Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?

[shadow2k]

It is very hard to believe that one of the world's most widely accepted religeons had no physical grounding. It is more probable that Jesus did exist, than he didn't.

But think about why it became so widely accepted at that time. I mean, obviously now it's accepted...a large majority of those people having just inherited it from their parents, for lack of a better word.

But where would Christianity be if Constantine was not an Emperor?

I don't think the number of people who believe something is indicative of it's basis in fact. Lot's of people believe Atlantis existed. Ancient texts that reference even older sources that we don't have. "Prophets" (and I use this word in the loosest way) that have told us about it. Would many more people believe in Atlantis if it had been named the ancient motherland of the Roman Empire? Would that make it any more valid, or proof that it was based in fact?

 

[ComradeDavo]

It is very hard to believe that one of the world's most widely accepted religeons had no physical grounding. It is more probable that Jesus did exist, than he didn't.

It's only one of the world's most 'accepted' religions because of the way it has been spread so agressively.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Palestine was awash with men who spoke for the 'divine' in that time . . .

So why reject the existence of the most famous one?

As far as I know, the epistles of Paul have been dated to about 15 years after Jesus' crucifixion. That is a little too short to make it all up. And since he seemed to be a relatively minor figure, not a politician or a general but just a preacher, it is to be expected that no historian would comment on him until his following gained momentum.

As far as his divinity, I believe it as a matter of faith. That it has something in common with Mithraism and other myths is not so much the worse for Christianity but so much the better for them; it means to me that even "pagan" religions had some concept of the Redemption.

 

[Abaddon]

Yeah, some dude called Jesus kicked about a while ago..


wether or not he was the son of god, or did anything more than talk a good talk an know a few magic tricks? im not so sure...

 

[warpus]

If he wasn't famous (relatively speaking of course), then why did people believe? We're told that people witnessed all these miracles. That's why he gained followers, right? If only a small number of people witnessed these things and followed him, then why did people believe so strongly in him after the fact? Because the apostles were good storytellers?

You have your answer right there. Jesus probably existed, but most of the stories about him were probably made up by the 'good storytellers'.

 

[shadow2k]

So why reject the existence of the most famous one?

As far as I know, the epistles of Paul have been dated to about 15 years after Jesus' crucifixion. That is a little too short to make it all up. And since he seemed to be a relatively minor figure, not a politician or a general but just a preacher, it is to be expected that no historian would comment on him until his following gained momentum.

As far as his divinity, I believe it as a matter of faith. That it has something in common with Mithraism and other myths is not so much the worse for Christianity but so much the better for them; it means to me that even "pagan" religions had some concept of the Redemption.

Why reject any of them at that point? Just because this one was more famous?

15yrs isn't that long...but at that time, it was much longer. It's not like now. They weren't living into old age very often, and the knowledge that was passed down was often by mouth. Many things were written down as well, but it would be quite easy to tell a myth that happened 15yrs ago. It wouldn't have to be backed up by anything, especially if you put it in a historical context and use that as validation. Especially when you also draw on the prophecies of the OT. People wanted to believe.

The arguments about him being famous, but being a relatively minor figure seems to contradict itself. If he was famous in that land, as we are told...I think his actions and the stories about him warranted historical documentation. If he was a minor figure, I can't figure out any good reason that so many would eventually follow him (other than the "compelling story" theory). I mean, if he's unkown, then the people that eventualy do know him are merely listening to a second hand story. They could have been told any number of different stories, and as long as they were compelling enough, they'd have probably believed those as well...or instead.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, assuming that we still have all the writings that would have been made about any reasonably famous person in Palestine in the 1st Century (a big assumption), that still doesn't mean that anyone would have bothered to write anything about Jesus. It was his followers spreading his message that made him famous, and that is when we start seeing writings about him. But society not being so literate (or celebrity-obsessed) as it is today, one could be fairly notable within his area and still not get written down.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..)I mean, if he's unkown, then the people that eventualy do know him are merely listening to a second hand story. They could have been told any number of different stories, and as long as they were compelling enough, they'd have probably believed those as well...or instead.

Come to think of it; the people of his country (and those were the ones that witnessed it first hand + heard the stories) didn't see him as the messiah so they didn't believe him. If the witnesses say it is untrue then it is legally untrue, I suppose...
No judge would find me guilty if all the eye-witnesses say I didn't do it.

