Did Jesus exist?

[kellygrrrrrl]

Oh wow. There is so much controversy over religion. Proof, where's the proof? They all want proof. Science, where is the scientific evidence? They want evidence? They can't even come to conclusion on how the origin of the universe started. They once said water caused cancer, then it didn't. Noone will ever know until the big guy in the sky comes down and tells us once and for all.

Nobody really knows what to believe anymore.

I don't know what to belive.

I suppose maybe I have thoughts of...."Well was Mother Mary a liar?" Was The concevement of Christ just a medical miracle? Floop in the gene pool? I don't know. We cannot rely on text that is current, as it translates the translations, and interpretations....and how may times over? Is it reliable? Has anyone tampered with it in the last 2000 years? Sure. Wheres the original text. Can anyone understand it?

I guess all we have is faith and hope. That is what it is about in the end.

Hope & faith.

I believe, well, at least I want to.

[n0Mad]

I originally posted this on a magic forum (the entertainment kind) where there was a heated debate by a bunch of cynical numbnuts who don't believe in psychic phenominon and ESP attacking the few people who do. Now, I'm not saying it does exist, but I'm also not saying it doesn't. Both sides had their valid points but the skeptical side was being jerks about it so I jumped in and helped out the believers. Well, what I wrote there could equally apply to belief in God. I'm not saying he does exist, but I'm also not saying he doesn't. Just read my post below and think for yourself ...

I have a friend who was born with no cones in his eyes at all. All he has are rods. He cannot see any sorts of color, but only black, white, and shades of gray. Everybody is always saying how beautiful the blue sky is, or the green grass. We see vibrant reds and yellows. Yet all he gets are dull hues. (Not to be confused with dull Huws, lol.)

How do you prove to this man that color exists? You can't. It is physically impossible for him to see any sort of color at all so there is absolutely no way to prove to him that color exists. Yet it does exists because I see it, you see it ... billions of people around the world can see color, but not this man. He believes color exists, but he has to take it on faith.

It's very rare to not be able to see color, but what if it was the other way around? What if 99% of us were born without cones, yet 1% of the world can see color? Would you believe it exists? My friend does because more people can see it than not. But what if more people couldn't than do?

[Blackmail]

I like the way Penn and Teller explained it on their show Bullshit! There probably was a man around that time named Jesus, Hell I know a guy named Jesus he lives down the street from me. He probably did claim to be the son of god. Lots of people now do that we call them crazy. There is historical evidence to support that there were many people around that time claiming to be prophets and messiahs. How was this Jesus's claim any more valid then any of the others? Who is to say except god himself and he only seems to talk to psyco homeless people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I sort of think your statement might make it more likely that Jesus might be the son of God. If there were hundreds of people walking around claiming to be the messiah, what did this particular one do to convince a massive amount of people that he was different than all the rest? Seems he would have had to been quite a magician himself.

[n0Mad]

I sort of think your statement might make it more likely that Jesus might be the son of God.  If there were hundreds of people walking around claiming to be the messiah, what did this particular one do to convince a massive amount of people that he was different than all the rest?  Seems he would have had to been quite a magician himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that's a very interesting point. I've gotta write that down.

[Steven]

if he did not really exist, or worse, if he DID exist but was really noting more than you basic Gallilean carpenter....

.... then how in the world did he create such a global impact?

..... and why in the world is the subject still so passionate and hotly debated?

..... and why does his example stand alone in regard to so many other laudible religeous leaders?

I beleive he lived, as a man named Yeshuah.

I also beleive he was diety incarnate.

I beleive he was who he said he was, and did the things that he said he did, and that he was dead and rose from the grave.

I also beleive that he is the only way to reconcilliation with a creator that none of us truly understand, including me.

Doesent really matter to me how many laugh at that notion - as I've yet to meet a man, any man - who carries the sheer weight of force in his personality or wisdom as this lowly table maker. In fact in 39 years of planetary existence, I've met very few men in general that I beleive actually know how to live effectively, or are decent, or respectable, or laudible. And that bums me out to be honest.

I'm an open minded Christian too.

But I'm a Christian first and foremost and always. And I have no fear of ever saying before anyone that without Christ I'd be nothing, accomplish nothing, gain nothing. Because without heim, to me at least, it's all worth nothing. And there is not a man alive who will ever have the power to take that from me.

[Guest Game of Chance]

They still talk about Horus and Iupiter (Zeus) before him...were they real too?

I'm not saying I have all of the answers...or any answers for that matter, but:

Is it possible that these are just psycological archetypes embedded in our subconciouses?

Is it also possible that personifying these archetypical images makes it easier for the human brain to understand them?

