Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?

[MobBoss]

Of course he did indeed exist.

 

[GenMarshall]

Of course he did indeed exist.

Somehow I have a feeling that youre going to provide a whole lot of evidence to the atheist and skeptical crowd. Just a head up from a fellow Christian who has grown tired of trying to tell the actual truths of my faith.

 

[C~G]

Somehow I have a feeling that youre going to provide a whole lot of evidence to the atheist and skeptical crowd. Just a head up from a fellow Christian who has grown tired of trying to tell the actual truths of my faith.

Why bother?

Everybody knows about them, nobody believes into them so after all there's nothing to care or worry about.

 

[warpus]

Jesus has been depicted in many different ways. So you don't like a white European version of Jesus, some people do. Get over it. How he may have looked is not relevant to the question of whether or not he ever lived.

Of course it is.

If Gengis Khan was portrayed as a black guy in the majority of documents alleging that he was the ruler of the Mongols, I'd of course get very suspicious and have to question the authenticity of the documents in question.

The fact that Jesus is portrayed as a white guy seems to indicate to me this: If his skin colour was made up, what else isn't true?

 

[Dionysius]

well, he was semitic, so he would have more or less the tone of modern palestinians, seein as the israelis [most of em] have a lot of european blood in them.
anyway, its natural to assume someone in a tale you hear is similar in looks to people around you, unless he is otherwise described.

some people reckon he had curly hair! OMG!!! he isnt real!!!

 

[warpus]

well, he was semitic, so he would have more or less the tone of modern palestinians, seein as the israelis [most of em] have a lot of european blood in them.
anyway, its natural to assume someone in a tale you hear is similar in looks to people around you, unless he is otherwise described.

some people reckon he had curly hair! OMG!!! he isnt real!!!

Strawman.

If I was researching Tokugawa, and every single document I found portrayed him as a jamaican dude with dreads, I'd start asking questions, especially about the other claims made about Tokugawa, such as the claim that he walked on lava, etc.

 

[ApostleCairdeas]

First, I would say that is is clear that folks from both sides of the debate have already arrived at their conclusion to the question. Let's not pretend to look for the "truth" and then attempt to debunk every post that presents evidence for the opposing viewpoint.

With that, the evidence:

Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. From http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html​

Josephus:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
​

Also, let's think about the context in which Jesus lived.
1. He lived in a culture where most people were illiterate (but still smart!). Therefore there would not be an abundance of documents about him.
2. He was not one to dialogue with major historians or political figures of the time. In fact, his later followers received more attention than he did.

Finally, there are also several conversation between early Christians and non-Christians discussing whether Jesus was the Messiah. The question was if he was really the Son of God, not whether the man named Jesus actually existed. That was assumed by both.

 

[Pyrite]

First, I would say that is is clear that folks from both sides of the debate have already arrived at their conclusion to the question. Let's not pretend to look for the "truth" and then attempt to debunk every post that presents evidence for the opposing viewpoint.

Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]

Also, let's think about the context in which Jesus lived.
1. He lived in a culture where most people were illiterate (but still smart!). Therefore there would not be an abundance of documents about him.
2. He was not one to dialogue with major historians or political figures of the time. In fact, his later followers received more attention than he did.

Finally, there are also several conversation between early Christians and non-Christians discussing whether Jesus was the Messiah. The question was if he was really the Son of God, not whether the man named Jesus actually existed. That was assumed by both.​

Hmm. Personally I think I AM looking for the truth, but both sides are certainly up to scrutiny aren't they? Attacking shoddy evidence will hopefully get ride of all the lies and possibly present a clearer picture? At least to me.

Your 2nd statement makes a lot of sense to me. I'm going to read the first historian statement you posted, I read Josephus and sincerely doubt the total integrity of what was writen.​

 

[Sidhe]

There probably was a 'Jesus'. Whether he had super-awesome powers or not, I dont think he did.

Thomas was a skeptical so and so, should his gospel be true? Let's face it we can't know, then it could be a truer representation, it is not out of the bounds of possibility that the council of Nicocea changed the texts to suit Constantines idea of the religion.

The Gospel of Thomas proclaims a unique and very different message from the current "accepted" New Testament Gospels. In contrast to the way in which he is now portrayed, Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas performs no physical miracles, reveals no fulfillment of prophecy, announces no apocalyptic kingdom, and dies for no one's sins. Instead, Jesus provides insight and wisdom and offers a way of salvation through the understandings of his teachings and words. The readers of the Gospel of Thomas are invited to discover within themselves the way of salvation, by interpreting the cryptic and enigmatic "hidden sayings" of the living Jesus.

In all honesty it's pretty much the same message as all the rest of the gospels, with many quotes being so simillar to the four gospels we know as to be unquestionably authentic, was this book authentic though? Or written to create false messages, albeit it's almost identicle? The church says it is illigitemate. Who are we to argue, it's not like the Church didn't have it's own agendas right?

