Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Frank Apisa,

On the less subtle side of 'subtle', i'd say... You got it after all.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I largely agree with you. The literary figure, at least, had a lot of good things to say that we would do well to incorporate into our own lives.

But he could be a bit of a dick sometimes, too. Wink

He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12

The dude Jesus ended explaining them the "secrets of the Kingdom" before his depart anyway. Apparently, after his explanations, the apostles and others decided to have faith and stopped being afraid of death. Before his "resurrection" these followers were chickens, and after his depart the
followers had no problem dying because their cause.

I don't think he was "perfect" as many seem to visualize him, perhaps without sin, but not "perfect". Perfect means no mistakes of defects, and he lost his temper once when pushing vendors from the Temple's outside patio.

He was Okay at the end. Of course, if he really was the "son of god" you can tell about it when reading the Gospels, where one can notice that he received a better treatment than other humans... he was "daddy's boy" after all.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Sounds more than a little like the circular reasoning: There is a god because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because it was written/inspired/dictated by god.

2 Replies

There is more evidence for the existence of The Lone Ranger than Jesus.
http://politicalblindspot.com/the-real-lone-ranger-was-an-african-american-lawman-who-lived-with-native-american-indians/

0 Replies

(NEWSER) – Israel requires that archaeologists perform a sweep of any historically significant land where construction is planned, and they were surprised to find a 20-acre parcel of land along the western side of the Sea of Galilee may have ties to Jesus. Haaretz revisits a story that has the Rev. Juan Solana at its root. The Catholic priest set out a decade ago to purchase four plots near the Israeli town of Migdal. Solana's goal: to build a resort for Christian pilgrims there. In anticipation of that, in 2009 architects with the Israel Antiquities Authority began to dig, expecting to find nothing of note. Instead, they found the remnants of a synagogue that experts believe was originally constructed in the year 1AD. The Wall Street Journal earlier this year described it as the only known one from the period in Galilee; the Bible describes Jesus as "teaching in [Galilee's] synagogues, preaching the good news."

In terms of its location, Migdal was named for the ancient town of Magdala, where Mary Magdalene is believed to have hailed from, and the dig revealed the site in question "was not just near Magdala; this was Magdala," as theJournal puts it. In Haaretz's telling, experts say it's probable that Jesus preached there. Dina Gorni, one of the archaeologists who worked on the dig, was a bit more cautious in a 2012 interview with the Global Mail. Gorni notes the synagogue was likely built to hold 120, though thousands lived in Magdala. "We believe, we suggest, that this was a special community, not large, that put itself at the edge of the main Jewish village," said Gorni. "They may be connected to Jesus and Mary Magdalene. We know that Jesus was not involved in the main Jewish community and preferred to live aside. Perhaps he was the leader around whom this synagogue was built."

Of course, if they found something actually tying Jesus to the site, it would be more convincing.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The problem with answering if Jesus actually existed is that it becomes a loaded answer.

Just to say that there was a historical guy who was sentenced to death by the Romans around the time frame that is believed to occur. In no way also suggests that this same person was a god nor a savior or did he produce miracles.

So many christians jump to this conclusion. If Jesus is proven to have existed then therefore he obviously did all the things attributed to him. No, it in no way proves that. All it says is that there was some guy who acquired attention for being murdered over a pointless reason.

They do the same thing with the kalam cosmological argument. Even though the argument is flawed in many ways, I would just for argument sake grant that you could arrive logically at a creator. But that in no way suggests that this creator is the christan version. All it says is that there is a creator behind the creation of the universe. It is dishonest to claim that this creator is the christian version.

So if Jesus really existed, it in no way proves that he was divine, made miracles, walked on water or turned water into wine. None of it becomes factual just because there was some guy who was crucified. The romans crucified lots of enemies of the state. He wasn't the first and he wasn't the last.

Even George Washington who is much more recent in our history, has attributes about him that have been discovered to be flat out wrong. It's because certain characteristics get portrayed as fact when they are baseless assertions. So a martyr who gets crucified by romans can easily be followed by exaggeration by those who admired or followed him as some kind of spiritual leader.

So I say, even if he did exist, it means nothing to me.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

You still cared enough to write a wall of text...

To me, the message is what's truly useful and important. I am only interested in the historical issue inasmuch as it sheds light on the message. Like the hypothesis that he was a bastard can explain his unruly side, his going well with outcasts and marginals.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Sounds more than a little like the circular reasoning: There is a god because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because it was written/inspired/dictated by god.

There is a little misunderstanding from your part. The discussion is about Jesus., not so about god.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

The problem with answering if Jesus actually existed is that it becomes a loaded answer.

Just to say that there was a historical guy who was sentenced to death by the Romans around the time frame that is believed to occur. In no way also suggests that this same person was a god nor a savior or did he produce miracles.

It might be understood that Jesus was first sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin. (Tractate Sanhedrin 43a)

The Roman authority was asked to fulfill the death sentence. According to the Gospels, the Roman authority refused sending Jesus to death.

The Jewish authorities insisted with their petition until the Roman authority conceded the authorization of the death sentence for Jesus.

