Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?

[shadow2k]

That is certainly a plausible explanation, but then so is the idea that he was a charismatic preacher whom his own family didn't follow. hence the problem; we have one data set, which could lead to either of two opposite conclusions.

Now here's a question. Let us assume, for the sake of this hypothetical example, that Jesus didn't exist. Further, let us assume that his existence is nonetheless plausible. What sort of evidence, other than what we now have, would exist if he really did exist?

Not much.

I honestly didn't start the thread to convince people that he didn't. Truth be told, I'm fairly sure he probably did, and was before I started the thread. But that wouldn't have made for a very engaging discussion. My beliefs about his divinity are a completely different subject.

But when I tried to find information about proof of his existence, well...I was rather suprised about how little there really is. I see people claim that it's there...but outside of religious texts, it's really not.

I would have thought that maybe at least one historian who lived in the time would have written at least one sentence about him that we'd find after 2,000yrs. Maybe carvings by where his body was put to rest. Relics, like the holy grail, spear of destiny, wood from the cross, ropes that bound him, nails that held him in place, clothes that he wore, cups he drank from...one tiny shred of physical evidence. I mean, if you met a man walking around that you thought was God, wouldn't you grab some sort of souvenier? If I thought my neighbor was God, I'd want a signed photograph at the very least. Maybe he could whip me up a statue or something. I'd settle for a shot glass. Hell, people today buy locks of hair off ebay that belonged to Vanilla Ice.

But it's just not there. Nothing really, outside of religious texts. I find it odd. Thought it would be an interesting topic, and to see if I was missing something.

 

[Sidhe]

http://www.answers.com/topic/historicity-of-jesus

You'll love this thread, read it, I'd post excerpts but they're all pretty relevant. Me personally I believe he existed, it's hard to create a cult based on nothing but suposition, but as to who he was and what he was, that is in the realms of faith.

Actually I hope he existed, because the wisdom he gave to the world is undeniably a good thing, of course I'm agnostic, so whether God or Jesus exists is of little import, unless you can prove it

Either way his existence or not was a good thing, religion benefited from it up until the point it started corrupting it, now it's just a morasse to me, and an excuse to create all sorts of political division, it's worthwhile but only if people can actually follow it, and not talk such ceaseless crap about how it's right to war in it's name and how Jesus was a warrior sent to blah blah blah frigging blah.

 

[Souron]

Maybe carvings by where his body was put to rest. Relics, like the holy grail, spear of destiny, wood from the cross, ropes that bound him, nails that held him in place, clothes that he wore, cups he drank from...one tiny shred of physical evidence.

Oh, there's been lots of that. Plenty of pieces of the cross and other such items sold in the middle ages as holy relics. Trouble is most were fake. If there were any that weren't, they were lost amung the fakes.

 

[bgast1]

Just a few comments here. Probably not worth much to athiests or agnostics but I will make them anyway.

Christianity was flourishing long before Constantine had his meeting to determine the canon of Scripture. In fact that actual canon was pretty much already decided before that time.

I also think that if anyone here from a legal standpoint, adopting current rules of evidence sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if they take scripture, and extra-scriptural references and really applies themselves, they will either come away believing in Jesus Christ, or they will come away refusing to believe as an act of their own volition. But they will not be able to deny the Jesus Christ lived, was crucified and was resurrected from the dead.

Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was one of the worst enemies and persecuters of early Christians before he had a personal first hand encounter with Jesus Christ on the way to Damascus. Yet when he became an apostle he literally turned the world upside for Christianity. I ask you why would he do that had he not had such an experience? Why would he have allowed himself to imprisoned in Rome, what would cause him to make such an about face and risk persecution and death for a myth?

Someone made a comment that finding the "real" Jesus through the gospels is not the thing to do. I disagree wholeheartedly. Most of you discounting the Bible have never read it. Those of you who say you have read it and have not been affected by it, are probably liars. I assure you it is easy to sit back and make comments off the top of your head about what you "think" you know about the Bible, and what you have "heard" or "read" about what others say about, but not having actually researched it for yourself have no room to talk authoritatively. I did this myself for many years before I became a believer. You aren't fooling me.

I submit to any of you. Disprove the claims of Christ for yourself, and then I will listen to you. Those of you that think there are contradictions in the Bible, read it anyway.

 

[Quasar1011]

I'm under the impression that this is considered a miracle; and thus is not an indication of his appearance.

Miracle implies supernatural activity (intervention or timing). Though this is possible in this case, it is not necessary. It could have happened something like this...

