Orthodox Christian church fathers like Iraenius and Origin and Justin Martyr. They were the most popular at this time because most Christians at this point who were part of the Orthodoxy BELIEVED in Christ as a historical person.

However that was not always the case. ^[12]

Don't make claims that are inaccurate and over-state your position. Only three Gospels were written by the end of the first century - Mark, Matthew and Luke. The later two were written at the very end of the Century, as expressed earlier, Luke especially, wrote after 93 CE as this is when Josephus finished Antiquities of the Jews. Mark was written after or around the time of the fall of Jerusalem, and Matthew written between 75 CE and 80 CE, using Mark and another source like Gos. Thomas. Joyhn wrote long after the turn of the era, probably closer to the second decade of the Second Century (120 CE) and his work is VERY Gnostic. In fact there was some dispute at Nicea concerning the addition of this Gospel.^[13]

These documents weren't circulated quickly, and were probably copied by hundreds of Christians by the time of Nicea. In fact Gostics also claimed some of the Gospels as their own, for example Marcion claimed Luke, and even wrote a version of Luke that was widely circulated in the Second Century among his followers and even Orthodox Christians^[14], it's completely incredible that anybody can think the Gospels we have are close representations of what was written by the original Evangelists, and we don't HAVE copies of the Evangelists. In fact, nobody has ever seen or read the Autographa - even Gleason Archer admits this.^[15]

What we have today has been tampered with even MORE after Nicea, in fact the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus have tons of flaws between them, and they are only a century appart in age - and then there is Alexandrinus which is even worse. Who verses are cut out and sometimes half a chapter is imput into the Gospels, for example the ending of Mark, 1 John where the Trinity is discussed, parts of the Septuagint have been tampered with like that of Isaiah where it speaks of "virgin" births.^[16]

These are more reasons why Historians can't just accept the Gospels as historical accounts. There have been too much tampering over the hundreds of years of their existence, and they came about too late. Note how Early First Century church fathers like Papias and Clement and Paul never quote anything from the Gospels and never cite anything from the words of Christ discussed in the Gospels? This continues even into the Second Century, which speaks volumes of what exactly the Early Church Fathers believed - because they didn't even seem to KNOW of the Canonical Gospels existence.^[17]

You are correct, and if it were just that alone, I'd probably still be a Christian - much less doubt the existence of Christ. But it isn't JUST that alone. It's hundreds of other things that pile up. I've stated my case and backed up my statements with authoritative manuscripts and works. I hope you understand that I am studied in this and I have done my homework. I'm not just going on a whim here and stating, "Christ didn't exist!", no, I'm doing my research and doing my homework, and have determined that it is near impossible for a Christ to have existed historically.

Now you're being too picky. But to be more upfront with you, every early Gnostic work deemed Heretical by the church (Keep in mind, to the Gnostic, the Orthodoxy was Heretical to them - and there was no official position of any one unified church at this time - so neither can claim authority over the other - it's just that Orthodoxy won out after cases of slander wars and Inquisitions against the Gnostics that they have authority today) all show Christ in the light of Spiritual Revealer - more of less, he wasn't human, but more of a spiritual being which was the son of God, by which we attain spiritual enlightenment (or Gnosis) in which we can achieve salvation and after death go back to the substance of the spiritual God Logos, or manod.

Many people, during the first and second century believed this - including Paul which I shall prove in my Thesis, and what has been proven already by Carrier and Price. And in the second and Third Centuries the Christians were under fire by lots of the world most Elite thinkers - Pliny called Christianity a "monsterous superstition", Lucian mocked Christians for following an invisible savior which never existed, Trypho told Justin Martyr that the Christians had "invented a Christ" for themselves, Celsus criticized the church so badly that his works were destroyed and the only peices we have left are from Origin's Contra Celsum (or Against Celsus), in which he adamently denied the Virgin birth and existence of Christ - in fact compared Christ to Greek Gods such as Danea and Zethus, Minos, Amphion, and Agenia. Prophryr's "Against the Christians" is quite hallowing to your case as well.

CONCLUSION

I admire your zeal, and I thank you for your questions, but the case has been laid out before you and it is undeniable. If we were to look at how weel Historians documented History in the Ancient World, we would see SO MUCH MORE if in fact the Gospels were histories. They aren't. They're stories - narratives. For example, Tacitus was goodly enough to include in his works that Vesuvius 'eruption in which Pliny the Younger was an eyewitness to - and in which he had lost his uncle. In so many ways does Tacitus' report of Vesuvius mix with correct Archaeological data, and Pliny's own report to Tacitus, we cannot deny that what Tacitus has stated is what has happened. We have both Pliny and Tacitus' works on Vesuvius, and both make a perfect harmony with History.

With the Gospels we don't have this. We have internal contradictions, historical fallacies, chronological problems (lots of those especially between the Gospels when put side by side), there are unnamed sources, and in fact the authors themselves are not named - save by people generations after they were written, and what was originally written has gone the way of the Dinosaur, and has since been changed, altered, and forged to fit the whims of the church which won out at Nicea. Votes were taken and books were slected giving us the Bible we have today. And the Age of Agressive Forgeries proceeded Nicea to make sure what we have today isn't what they had in the Second Century. Every OUNCE of data in the Gospels is suspect and dubius, making it about as much a historical account as Moby Dick.

This is what the true nature of the Bible and Gospels are. This is what the true nature of Jesus is - mythology at it's finest. I hope you understand now. I hope I've been clearer this time, and I hope you really read what I've written. Because I respect you, you ask questions. You don't assert.

(Sources)

[1] Michael Grant, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, Pp. 104

[2] Paul's dissorientation towards the events of Christ's life are not new to the world. MANY people in antiquity knew of this as well, which is why both the Gnostics and Anti-Gnostics claimed Paul as their own. (Although the Gnostics definitely has more of a right.) Most thorough scholars today like Carrier, Price, and Kirby admit to this, in fact Carrier writes a very interesting pros on Paul and how he veiwed the Resurrection as spiritual in his "Spiritual Body of Christ" chapter in The Empty Tomb. Also see H.G. Wells "The Rise of Christianity" in The Outline of History, Pp. 453-455. Concerning Paul's authorship and lifespan consult the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible.

[3] The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot; The Apostolic Fathers I & II, Loeb Classical Library.

[4] Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Avraham Negev; Archeological Commentary on the Bible, Gonzalo Baez-Camargo.

[5] Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide, C. Dennis McKinsey

[6] What is a Gospel?, Talbert

[7] Truth and Fiction in The DaVinci Code, Bart Ehrman

[8] Ecclessiastical Histories I & II, Eusebius, Loeb Classical Library

[9] The Nag Hammadi Library, Robinson; The Gnostic Bible, Barnstone and Meyer; The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagals.

[10] Truth and Fiction in The DaVinci Code, Bart Ehrman

[11] Truth and Fiction in The DaVinci Code and The New testament, Bart Ehrman; The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Metzger

[12] The Nag Hammadi Library, Robinson; The Empty Tomb, Price; Kyrios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset; Pre-Christian Gnosticism, Yamauchi

[13] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible; What is a Gospel, Talbert; Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Negev

[14] Against Marcion, Tertullian; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

[15] "...we must deal with the very real problem of the complete disappearance of the autographa (the original writings-ed) themselves... it is technically true that there are no extant inerrant originals." (p. 27). "it may be true that we no longer possess any perfect copy of the inerrant original manuscripts of the Bible." (p. 28). (Gleason Archer, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties)

[16] The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman

[17] Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoor; The Apostolic Fathers I & II, Loeb Classical Library; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Chruch