As you have implied very well, the historical existence of Jesus is not proving that Jesus was the son of a god, that he resurrected, and so forth.

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Quote:
Sounds more than a little like the circular reasoning: There is a god because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because it was written/inspired/dictated by god.

There is a little misunderstanding from your part. The discussion is about Jesus., not so about god.

Quote:

if he really was the "son of god" you can tell about it when reading the Gospels, where one can notice that he received a better treatment than other humans... he was "daddy's boy" after all.

Circular reasoning is circular, regardless of the topic.

1 Reply

Quote:

I am only interested in the historical issue inasmuch as it sheds light on the message. Like the hypothesis that he was a bastard can explain his unruly side, his going well with outcasts and marginals.

I agree with the "bastard" concept, but what "outcast and marginal" you find on fishermen and tax collectors from that era?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

There is a god because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because it was written/inspired/dictated by god.

The biblical narration implies that the scriptures are "inspired" by god.

Your circular reasoning somehow interprets this word "inspired" as "written and dictated" as well. Why is that your interpretation?

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

"It's true because it's in the Bible and the Bible is true." Come to think of it, it's more like begging the question.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Yes, tax collectors and the likes. Also the Gallilean origin explains some familiarity with Samaritans and eathens, as well as a lesser adherence to the law than in Judea, etc. It's like any biography.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

"It's true because it's in the Bible and the Bible is true." Come to think of it, it's more like begging the question.

I don't know where you have obtained that phrase from, but such phrase is not coming from "the bible". Lol.

The bible is just a record of the history of humanity. Actually the best historical record of the cultures surrounding the Hebrew people, and later of one of the branches of this family which became the Israelites.

As far as it is known, their historical narration is excellent. It is one culture different than others in the aspect of recognizing their own mistakes and loses. The Egyptian culture of those times used to hide the wars when they lost, it was their pride signature.

The relates about Jesus come from people who continued this path of narrating everything according to what was going on.

In the other aspect, which is doctrinal, the same scenario is perceived. They took the sound of thunders as "words of a god", but surely something was going on.

Their interpretation of several events is religious to support their doctrine, but definitively something happened that darkened the earth -other cultures from other parts of the world suffered similar events-, catastrophes removing mountains, changing the course of rivers, etc. etc...

Going against the bible is not going against a god but going against very valuable historical records.

If you disagree, show me another ancient culture that relates the existing peoples of other parts of the world in their narrations. The bible tells you their names and locations. You can't beat that.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes, tax collectors and the likes. Also the Gallilean origin explains some familiarity with Samaritans and eathens, as well as a lesser adherence to the law than in Judea, etc. It's like any biography.

What you have said is weird.

The parents of Jesus took him for circumcision, they took him for bar mitzvah when he was twelve years old, this Jesus waited until being 30 years old for going out and preach, the required age for start such a task.

On the other hand, we read of a common fisherman from Galilee (Peter) who assets never have eaten "impure things".

Many of similar New Testament relates show that they did obey the "law" very well.

So, what are you talking about?

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Galileans were considered less strict followers of the Law than Judeans, on average. That may explain why Jesus' disciples don't wash their hand before eating or things like that... It may have predisposed Jesus to focus on the spirit of the Law rather than its letter - a significant theme in the Gospels.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

...
Going against the bible is not going against a god but going against very valuable historical records.

If you disagree, show me another ancient culture that relates the existing peoples of other parts of the world in their narrations. The bible tells you their names and locations. You can't beat that.

The Bible is historical evidence for the Bible, nothing else. Professional historians and archaeologists have done a lot better at figuring out what happened back then. After all, you've got a global flood, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, burning bushes and all sorts of miraculous nonsense in the Bible. If you start treating it as a history book, you may as well go back and live in the Dark Ages. We can do and already have done a lot better.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Jesus does exist, and there is nothing you can say to change this, little boy.....

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Quote:
"It's true because it's in the Bible and the Bible is true." Come to think of it, it's more like begging the question.

I don't know where you have obtained that phrase from, but such phrase is not coming from "the bible". Lol.

The bible is just a record of the history of humanity. Actually the best historical record of the cultures surrounding the Hebrew people, and later of one of the branches of this family which became the Israelites.

As far as it is known, their historical narration is excellent. It is one culture different than others in the aspect of recognizing their own mistakes and loses. The Egyptian culture of those times used to hide the wars when they lost, it was their pride signature.

The relates about Jesus come from people who continued this path of narrating everything according to what was going on.

In the other aspect, which is doctrinal, the same scenario is perceived. They took the sound of thunders as "words of a god", but surely something was going on.

Their interpretation of several events is religious to support their doctrine, but definitively something happened that darkened the earth -other cultures from other parts of the world suffered similar events-, catastrophes removing mountains, changing the course of rivers, etc. etc...

Going against the bible is not going against a god but going against very valuable historical records.

If you disagree, show me another ancient culture that relates the existing peoples of other parts of the world in their narrations. The bible tells you their names and locations. You can't beat that.

I'm hoping you are kidding here, Carlos...or maybe just brown-nosing that vicious god of yours.

But to suppose that the "history" portrayed in the Bible is accurate, helpful, or valuable...is beyond absurd.

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know