Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

At some point, there was a person (or some people) who realized that loving one another was a better option for civilization than constantly hating and fighting.

So the "message" was born.

To most of us...the ones who feel the message is a worthwhile message, it doesn't really matter how the message arose...if it came from one guy named Jesus or a whole bunch of people.

The only people to whom it really does seem important are the people who are screwing over the message.

Weird that!

Was this before or after the message to murder disobedient children?

The supposed Jesus lived after what we now call the Old Testament was written...and that message is in the Old Testament...so it would have to be after.

Jesus essentially was saying that we should love one another.

Yeah but didn't Jesus deliver the parable of the fig tree? He cursed it for not bearing fruit out of season. It's a metaphor for anyone who does not bear wisdom should be cast down and burned, tossed away and forgotten. This was just his colorful poetic way of repeating the Torah's message. If he was all about love he wouldn't have cursed the tree at all. Some people get it and some people don't but should they be punished for not understanding?

And this impacts on your blind guess that there are no gods how????

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I agree that the message is more important than the messenger. The thing is that, as you perhaps imply, spreading doubt about the messenger's historical existence (maliciously, I repeat -- their arguments have little to do with facts as I have shown) result in debasing the gospels entirely, making them fake documents, forgeries. Therefore it decredibilise the message and makes any attempt by humanists and secular people to use any pieces of wisdom there might be in it.

That's why the historicity of Jesus is important to a secular humanist like me: he proposed a new ethic which has historical and philosophical and moral importance. I care about the message and, and I believe there's ample evidence a precise guy -- a Jew from Galilea as it turned out -- actually said it.

And just to be clear, I don't think he was a god. IMO he was a bastard, an outcast, an unruly yeshiva student, yet brilliant. Evidently likable, crazy if you will judge him rationally, yet very courageous. And ultimately influential beyond any other man perhaps.

I agree almost entirely here, Olivier.

My point was that although I suspect there was an individual who had these insights...and who provides the framework for the new (and much superior) ethic...it really doesn't matter TO ME if there was one guy...or a consortium of some sort.

The ethic developed by whoever developed it means a great deal to me. (Sorta like the wheel and fire matter more to me than the person or persons who first saw their utility.)

As for the religion part...I certainly do not see Jesus as divine...and the god described in the Bible is far, far from being divine as far as I am concerned. That god is close to loathsome...and I have trouble understanding why anyone would suggest they love that thing...unless they simply are so afraid, they have to say it.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Not sure I would call him disturbed. He seemed much saner than many around him...

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

It's not a matter of having an agenda. I just want some evidence.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You asked for facts, and i gave you facts. That they are unpalatable to you is not evidence that they are not factual.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No, there is no such evidence. The so-called gospels are rife with glaring historical errors. There are contradictions from one account to another, as well. Discrediting such texts in no way prevents someone from extracting from them what one considers wisdom. There is no malice in pointing out that the alleged contemporary sources are not to be trusted. I have never said that your boy Jeebus did not exist, rather, that there is no reliable evidence. If someone truly seeks wisdom, then the first step will be to reconcile the alleged scriptures with such historical evidence as can be considered reliable.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

We've been there once already...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I did not ask for already known and agreed facts. Try to keep up will you? Josephus mentions Jesus in a second passage, in book 20 of the antiquities when talking of James the Just. This is attested by Origen. The text does not seem redacted either. I have posted the passage twice, and Origen's validation too.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You didn't specify what "facts" one should provide. Who the f*ck do you think you are? I keep up very well, and the pattern you've shown since you arrived at this site is to provide paltry "evidence," if any all; to insist upon specious reasoning which you erroneously claim is logical; and to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you with slighting remarks. Now you say that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the "evidence" is malicious. What's your definition of malice, failing to agree with you?

What the text seems to you is irrelevant. Leaving aside that the Origen passage could as well have been based on a flawed text (it is well attested that he was using, as an example, a badly flawed septuagint), scholarship is not founded on what you consider plausible.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

"My boy Jeebus"? Is that supposed to be funny?

If we were to discuss, say, the historicity of George Washington, would you call him "your boy Bwaaashington"? And you would expect to be taken seriously, as a guy without malice, without some axe to grind about Bwaaaashington?

Your prejudice is showing.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Keep staying as far away from my 'paltry evidence' as you can, set. You can't handle it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I disagree, the jury is very much out on whether or not Jesus actually existed. The historical evidence is scant.

What would be sufficient evidence, according to you?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

A bit more that what there is at the moment, most of the Gospels are 3rd 4th 5th hand accounts, and the historical evidence is quite vague.

It's not conclusive by a long chalk.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

What WOULD be conclusive?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Pontius Pilate's diary might help.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

What would be sufficient evidence, according to you?

Roman records dating back to "Jesus" lifetime concerning him would be very helpful or any records dealing with him once more dating back to his lifetime.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Fat chance. Even the historicity of Pilate was debated, before they found his name carved in some stone in Caesarea Maritima in 1961.

But then we don't have Shakespeare's diary either... I mean, by that standard almost none of the dudes from antiquity or later ever existed... It's not a reasonable standard of proof.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I think it's a fairly safe bet to say various Roman Emperors and generals existed.

On the subject of Jesus existing I'm not persuaded either way.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Roman records dating back to "Jesus" lifetime concerning him would be very helpful or any records dealing with him once more dating back to his lifetime.

We have something slightly later than that. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book XX, Chapter 9, written circa 93, says this about a new high priest:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but...

Note that Josephus' mention of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is indifferent to the person of Jesus. He's talking of his brother James ("you know Bob, the brother of Marty"). What is also telling is how he refers to Jesus: "who was CALLED Christ"... called by some, but not by the author! A Christian would find it unnatural to write about JC in such a casual way, while a Jew would see no problem with the expression.

Unlike the much-discussed other passage in the same work, called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4), the passage above, to many scholars, looks authentic because Jesus is no big deal in the narrative.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I don't see why we should hold J's historicity against higher standards than the average roman's.

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know