Did Jesus really exist?

On the same note, if Jesus is God, why does it take literally thousands of hours of scholarly research to even get a good idea of whether or not he existed, much less whether Bible is an accurate description of his life!

In other words, why would God make it so ambiguous and complex?

Eric
 
Why did God make the mess he did?

Originally posted by TheERK
----------
On the same note, if Jesus is God, why does it take literally thousands of hours of scholarly research to even get a good idea of whether or not he existed, much less whether Bible is an accurate description of his life!

In other words, why would God make it so ambiguous and complex?

Eric
----------
(So he could watch us fighting over him. He is a jealous god, you know?)
 
If is hard to see if he really lived, because if he did live then he would have lived 2,000 years ago. Finding evidence of a specific person, even as famous as Jesus would prove to be a hard task. It doesn't help that he wasn't famous while still young, like a person of royalty would be.
 
the big J.C.

I think he did exist, but it's not definite what he was really teaching. The big problem is that he didn't write anything down, or if he did, it didn't survive. This leaves room for his disciples, who may or may not have really understood him, to spread whatever story played well with the public. I like the book "The essential teachings of Jesus for Believers and Unbelievers by Stephen Mitchell" in which he quotes Thomas Jefferson saying that although there is internal (intuituve) evidence that many statements in the new testament are written by an enlightened person, there is also much that falls short of great wisdom. I think J.C.'s true teachings were too radical for middle eastern culture at that time to come to terms with it, and so it was rewritten by lesser men. Of course the whole resurrection myth came long after his death, like all those sightings of Elvis.

I think Jesus himself would agree, that he didn't want to be worshipped like a god. He was preaching the democratization of religion, that everyone is equally sacred and a "son of God". If you want to call the creative principle of the cosmos "God", then I think he is sending messengers all the time to earth. For every celebrity messiah, there are probably many others living and dying in obscurity.
 
I don't see any reason to believe that he did exist, simply becuase the whole Myth of Christianity was created by Paul. Who is to say Paul did not just create this character himself?

If you think about it, the years between Jesus and Paul were great enough to where the stories could very well have been completely fabricated without anyone being the wiser. I don't see any evidence otherwise, so why is there this need to believe that Jesus existed at all?

Personally, I think it's because of the popular "urban legend" mindset, where people today have to attribute a real-life base to a crazy myth. Well, while there is always some sort of real inspiration, it doesn't have to be a stripped-down version of the stories' character. For example, the inspiration for Jesus could very well have been the need for a singular, long-lost savior who no one remembers, yet who's legend everyone will follow. This, rather than a wiseman fitting Jesus' description.

JD
 
Re: the big J.C.

Originally posted by spidergoat
I think he did exist, but it's not definite what he was really teaching. The big problem is that he didn't write anything down, or if he did, it didn't survive.

...I think Jesus himself would agree, that he didn't want to be worshipped like a god. He was preaching the democratization of religion, that everyone is equally sacred and a "son of God". If you want to call the creative principle of the cosmos "God", then I think he is sending messengers all the time to earth.
Click to expand...

The whole point is, you have no evidence that he actually did exist. You go on to state that even if he did exist, we have no idea what he said--then you proceed to state that "Jesus himself would agree." How do you know that?
 
Agreed, there is no concrete proof that the man existed, but there is circumstantial evidence. Just the fact that there are stories about him, and what he is said to have said is so unlike the philosophy of the time, it is much more unlikely that he didn't exist. Just like the story of the flood, scientists now find there is evidence of major catastrophic flooding in the black sea in the recent past, these stories don't come out of thin air! They may exaggerate the truth, but I feel they are based on a grain of truth. Also, like Jefferson says, there is internal evidence, that is, the wisdom we accumulate over a lifetime of experience seems to mirror some things Jesus said.

In a way, it almost doesn't matter if Jesus existed - somebody existed to write that stuff down, and that someone had some good ideas, whether or not he was named Jesus (or Yeshua) is irrelevent. I see the character of Jesus like the Buddha, not supernatural, but a person with sincere compassion to help his fellow people and a talent for breaking through psychological blocks to happiness, who only became deified after his death.

Its not that we have no idea what he said, its just that it is difficult to sort out what he may have said from the mythology. This is an extremely subjective exercise!!! The rigid logic of scientific thinking is the wrong tool for the job in this case. If, for instance, you found an ancient body, and it was marked with the name Jesus, you still could not be sure it was the same one the bible refers to, probably many people had the same name, and also many people were crucified to death. What evidence COULD there be, that would really prove his existence. I say there can't be any, and a search for concrete proof is futile. We are left with only what is probable. Much scientific inquiry is based on what is probable, not what is sure beyond doubt.
 
