Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Lustig Andrei,

What it has to do with it is the crucial issue of moral authority. Christians avidly and loudly tout their "historical evidence" on the poorly reasoned and illogical assumption that proving the historical existence of their boy Jeebus authorizes a claim that their scripture is therefore reliable. They, of course, allege that it is divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant. Which leads to the real problem with christianity, which is a problem with most other religions, a claim of a god-given right to tell others how to live. I'm surprised that you need to have that explained to you. Whether or not the boy existed is not the problem, it's the way the Christians take the claim and run with it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quite a few things actually: love your enemy;

This concept is not Jesus-centric, it existed long before jesus and comes from greek social interactions and political foreign policy. Jesus didn't invent the concept, it has existed long before him.

Olivier5 wrote:

the separation of religion from politics;

If this is true then hundreds of thousands of christians need a refresher course. They are quick to quote how god hates homosexuals but they seem fixated on the fact that christianity should be in politics. Can you site a bible quote from Jesus about this specific separation? I would love to use it if there really is one.

Olivier5 wrote:

the idea that learnt classes can act as gatekeepers to knowledge rather than educators of the people;

This idea is also not derived from Jesus, and has existed long before him when many types of thought and ways of developing knowledge were really being experimented with. Some people in power thought it was better to with-hold information because it was too dangerous to let others become aware of it.

Even today politicians want society dumb so that they can have political power over the masses. A smart society will find fault in their political choices and this can get in the way of them doing what they want.

Olivier5 wrote:

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;

This concept too has persisted long before Jesus. All things should ALWAYS be taken to the point where you are allowed to re-analyze and attempt to find fault in it or to not "set it in stone" because you very well could be wrong.

If you adhere too strongly to something then when it is found to be wrong, you'll just blindly reject the new information and refuse to grow. We see this time and time again. It is a good lesson to keep in mind, every rule should have flexibility because not all situations are identical.

Olivier5 wrote:

the systematic inversion of traditional social order (the rich are bad, only the poor can be good)...

Now this one is pure bullshit. The rich are not necessarily evil and the poor are not necessarily good. Your financial level does not dictate weather you'll be a good or bad person. There are just as many horrible poor people as there are rich, if not more because there generally are more poor than rich. Money is not evil, but what you do with the money is what makes you a good or bad person.

I don't buy the bullshit that a rich man finds it harder to win the kingdom of heaven than a poor person. It is just an attempt to make sure that you strive for being poor so that you'll give all your money to those in power so that you can buy your ticket to heaven.

There are thousands of preachers, ministers, pastors who make hundreds of thousands of dollars and live a much higher life style purely for feeding the christian bullshit to their audiences who are suckered into giving their money to the "church" and to "god". Some of them will even try to use this bible quote even though they know that they are receiving millions of dollars annually for doing nothing but filling people's heads with nonsense and fear.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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

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)...

Strictly speaking, none of this was brand new at the time of Jesus. Rabbi Hillel voiced a version of the Golden Rule more than 300 years earlier. He also said that the Torah consists of only two commandments: Love God and love thy neighbor. "Everything else," he said, "is just commentary." And the Essenes, of course, stressed the benefits of individual poverty and and renunciation of worldly goods. Their doctrine also included a ban on slavery, a topic Jesus apparently chose to ignore in his sermons, if the Gospels are at all reliable.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Jesus was about as substantial as Casper the ghost.

And yet he changed the world... Smile

did Casper do that, too?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

It's really too soon to tell.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The Essenes actually believed in their spiel, and trying to create a fake messiah to sell it to the world would have flown in the face of everything they believed in... Try the illuminati instead.

0 Replies

If Jesus did not exist...someone (or several someones) thought him up...and put a philosophical position into his mouth. That "philosophical position" whether new or borrowed...has changed the world...sometimes for the better and often for the worse.

The question of whether the mythically treated Jesus of the New Testament existed or not is almost irrelevant to that.

The philosophical position exists...has influenced...and where it came from is about as important as who conceived of the wheel or the importance and use of fire.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

What so-called Christians do with historical evidence or how they try and manipulate it is their business, not mine. I would not condone doubting what, to me, appears to be historical likelihood simply because it might play into the hands of a group of buffoons looking for divine justification for their archaic and pagan-inspired practices. I can find no logical reason for doubting the historicity of an itinerant Jewish preacher who, roughly 2,000 years ago, inspired a small group of people and conned them into believing he was something more than an itinerant Jewish preacher. The probability that someone made up the entire thing out of whole cloth is miniscule. What the so-called Christians of today do with this is, again, their business and none of mine.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Those buffoons, as you so generously name them, have been responsible for millions and millions of deaths in the name of dogmatic purity or simple sectarian bogotry. The examples of Eric Rudolph and the massacre at Srebrenica come immeidately to mind. What the christians do with their bullshit matters very much. I find a good deal of reason to doubt the story as we have it from the christians, and a good deal of reason to speak out against their bullsh*t, whic his so often murderous in the application.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You're right. Let's give Casper a millennia or 2 to prove his transformative potential.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

The golden rule dates back at least to Leviticus. It's much older than Hillel. But 'love your enemy' is radically new. Before that, the golden rule only applied to one's 'neighbour', ie a fellow Jew. I have been looking for years for a rabbinic passage who would talk of "love your enemy" and I haven't found much.

