Did Jesus Actually Exist?

To me, Elvis had the charisma of a dishwasher. But he was white and cute and he could shake his pelvis so he sold better than most a music invented by blacks.


But his 'resurrection' is interesting when trying to understand Jesus' 'resurrection'. Apparently, when too many people love you too much, you just can't die...

Thales left no writing that we know of. I just read the wiki article and the only writing attributed to him that are MENTIONED by other writers are:

Diogenes Laërtius quotes two letters from Thales: one to Pherecydes of Syros offering to review his book on religion, and one to Solon, offering to keep him company on his sojourn from Athens.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales


Are prophets more likely to be invented than philosophers? Maybe... That's not a conclusive argument though, just some vague probability... My argument of course is not that Thales was invented, just that he could have been invented if one applies to him the same criteria applied to Jesus.

It's easier done in a movie than in real life though...

Nonsense as first there is no as in zero motivations to dream on Thales and as the Christians had hung their whole silly faith/cult on not only there being a Jesus but a supernatural Jesus on top of that their motivations is very strong and very clear. With the only indications that there was such a person coming from the writings of the cult.

There is zero reasons to think that somewhere there is a real person behind the myths even those it is possible and no reason at all to think that Thales did not exist as a real person.

I don't know, real life doesn't have to worry about lighting, make up, boom operators, etc.

And movies don't have to deal with reality...

If there's one thing 'real' or historically correct in the Life of Brian, it is indeed that many in the Jewish people seemed to be in search of a savior, a providential man. In this messianic fever, there was no need to invent a savior ex nada: the place was full of candidates.

When Jesus was invented, Christianity did not exist yet. So it didn't need this invention to justify itself. Your reasoning is circular.

You have a right to believe the Greeks more than you believe the Jews... To each his biases.

Nonsense as the writings of the christian cult concerning Jesus story was many hundreds of years after the facts whatever the facts might be.

The creators and the later supporters of this fantasy have every reason to made up this Jesus and supported the story afterward.

Hell after Roman went Christian you could find yourself on the cross yourself for daring to question the Jesus story.

In this messianic fever it didn't really matter whether the candidate actually existed or not.

You and BillRM seem to be arguing nicely, I'll let you get on with it. I've said why I'm unconvinced either way, and I'll leave it at that.

Bill has no clue. He's just parroting a popular thesis.

Faking a new prophet is a much harder proposition than picking one off the shelf. And you still have to assume some guy existed who came up with some newish ethic and religious discourse. You can call him Jeebus or Shlomo if you want but some guy came up with the original kernel of thoughts. So it boils down to: was this guy more or less who the texts point toward, or was this guy(s) totally different from what the texts say. I don't see any reason to doubt those texts to such an extent, other than anti-Christian bias. I can agree they have a lot of legend in them, but it seems to me gratuitous, logically almost laughable, and certainly unfair to the facts we have, to assume they are wholly fictitious.

Paul's letters are written circa 60 CE, and the Acts of the apostles and the earlier gospels are currently dated to the end of the 1st century. That's ONLY a few DECADES after the facts, not centuries. At the time, being a Christian could only lead you to public shame and death. So much for the 'motive', the qui bono.

I've not called Jesus anything. You still haven't convinced me. Neither has BillRM.

Fair enough.

If someone "invented" this Yeshua the Rabbi, the very likely reason would have been to create an avatar of the highly, ethically developed Essene. As i have said for years, for that reason i consider the existence of the putative Jeebus to be a 50-50 shot. Either someone such as that did exist, or it was a teaching tool of the Essenes. That the dogma was Essene is a no-brainer: absolutely devotion to the Law, asceticism, the concept of the "kingdom of God" being within the individual rather than an external place. Whether or not there was such an individual, the dogma didn't last even a generation. The alleged deeds of the putative Jeebus again and again contradict Essene dogm. Blasting the fig tree, protecting the accused adulteress, ranting about ". . . one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" when no mention of a method of fullfillment is made anywhere. These contradict certain important tenets of the Essenes, and are certainly no part of the dogma of the Pharisees. (By the way, Flavius Josephus was a Pharisee--the notion that he would praise an Essene is pretty hilarious.)

What is most obvious is that the alleged gospels warp what the likely message would vae been from the outset. What we have is a figure, whether real or fictional, whose doctrine will appeal to the Hellenistic society prevalent in the middle east of the day, rather than an authentic Judaic dogma. The first big hurdle that Saul of Tarsus had to vault was the issue of circumcision. Of course, he told the Greek community of Palestine not to worry about that, it wasn't necessary

Added to that, of course, is the problem that none of the accepted canon (as defined by Origen, and affirmed by Pamphilus and Eusebius) survives in any copy older than the early 4th century. This is a problem common to just about all religious scriptures (there may be exceptions, but i know of none), notably including Islam and Buddhism. More than enough time for corrupted copies, interpolations and laundered texts. More than enough time to make the new cult palatable to larger and more influential segment of the population. A true Essene would have considered himself to be without sin, and would have enthusiastically cast the first stone.

All your jumbo mambo is debunked with the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a. You can't argue against the legitimacy of this Jewish record.

Yeshu indeed existed two thousand years ago, learn it, live it, love it.

By the way, did you celebrate "Christmas" last week/month? because Yeshu was born between our current months of September or October... when the biblical Feast of Tents was ending...

Elvis was a sissy.

The importance of Yeshu (Jesus) is that before the Levitical priesthood, according to the Torah, it was the Order of Melchizedec. This is a religious denomination which existed before Moses. Even Abraham gave his tithe to a priest of this Order.

It happens, that the Levitical priesthood didn't fulfill properly and it was in need of the returning of the former Melchizedec Order. Here is when Yeshu took the place of High Priest, over the Levitical priesthood.

When the Sanhedrin trial was in progress, and Yeshu answered that the Son of man will be sitting at the right hand of God and more, the High priest lost his temper and rent his own clothes

Bad thing.

Hmm hmm hmm

The clothes of the High Priest were re-enforced in order to never ever been broken. When the High Priest himself broke his clothes, he automatically stop the Levitical priesthood, and the Order of Melchizedec started to take place instead.

The new High Priest, according to the New Testament claims is Yeshu.

Yup... Elvis was a sissy...

Jesus was about as substantial as Casper the ghost.

An what the hell was newish concerning Jesus ethic and discourse that does not predate his suppose life?

Everything you say in that post, Set, is fair and accurate and well reasoned. I can find nothing here to disagree with.

Now, what does it have to do with the purported non-historicity of this itinerant Jewish preacher?

Quite a few things actually: love your enemy; the separation of religion from politics; the idea that learnt classes can act as gatekeepers to knowledge rather than educators of the people; the idea the the Torah is made for man and not vice versa, and therefore doesn't need to be obeyed in a mechanistic, absolute way; the systematic inversion of traditional social order (the rich are bad, only the poor can be good)...