From a PBS broadcast on Christianity-
PBS reporter: Looking at the life of Jesus as a historical problem, why is it so difficult to reconstruct his life historically? There's basically plenty of evidence for it.
Quote from Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament Studies and Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Harvard Divinity School.
What Jesus actually said, and what Jesus actually did, as a brute historical fact we will never know.... Because figures of past history are not necessarily remembered for what they did, but they are remembered for what the effect of the next generation was. Socrates is of course a famous example. We don't have a single saying of Socrates about which we can be certain. But we can know why Socrates was the topic of Plato's philosophy, and that a number of questions of Plato's philosophy are rooted in the figure of Socrates himself. But we cannot reconstruct his teaching. And I think we are in the same situation with Jesus, a situation in which we can be certain that all of this would not have happened without Jesus. That the disciples would not have had the miraculous experience of Jesus being among them as they broke the bread and shared the wine after Jesus' death, had not Jesus already shared bread and wine with them to the outlook of the future coming of the Kingdom of God. So we can draw lines between what we see as the effect and what might have been the causes. But we cannot peel down the tradition to an original kernel which we can ascribe to Jesus.
Click to expand...
Quote from Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School.
It's the nature of that evidence, I think, [that] is inherently problematic, because in a way Jesus is the quintessential non-historical person. I mean here is a man who was born in the provinces, probably poor, at least in terms of all of the traditions we have at our disposal. Not only was he born in those circumstances, he lived in those circumstances and associated with other people who lived in those circumstances. This is no way to become a big shot. This is certainly no way to become somebody who establishes the end of an era and the beginning of a new age....
History isn't made to record the deeds of a person like Jesus. I mean Jesus is very much like most people, statistically speaking, who have ever existed in the world - poor, obscure, no pretensions to royalty or distinction of any kind. They live under less than desirable conditions and they die that way. There's nothing historically remarkable about that. Billions of people pass through this vale of tears in exactly that way. The argument of the gospel proclamation is that there is something distinctive about this particular individual. So that kind theological claim is on a collision course with the way that history is usually done....
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by SVRP
Quote from Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School.
I mean Jesus is very much like most people, statistically speaking, who have ever existed in the world - poor, obscure, no pretensions to royalty or distinction of any kind. They live under less than desirable conditions and they die that way. There's nothing historically remarkable about that. Billions of people pass through this vale of tears in exactly that way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Quote from Matthew.
  • 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.
  • 14:18 He said, Bring them hither to me.
  • 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
  • 14:20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.
  • 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
So, leaving aside the purported miracle itself, we have a "poor, obscure, no pretensions" kind of guy - much like you and me - successfully commanding "about five thousand men, beside women and children [sic]". This, of course, was but a "multitude". Later we read:
  • 21:07 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.
  • 21:08 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed [them] in the way.
  • 21:09 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
If a multitude represents "about five thousand men, beside women and children", one shudders to think what "a very great multitude" might represent.

When proselytizing, these good Christians sell the legend of a man-God commanding and feeding thousands and adulated by many thousand more. But, as soon as they find themselves face to face with the problems of historicity, Jesus shrinks to a good ol' boy, understandably unnoticed by the historians of his time.
 
Well, for historical evidence, we might look at the footprints JC left. They were mighty big. In fact, you could very well claim that he changed the world. Such footprints require somebody to leave them, so I think that we can safely assume that an important religious reformer walked on the ground in the Middle East around AD30-33. Whether his name was Jesus, and what core of truth might lie in the legends about him, we will probably never know.

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, for historical evidence, we might look at the footprints JC left. They were mighty big. In fact, you could very well claim that he changed the world.
Click to expand...
And what size shoe does Kali wear? :D
 
MRC_Hans,

Well, for historical evidence, we might look at the footprints JC left. They were mighty big. In fact, you could very well claim that he changed the world.
Click to expand...
No, but you could say that the world changed.

Such footprints require somebody to leave them, so I think that we can safely assume that an important religious reformer walked on the ground in the Middle East around AD30-33.
Click to expand...
No that is simply false. It is a non sequitur. That people choose to believe something has no connection with whether the story is true or not. For thousands of years everyone assumed the world was flat. It was simply so obvious and laughable to even consider anything else. Using your reasoning we must conclude that the flat earth story was indeed true because it left such a large footprint in the minds of people who believed it.
 
Originally posted by Cris
MRC_Hans,

No, but you could say that the world changed.

No that is simply false. It is a non sequitur. That people choose to believe something has no connection with whether the story is true or not. For thousands of years everyone assumed the world was flat. It was simply so obvious and laughable to even consider anything else. Using your reasoning we must conclude that the flat earth story was indeed true because it left such a large footprint in the minds of people who believed it.
Click to expand...
Or the world changed, if you like. I think you misunderstand me.