BTW, we have less proof of existence for Hillel than for JC so you should expect the conspiracy theorists around to doubt him too.

I do think there're similarities with Hillel, who predates Jesus by a few decades only. Many scolars think the house of Hillel influenced Jesus much. And the Essenes too of course. He was inuenced by different traditions. Including Shammai when it comes to banning divorce.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The golden rule dates back at least to Leviticus. It's much older than Hillel. But 'love your enemy' is radically new. Before that, the golden rule only applied to one's 'neighbour', ie a fellow Jew. I have been looking for years for a rabbinic passage who would talk of "love your enemy" and I haven't found much.

BTW, we have less proof of existence for Hillel than for JC so you should expect the conspiracy theorists around to doubt him too.

I do think there're similarities with Hillel, who predates Jesus by a few decades only. Many scolars think the house of Hillel influenced Jesus much. And the Essenes too of course. He was inuenced by different traditions. Including Shammai when it comes to banning divorce.

Buddhism developed 500 years prior to jesus and it's fundamental practice is equanimity with all things. This trumps the golden rule because it isn't just about interactions with people but all things. It is developing compassion for all life, not just human lives but all life. This would include your enemies.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Buddhism is a different tradition with its own developments and limitations. Nothing to see with Jesus, historically.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Do you have any evidence of a Greek precursor to "love your enemy"? I'm a taker if you do.

The western concept of separating church and state can be traced back to "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God".

Quote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
the idea that learnt classes can act as gatekeepers to knowledge rather than educators of the people;

This idea is also not derived from Jesus, and has existed long before him when many types of thought and ways of developing knowledge were really being experimented with. Some people in power thought it was better to with-hold information because it was too dangerous to let others become aware of it.

The tactic of keeping people ignorant is as old as the world, but Jesus was, to my knowledge, the first to take issue with it, to condemn it.

The Law was considered sacred, and thus could not be criticized. Jesus was one of the first to say the law should be taken as benefiting man, not enslave him.

As for you disagreeing that rich people are bad people, you're entitled to your opinions, but that was a somewhat novel idea, I think, although as pointed out by Ludwig, it can be seen as an extension of Essene ethics.

1 Reply

Olivier wrote:

Jesus was one of the first to say the law should be taken as benefiting man

He also is supposed to have said:

Quote:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

1 Reply

@timur,

That is true, but again, the idea that the Torah had outlived its usefulness could not be said, not in so many words. It was (and still is in religious Jewish circles) literally UNTHINKABLE, because that law was supposed to come from God. Jesus simply said that nobody can judge somebody else, because we are all sinners. But he could not possibly criticize the law.

The rabbinic approach to the issue was to invent caveats based on a (largely made up) "oral law". E.g. The written law says that adulterous people should be stoned to death. Ben Zakay, circa end of 1st century CE, stipulated that one can only stone a adulterous couple if they have admitted to it through some magic test or formula that has unfortunately been lost... Nobody remembers the formula, and hence no one can ever be stoned to death for adultery anymore... Similar 'caveats' were brought to all the capital offenses in the Torah. That's why Jews don't get stoned to death for working on Shabbat anymore. The written law has been defanged by the oral law.

0 Replies

Setanta says

Quote:

Whether or not the boy existed is not the problem, it's the way the Christians take the claim and run with it.

Frank Apisa says

Quote:

The question of whether the mythically treated Jesus of the New Testament existed or not is almost irrelevant to that.

Title of this topic:

Dis Jesus Actually Exist?

Clarify, yes? no?

To say that his existence "in not the problem" is your real problem and to say that is "irrelevant to this topic" shows that your irrelevant conclusion is irrelevant

Just admit it, the guy Yeshu existed, stop your jumbo mambo.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

We are talking physical existence, not influence.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Setanta says

Quote:
Whether or not the boy existed is not the problem, it's the way the Christians take the claim and run with it.

Frank Apisa says

Quote:
The question of whether the mythically treated Jesus of the New Testament existed or not is almost irrelevant to that.

The philosophical position attributed to Jesus has impacted significantly on the world. Whether or not the mythically treated JEsus of the New Testament actually existed or not...IS irrelevant to that...no matter what how this thread is titled.

Quote:

Title of this topic:

Dis Jesus Actually Exist?

Clarify, yes? no?

That IS the title, Carlos.

This may surprise you, but often the title of a thread...and the issues raised by the title of a thread...are superseded by the direction the discussion takes.

If that bothers you, perhaps Internet discussions are not your thing.

Quote:

To say that his existence "in not the problem" is your real problem and to say that is "irrelevant to this topic" shows that your irrelevant conclusion is irrelevant

If you want to think my comment is irrelevant...think it. If you do, however, you probably should ignore it rather than give it more attention by attacking it so ineptly.

Quote:

Just admit it, the guy Yeshu existed, stop your jumbo mambo.

I have no idea if the Jesus of the New Testament actually existed as an individual person or not. Neither do you. I am totally willing to suppose such an individual existed...but I will not "admit" that he did, whatever that is supposed to mean.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The western concept of separating church and state can be traced back to "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God".

No it does not, it have to do with governments having a history of setting up state approve religions and punishing those who will not be members of that church and then having a nation with founding fathers who was largely free thinkers who embrace the concern of allowing religion freedoms.

For many hundreds of years you could end up being on a cross yourself or being burn alive by christian governments for not following in details the state church approved dogma

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know