Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?
- Thread starter shadow2k
- Start date
Masquerouge
Deity
MobBoss said:Uh...yes, Jesus had a brother, James. He is even identified as such in my bible and in the book of well, James.
Well, actually my memories from my Catholic education were correct:
"Jerome (died 420) argued vehemently (De Viris Illustribus, "On Illustrious Men") that James was merely a cousin to Jesus, the son of another Mary, the wife of Clopas and "sister" of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the following manner: "James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book." Jerome's reference is to the scene of the Crucifixion in John 19:25. Jerome's opinion has been embraced by the Roman Catholic church, and has the effect of suggesting an identification of James the Just with James the Less. Despite this, some biblical scholars tend to distinguish them."
So the Catholic church's position is that Jesus had no brothers.
Masquerouge said:
Based on basically their say-so. Although I did have a Jesuit priest (my high school religion teacher) say that he though Jesus did have brothers.
Masquerouge
Deity
Eran of Arcadia said:
Actually I was more concerned with wether or not my memories were correct than by the truth in the stance of the Catholic Church.
But you're right: it is based on say-so. To me, I think it is highly likely that Jesus had brothers.
I study in litterature and one fact I can tell you is that "writing" in those days was not common... and there's reason why people asume that he lived... it's because all (or almost) the big texts that come from those ancients era are oraly transmited before an erudite write the story down because it has become so popular. The fact that people like Paul wrote down actual letters (or they seem to be called like that) is a good indication that there was something there...
and we are not even talking of texts that exist who where believed less important because they where too different from the rest. They where written by people who actually saw him (like juda defending kind of defending himself and being less "he is devine") that's are other proof that he existed... One thing i'm sure off, it's that we have far more proof that Jesus existed then people like Homer who are often seen as fictional autor name given by some scribe at that time.. (or later by monasteries)
you can see that as a trial where they are many testimonies and no actual scientific proofs (or so little) it will be hard to proove guilty but you can asume that he did the crime... (that he existed in that situation)
a lot of "truth" that we asume from those era are not more then that
I might talk about the fact that the monasteries who translated the original texts where not objective and change many things in litterary or religious texts... it's why the experts often seek to study the original and it's also why we have so many misconception... it's not to be harsh, but a cristian who actually believe the bible is the absolute truth (or anywhere near enough to the truth) is naive... but the bible, like so many other religious (or for that matter, biografical) books is a book with truths mixed with some guidelines for living a good live
guidelines that are worth at least listening to, but then again it's an opinion
and i'm not believing in god so I say that trying to be objective
and we are not even talking of texts that exist who where believed less important because they where too different from the rest. They where written by people who actually saw him (like juda defending kind of defending himself and being less "he is devine") that's are other proof that he existed... One thing i'm sure off, it's that we have far more proof that Jesus existed then people like Homer who are often seen as fictional autor name given by some scribe at that time.. (or later by monasteries)
you can see that as a trial where they are many testimonies and no actual scientific proofs (or so little) it will be hard to proove guilty but you can asume that he did the crime... (that he existed in that situation)
a lot of "truth" that we asume from those era are not more then that
I might talk about the fact that the monasteries who translated the original texts where not objective and change many things in litterary or religious texts... it's why the experts often seek to study the original and it's also why we have so many misconception... it's not to be harsh, but a cristian who actually believe the bible is the absolute truth (or anywhere near enough to the truth) is naive... but the bible, like so many other religious (or for that matter, biografical) books is a book with truths mixed with some guidelines for living a good live
guidelines that are worth at least listening to, but then again it's an opinion
and i'm not believing in god so I say that trying to be objective
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Personaly, I would focus more on what the Catholic Encyclopedia would say in regards to the topic.
Welcome to OT franlato. Nice post too. 
Where in France do you live?franlato said:
Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
MobBoss said:
I have a couple of clues as to what Jesus looked like. Consider the following Jesus had just angered members of His hometown of Nazareth:
Luke 4:28-30
All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
Jesus had to have been plain looking, Jewish-looking, and not plae or European looking; else, He would not have escaped the crowd so easily. Another clue supports this:
Isaiah 53:2
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
The prophet Isaiah said the Messiah would not be beautiful, nor majestic; nothing of his appearance would be noteworthy.
But, I believe we can safely say Jesus had a beard. Once again, Isaiah predicted this about the Messiah:
Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
But, as far as I know, those are the only biblical statements about what Jesus looked like while He walked the Earth.
Eran of Arcadia said:
Matthew 12:46-50
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
shadow2k
Emperor
franlato said:
So, what you're saying is that the best proof is from Paul. I'm not interested in excuses for why there's no better proof any more than people would be interested in theories about why some think Jesus didn't exist. I'd rather focus on facts.
Here are the facts, far as I can tell:
Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians is the earliest written mention of Jesus. Although it is religious in nature, we'll overlook that for now.
Paul wrote this document at leat 15yrs after Jesus would have died.
Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. He claimed to have met Jesus after Jesus had risen. So for the religious, that's all well and good. But for anyone who doesn't believe in Christ's resurrection, these writings suddenly don't serve as a credible source. Without the belief in the resurrection, Paul is either lying, delusional, or simply telling a story of something that never really happened.
I'm under the impression that this is considered a miracle; and thus is not an indication of his appearance.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Yes, he did exist.
Why should some writings be completely discounted just because they are religious in nature? I know that if they serve a religious purpose that they can't be relied on as a source of history, but it's a good sign that someone exists if 15 years later there are whole lot of people who think that he did.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Eran of Arcadia said:
Because it'd be like using Scientologist books as proof that Xenu existed. Any account we use as proof needs not be biased.
warpus said:
No, it's more like using current Scientology books as proof L. Ron Hubbard existed. Again, the issue is not the existence of God - in which case we can't really rely on religious texts - but of Jesus. If 15 years from now in some remote village in India, people are writing books about a man whom they claim has performed all sorts of miracles and whatnot, I may not believe the miracles but I will be inclined to believe the man himself existed even if there are no more records of him than one would expect.
And do you really think that we have any texts or historical records from 2000 years ago that aren't biased in some way? By that standard, I am left to conclude that there was no one alive 2000 years ago.
shadow2k
Emperor
Eran of Arcadia said:
Far as I know, L. Ron Hubbard wrote the original book himself. Jesus wrote nothing.
The other "facts" these people put forth tend to discredit them if one is not religious. Things that only the religious would believe. And even some of the religious don't beleive it all. Therefore, their credibility is in question.
We're not talking about simple bias here. We're talking about things like having conversations with dead men being the source for much of Paul's writings. We're talking about texts that make one of the Gospels over 100yrs old (in the 1st century!) when he wrote it, if he were around the same age as Jesus. Walking on water, resurrecting the dead, etc...
If any villager told you that some man they knew did these things, their credibility would be called into question. I'm not sure why the biblical texts shouldn't have to be put through the same scrutiny.
Similar threads