SETH: "Hey! That Jesus dude just blasphemed! Somebody grab him!"
ABNER: "Right! Which one is Jesus?"
SETH: "The one with the beard!"
ABNER: "But we all have beards!"
SETH: "Well, the one with the beard who looks Jewish."
ABNER: "But we're all Jews, we all look Jewish!"
SETH: "Well, that Jesus dude is plain-looking too."
ABNER: "So are half the guys around here."
SETH: "Yah, but he was wearing a white robe."
ABNER: "We're ALL wearing white robes!"
SETH: "Look, Jannas, just grab Jesus!"
ABNER: "I'm not Jannas, I'm Abner!"
JANNAS (grabbing Seth): "We got you now, Jesus!"

 

[shadow2k]

Just a few comments here. Probably not worth much to athiests or agnostics but I will make them anyway.

Christianity was flourishing long before Constantine had his meeting to determine the canon of Scripture. In fact that actual canon was pretty much already decided before that time.

I also think that if anyone here from a legal standpoint, adopting current rules of evidence sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if they take scripture, and extra-scriptural references and really applies themselves, they will either come away believing in Jesus Christ, or they will come away refusing to believe as an act of their own volition. But they will not be able to deny the Jesus Christ lived, was crucified and was resurrected from the dead.

Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was one of the worst enemies and persecuters of early Christians before he had a personal first hand encounter with Jesus Christ on the way to Damascus. Yet when he became an apostle he literally turned the world upside for Christianity. I ask you why would he do that had he not had such an experience? Why would he have allowed himself to imprisoned in Rome, what would cause him to make such an about face and risk persecution and death for a myth?

Someone made a comment that finding the "real" Jesus through the gospels is not the thing to do. I disagree wholeheartedly. Most of you discounting the Bible have never read it. Those of you who say you have read it and have not been affected by it, are probably liars. I assure you it is easy to sit back and make comments off the top of your head about what you "think" you know about the Bible, and what you have "heard" or "read" about what others say about, but not having actually researched it for yourself have no room to talk authoritatively. I did this myself for many years before I became a believer. You aren't fooling me.

I submit to any of you. Disprove the claims of Christ for yourself, and then I will listen to you. Those of you that think there are contradictions in the Bible, read it anyway.

It's lectures like this that tends to make some people have a not so friendly view of Christians. If you think offending people by calling them liars is going to get you anywhere in your quest for conversion, you're sadly mistaken. You do more harm than good.

But if you'd actually read the thread, we're not discussing the divinity of Christ in here anyway. If you'd like to talk about how the resurrection would get smacked down in a court of law, or whether Christ was divine, feel free to start a thread of your own. If you have some actual proof to put forth about the existence of Christ, by all means do so.

Theories about why Paul did such and such aren't proof...they are theories. But to answer your question, let's talk about people's beliefs, and what they're willing to die for. Seeing how you're a fundamentalist, you believe that all other religions are false. So anyone who ever died for their beliefs in another religion proves, as far as you're concerned, that people can and will put their lives on the line for myths/legends/lies.

 

[Azash]

Those of you who say you have read it and have not been affected by it, are probably liars.

I have read parts of it, I have been affected. Thankfully, I'm rid of that book of yours now.

 

[bgast1]

It's lectures like this that tends to make some people have a not so friendly view of Christians. If you think offending people by calling them liars is going to get you anywhere in your quest for conversion, you're sadly mistaken. You do more harm than good.

But if you'd actually read the thread, we're not discussing the divinity of Christ in here anyway. If you'd like to talk about how the resurrection would get smacked down in a court of law, or whether Christ was divine, feel free to start a thread of your own. If you have some actual proof to put forth about the existence of Christ, by all means do so.

Theories about why Paul did such and such aren't proof...they are theories. But to answer your question, let's talk about people's beliefs, and what they're willing to die for. Seeing how you're a fundamentalist, you believe that all other religions are false. So anyone who ever died for their beliefs in another religion proves, as far as you're concerned, that people can and will put their lives on the line for myths/legends/lies.

No intent to lecture anyone. No intent to thread jack. No intent to convert anyone. Nevertheless, you fall into the same group that I was speaking of. I don't think that I am that fundamentalist either, but I can see how you would take it that way. Sorry if you felt offended, I probably should have gone with my first instincts and not posted that.

 

[bgast1]

I have read parts of it, I have been affected. Thankfully, I'm rid of that book of yours now.

Parts, does not qualify for all. And obviously you were affected by it, if you have to consider yourself done with it.

 

[bgast1]

Because it appears that I have offended some with my comments, I apologize for offending people. No intent was made to lecture anyone. I was merely trying to ....aw forget it. Let's just say I apologize and leave it at that.

 

[Sidhe]

Just a few comments here. Probably not worth much to athiests or agnostics but I will make them anyway.