If you want to know about all the mesages of Christ from a myriad of other sources, then do some googling: there are dozens of apocryphal and "illegitemate" texts, even if you give them no credence whatsoever they are fascinating insights into the religion.

 

[puglover]

The fact that Jesus is portrayed as a white guy seems to indicate to me this: If his skin colour was made up, what else isn't true?

European culture made him white. It wasn't in the text. The actual gospels make it clear he was a Hebrew, and thus of Middle-Eastern complexion.

 

[Dionysius]

1. Strawman.

2. If I was researching Tokugawa, and every single document I found portrayed him as a jamaican dude with dreads, I'd start asking questions, especially about the other claims made about Tokugawa, such as the claim that he walked on lava, etc.

3. The fact that Jesus is portrayed as a white guy seems to indicate to me this: If his skin colour was made up, what else isn't true?

1. i am unused to internet terminology. what is a strawman? it cant be good.
2.well, yes, that is fine and normal. tokugawa is very much japanese.
3.this is what i was talking about. photographs were not common in palestine at that time, so people do not know what jesus looked like. no busts or statues or frescoes were made of him, not many enemies of the roman state have those.
basing doubt on his existance because of that alone isnt very sensible.
well, in my opinion at least.

 

[Pyrite]

Jesus wasn't ever portrayed as white except in later european christian representations of him....just like black african churches painted him black.

Don't be dim.

 

[Dionysius]

Jesus wasn't ever portrayed as white except in later european christian representations of him....just like black african churches painted him black.

Don't be dim.

damn straight

 

[MobBoss]

Of course it is.

If Gengis Khan was portrayed as a black guy in the majority of documents alleging that he was the ruler of the Mongols, I'd of course get very suspicious and have to question the authenticity of the documents in question.

The fact that Jesus is portrayed as a white guy seems to indicate to me this: If his skin colour was made up, what else isn't true?

Do you know what Alexander the Great looked like? I mean personally? Do you think he looked like Colin Farrell?

So, should we suspect the fact that Alexander existed because we are not 100% sure what he looked like?

Thats just silly. History, espcially ancient history, is full of people we know existed but have no real idea what they looked like. That in no way takes away from the fact that they existed.

EDIT: Btw, if you indeed believe that Jesus was the son of God, then he would have only been HALF Hebrew.....the race and complection of his father would be unkown. Perhaps his dad was light skinned? Who knows?

 

[Sidhe]

@ Dionysus: a strawman is an argument that is set up to appear transparent and thus easilly refuted, however it's often used to mean an argument that is obviously easilly destroyed, though not necessarily set up to be deliberately so. Authentically it's a devil's advocate(a representation deliberatelly mooted for the sake of argument, one that the person doesn't subscribe too, but wants others to confirm it's lack of genuine substance, to support the real argument he is trying to persue) deal really, but it's usually represented as truth on a forum and without hypocrisy, regardless of how insubstantial it appears.

 

[warpus]

European culture made him white. It wasn't in the text. The actual gospels make it clear he was a Hebrew, and thus of Middle-Eastern complexion.

Any idea where the "Jesus was white" 'theory' originated? Was it based on some sort of historical document, or just pulled out of thin air?

I'm really curious where this originated.

 

[Dionysius]

@ Dionysus: a strawman is an argument that is set up to appear transparent and thus easilly refuted, however it's often used to mean an argument that is obviously easilly destroyed, though not necessarily set up to be deliberately so. Authentically it's a devil's advocate(a representation deliberatelly mooted for the sake of argument, one that the person doesn't subscribe too, but wants others to confirm it's lack of genuine substance, to support the real argument he is trying to persue) deal really, but it's usually represented as truth on a forum and without hypocrisy, regardless of how insubstantial it appears.

wow. in depth response.
was i one back there? i figured i was reasonable ¬_¬

 

[warpus]

Damn, the 'Jesus existed' supporters are out in force!

I'm unconvinced either way btw. I just thought that a white Jesus casts doubt on other things said about him. If they got the race wrong, what else did they get wrong?

No need to get defensive.

 

[El_Machinae]

EDIT: Btw, if you indeed believe that Jesus was the son of God, then he would have only been HALF Hebrew.....the race and complection of his father would be unkown. Perhaps his dad was light skinned? Who knows?

Or He could have been a XX-male (with a translocated locus, I believe), formed from two of Mary's eggs fusing and a small mutation ...

Edit: to answer the question; I live my life as if he really existed. I'll have proof when I get in my FTL drive and examine photons that are 2400 light years from Earth in order to form an image of what really happened. I'll compensate my investment by selling "pay per view" tickets to the viewing of "Jesus vs. the Moneymarket!"

 

[Dionysius]

@warus= sigh... read post #134. again.