 

[Markus6]

Jesus didn't hang around with historians. He was friends with (probably illiterate) fishermen, tax collectors (hiss boo) and prostitutes. The educated parts of society (scribes and pharisees) weren't his biggest fans.

15yrs isn't that long...but at that time, it was much longer. It's not like now. They weren't living into old age very often, and the knowledge that was passed down was often by mouth.

Passed down by mouth?? Now forty years to Mark's gospel I can just about see being passed down one generation. But 15 years is not enough time for it to be passed down by word of mouth. They weren't living that long, but I'm sure a few survived to 15. I think it's fair to say there would by eye witnesses still alive as Paul was writing the first epistles.

We're talking historical proof here, not scientific. Prove conclusively that Alexander the Great existed....
Why would the early church want to make up stories about Jesus? Christians weren't on the good side of the Romans initially. And if it was made up why are there conflicting accounts?

 

[CurtSibling]

So why reject the existence of the most famous one?

Eran, why are you trying the first step of conversion on me?

You know I am not the least into your religion...Cease.

As far as I know, the epistles of Paul have been dated to about 15 years after Jesus' crucifixion. That is a little too short to make it all up. And since he seemed to be a relatively minor figure, not a politician or a general but just a preacher, it is to be expected that no historian would comment on him until his following gained momentum.

Think about our era. And how the 'facts' can be distorted in a matter of hours.
Now imagine that level of skewed history from 15, 50, 500, or 2000 years later.

A preacher will make up and distort all he can to enthrall his audience.

Paul was already a member of the christian cult. He hardly was going to
travel the land denying the existence of the new holy archetype, was he?

As far as his divinity, I believe it as a matter of faith. That it has something in common with Mithraism and other myths is not so much the worse for Christianity but so much the better for them; it means to me that even "pagan" religions had some concept of the Redemption.

All people use similar themes in order to try and explain the universe.
The pagan Celts had a concept of a sacrificial king who would rise again...

Sound familiar???

 

[Dionysius]

jesus is historical fact. i dont believe in any spiritual things about him, and there is no evidence to support the miracles claimed.

prove pericles existed. difficult, eh?

 

[Elrohir]

How anyone can deny that there was a man named Jesus in first century Judea, who started Christianity is beyond me. His divinity is a spiritual question you'll have to decide for yourself; his existence is effectively historical fact.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Curt: rest assured, I am not trying to convert you. It is true that much can be added to a person's memory in the 15 years after his death, but I am not aware of anyone being made up whole cloth like that. As far as I can tell there is no compelling reason to assume that Jesus did not exist, just that there may be less evidence than some people seem to expect. And I am well aware that most, if not all cultures have a myth about a dying god, or resurrection, or something like that. Just because it is a common theme of many unrelated cultures who had to have come up with the idea independently, doesn't mean that it can't have happened.

 

[the mormegil]

I don't know much about this but aren't there roman records showing evidence?

EDIT: plus I would imagine it's easier to create a religion around a man that did exist (divine or not) than a man who didn't exist.

 

[Dionysius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historicity

 

[CurtSibling]

Wiki is written by people with agendas.

Well, I stand unconvinced.

I think that all religions need a figure to represent the ideal, and that is what
JC represents. We could argue about ambigious letters from Romans and elder
clerics all our lives, but the thing is, that there are no solid crystal facts about
the man, only the miracles and myth penned by those who want us to believe.

I hold to my opinion, JC is an archetype. He is the amalgamation of various men.

If anyone is so shaky in their belief that they feel threatened by my views, too bad.

.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Erik, why are you trying the first step of conversion on me?

You know I am not the least into your religion...Cease.

Ahem? I've been away for five days. I will be leaving again shortly.

Wiki is written by people with agendas.

Inqvisitor thought so too. It was written by Jews and various others.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it matters whether he actually existed or not.

If definite proof was found that he did not, most Christians would probably ignore the evidence anyway.

 

[puglover]

It would be remarkably hard to lie about a man who's teachings sent a shockwave of influence throughout the region. If Jesus didn't exist, the disciples would be the greatest con artists of all time.

 

[Dionysius]

Wiki is written by people with agendas.

aye? well, join and edit it.