My point is that somebody CAUSED the world to change. Whenever history has changed, somebody or something caused it to change. In the case of the beginning of Christianity, legend has it that Jesus was the cause. What we can say with very good certainty is that SOMEBODY was there at that time and did something to cause the change.

Who it was (it might even not be one single person, but a group), however, is probably impossible to know.

Edited to add: About the flat Earth; obviously it was always round, but at some point somebody CAUSED us to stop believing it was flat. (most of us, that is, heheh)

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Or the world changed, if you like. I think you misunderstand me.

My point is that somebody CAUSED the world to change. Whenever history has changed, somebody or something caused it to change. In the case of the beginning of Christianity, legend has it that Jesus was the cause.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Constantine played a role. ;)
 
CA,

Perhaps Constantine played a role.
Click to expand...
I believe at the time it was a difficult choice between worshiping the Sun or the Jesus concept.
 
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance.

- see Eusebius:The Conversion of Constantine - Chapter XXVIL
Click to expand...
It's interesting accepting Eusebius is of "the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced". This was a time of when demons and magic were taken in stride. The struggle was not to convince others of the miracles of Jesus, but to embellish such acts to the point that they became noteworthy.
 
Who changed the world?

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
My point is that somebody CAUSED the world to change. Whenever history has changed, somebody or something caused it to change. In the case of the beginning of Christianity, legend has it that Jesus was the cause. What we can say with very good certainty is that SOMEBODY was there at that time and did something to cause the change.

Who it was (it might even not be one single person, but a group), however, is probably impossible to know.

Edited to add: About the flat Earth; obviously it was always round, but at some point somebody CAUSED us to stop believing it was flat. (most of us, that is, heheh)

Hans
Click to expand...
----------
MRC_hans, has the world really changed? Times may change, but people don't change except through evolution. The beginning of Xianity was NOT CAUSED by Jesus. Jesus wasn't a Xian, he was a devout Jew (if he existed). He was a Rabbi. He did not preach Xianity, he tried to teach the Jews about the spirit, but of course, this was foreign to their thoughts. The CAUSE of Xianity was Paul who wrote most of the NT slanted toward his creation of the Jesus myth. In essence, it was Paul who created Jesus. I believe Jesus may have lived, but was more insignificant than is believed. He was a convenient God for Paul to base Xianity on. Paul never knew Jesus. He had only seen him in a vision. Paul created the whole myth of the death, resurrection and ascending as part of this myth. The Jews were waiting on a coming Messiah, and this gave Paul the perfect timing to create one. Did Paul cause the world to change? In a manner of speaking, yes, but not for the good of the world or it's inhabitants. Anything based on a lie cannot be for the human good unless it's a piece of artwork, a novel, a sculpture, a painting, a sport, for example. These things are not "real" but they do incite emotional feelings which can be for the good of the human race. I think this is what Jesus was trying to do, to incite the emotional feelings of the Jews to understand the spirit of God and the efficacy of God's grace and not just the law. Paul turned that all around and created the God-myth. I cannot see how it has helped this world. At some point, and I believe we're getting closer to it everyday, the world will find out the truth that Paul CAUSED Xianity, and someone or a group of people, perhaps, will CAUSE the truth to be known about Xianity, and in time, Xianity will be CAUSED to fail. Just like the Greek and Roman gods, we know they are a myth and we don't worship them. This will hold true for Xianity.
 
Historians have found that there were a number of people proclaiming themselves as “messiahs” during the time of Jesus, inciting revolts or revolutions against the Roman authorities. And when these “messiahs” died, their followers dissolved into obscurity, only to follow another self-proclaimed “messiah”. (Acts 5:34- 39) This habit was evident of Jesus’s followers when the authorities came to arrest Jesus. His followers ran away and hid for their lives. With the death of Jesus, they should have dissolved and looked for another. But that didn’t happen. After some time they were out on the streets proclaiming that Jesus rose from the dead and they were witnesses to that fact. (Acts 4:5- 14) They were bold enough to take to the world the message of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. If they had not seen it with their own eyes it would be doubtful they would have given their lives for something they weren’t sure of. Jesus gave the responsibility of proclaiming His resurrection and the “good news” to the Apostles. And with that responsibility they faced horrible executions, which is a strong indication that they actually saw the resurrected Christ and believed what they taught. The testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus was written with their blood. It is doubtful they would have been able to do this great work of spreading the gospel if they did not really believe that they had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes.

http://www.biblepath.com/apostles.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top