Christianity was flourishing long before Constantine had his meeting to determine the canon of Scripture. In fact that actual canon was pretty much already decided before that time.

I also think that if anyone here from a legal standpoint, adopting current rules of evidence sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if they take scripture, and extra-scriptural references and really applies themselves, they will either come away believing in Jesus Christ, or they will come away refusing to believe as an act of their own volition. But they will not be able to deny the Jesus Christ lived, was crucified and was resurrected from the dead.

Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was one of the worst enemies and persecuters of early Christians before he had a personal first hand encounter with Jesus Christ on the way to Damascus. Yet when he became an apostle he literally turned the world upside for Christianity. I ask you why would he do that had he not had such an experience? Why would he have allowed himself to imprisoned in Rome, what would cause him to make such an about face and risk persecution and death for a myth?

Someone made a comment that finding the "real" Jesus through the gospels is not the thing to do. I disagree wholeheartedly. Most of you discounting the Bible have never read it. Those of you who say you have read it and have not been affected by it, are probably liars. I assure you it is easy to sit back and make comments off the top of your head about what you "think" you know about the Bible, and what you have "heard" or "read" about what others say about, but not having actually researched it for yourself have no room to talk authoritatively. I did this myself for many years before I became a believer. You aren't fooling me.

I submit to any of you. Disprove the claims of Christ for yourself, and then I will listen to you. Those of you that think there are contradictions in the Bible, read it anyway.

I agree I have read the gospels and I'm deeply moved by the simple and yet powerful message, it doesn't necessarily make me believe in God, but it does give me hope that there have been and are people in the world who make a difference, who are selfless and enlightened, who have wisdom yet do not command, who implore but do not force, who ask only of you what you would ask of others.

It is harder in my opinion to prove he did not exist absolutely, there is just too much biblical and apocryphal or gnostic or essene or whatever texts rattling around to make the statement that he did not exist, in a form unrecognisable, but he was alive I think, from reading this thread I haven't changed that view point, although I will say this: both this thread and others have opened my eyes to the idea of the myth and the inconsistencies of the evidence that exists, it's hard to take the gospels at face value, except the message itself which I do not believe came from a vaccuum personally, you need a charismatic and in this case wise leader to sway masses, looking through history I've never seen a movement started without one, even if it is Elron (the businessman) Hubbard.

 

[shadow2k]

Nevertheless, you fall into the same group that I was speaking of.

Actually, I've read the Bible and the Torah...and much of the Quran, though not front to back. I was raised in a religious environment. I grew up believing in God, simply because I never really thought to question it...he just was, that's how I was raised.

I'm an atheist because I look at things more critically than I did back then. It's not that I haven't read the books, or even understood them...although it has been a while since I've read either back to back. I can't sit here and cite passages by name or anything, but I know more than you might think at first glance. You'll find that many atheists (at least in here) do tend to actually read these books. We just don't see them in the same light as you do.

I do believe that many of the stories may have some basis in fact, just like many myths/legends that aren't religious in nature. That's why I like to talk about religion...in here anyway. It's the historical part of the texts that interest me more than anything else though. Although I do tend to jump into the religious threads as well, but that more of an interest in the influence it has on society.

But yeah, if you want to discuss the actual religious aspects, another thread would be best.

 

[Azash]

Parts, does not qualify for all. And obviously you were affected by it, if you have to consider yourself done with it.

What part of "I have been affected" went past you?

But if it truly is any of your concern, I do occasionally read some chapters.

 

[bgast1]

What part of "I have been affected" went past you?

But if it truly is any of your concern, I do occasionally read some chapters.

Perhaps I should go back to school and learn how to read again. Somehow I read into you statement that you said unaffected.

 

[bgast1]

Actually, I've read the Bible and the Torah...and much of the Quran, though not front to back. I was raised in a religious environment. I grew up believing in God, simply because I never really thought to question it...he just was, that's how I was raised.

I'm an atheist because I look at things more critically than I did back then. It's not that I haven't read the books, or even understood them...although it has been a while since I've read either back to back. I can't sit here and cite passages by name or anything, but I know more than you might think at first glance. You'll find that many atheists (at least in here) do tend to actually read these books. We just don't see them in the same light as you do.

I do believe that many of the stories may have some basis in fact, just like many myths/legends that aren't religious in nature. That's why I like to talk about religion...in here anyway. It's the historical part of the texts that interest me more than anything else though. Although I do tend to jump into the religious threads as well, but that more of an interest in the influence it has on society.

But yeah, if you want to discuss the actual religious aspects, another thread would be best.

If you are interested in the historical part of the texts. The book of Acts is full of history. Accurate I might add as well.