[sass_in_the_pants]

This is my favorite part of the article:

"In my book, 'The Fable of Christ,' I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.

He's hawking his cheesy wares! I want to know who his agent is, because he's effing brilliant. He's using the Italian court to sell his book! What a clever little minx! (There is also a related DVD, perhaps that part was cut out of the article?)

Who is to say except god himself and he only seems to talk to psyco homeless people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I talk to psycho homeless people. Sweet! I'm GOD! I always knew I had a higher calling, but I thought it was something like "holding the best garage sale ever", but as it turns out this is it. I-am-the-creator! Well, I shouldn't say that I talk to homeless people, that's not quite true. I talk to one homeless person. Can I still be God? Her name is Lydia No Pants. Mostly I tell her to stop peeing by my car, and she tells me that I'm a pretty little cracker, but that counts doesn't it? I still get to be God, don't I?

[Steven]

They still talk about Horus and Iupiter (Zeus) before him...were they real too? 

I'm not saying I have all of the answers...or any answers for that matter, but:

Is it possible that these are just psycological archetypes embedded in our subconciouses? 

Is it also possible that personifying these archetypical images makes it easier for the human brain to understand them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

of course its entirely possible that Jesus was mythical.

But here's the thing - being that we are not from that age in human devlopment - historians (secular or otherwise) need to rely upon the documentation of other outside historians of the same era (such as Josephus who wrote about Christ) and also upon the social impact of that historical figure upon the following generations to measure credibility. They do the same thing wtih other historical figures as well. What I cant understand (if Jesus was simply a creation of a sychosomatic "need" in the human species) is why him? Why create such an offensive and devisive conduit to nirvana such as is introduced thru the figure of Jesus? Why would we create something that from its inception - is just so damn controversial? Does that really suit the needs of the human psyche?

I alsofind it interesting (although I may be wrong) that we dont see other campaigns to dismiss other alledged historical figures. This is one of the things I actualy love about Chrisitainity - the passion that it ignites. Nobody is offended by Plato's writings and seeks to blot him from the record...yet once again a simple gallilean table maker makes history simply because an agenda exists to remove him from it. The uproar surrounding Jesus is actually one of the key thigns that makes me beleive he was and is real.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Jesus may or not be historical figure...honestly, I don't care. Its his deification that I'm concerned with. The Jesus legend seems peculiarly similiar to the Hindu story of Krishna and the Persian story of Mithras.

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsrel...thraismxmas.htm

[Steven]

Jesus may or not be historical figure...honestly, I don't care.  Its his deification that I'm concerned with.  The Jesus legend seems peculiarly similiar to the Hindu story of Krishna and the Persian story of Mithras. 

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsrel...thraismxmas.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it really (simlar) though Steve?

When I try to compare Christ (Jesus) to other religeous figures, I compare things such as:

world impact

core values (not your typical be good to one another - but divisive values such as Christs comments that if one was "unwilling to leave his father and mother behind on my behalf he is unworthy of me")

self made statements in regard to who they may say they are and what they say is the pathway to enlightenment.

Christ's teaching veer away from many other teachings/teachers by way of his insistence that his way - and his provision - was completely unique and absolute and irrefutable. He seperats himself from other religeous leaders this way - its competely divisive and intended to be so.

I find that rather unique.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Is it really (simlar) though Steve?

When I try to compare Christ (Jesus) to other religeous figures, I compare things such as:

world impact

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, cause there aren't a billion Hindus in India.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm

core values (not your typical be good to one another - but divisive values such as Christs comments that if one was "unwilling to leave his father and mother behind on my behalf he is unworthy of me")

self made statements in regard to who they may say they are and what they say is the pathway to enlightenment.

Christ's teaching veer away from many other teachings/teachers by way of his insistence that his way - and his provision - was completely unique and absolute and irrefutable.  He seperats himself from other religeous leaders this way - its competely divisive and intended to be so. 

I find that rather unique.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I challenge you to find me irrefutable proof of both:

A. Written documentation of a man (as you call him Yeshuah) saying any of this.

B. Anything in Christianity's morals and dogmas that can't be found in a religous philosophy that preceded the so-called time of Christ.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Is it really (simlar) though Steve?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More importantly than the above, is the fact that Christ can be viewed as a solar deity. Just like the sun, the (so-called Son) lives (at noon), dies (at dusk), and is born again (at dawn).

Solar deities were great before we knew that the sun didn't really die everyday (as ancient man thought). Now that we have science, we've proven that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice-versa.

[n0Mad]

Ah, now we're starting to get into the realm of Joseph Campbell.

[paradox]

Solar deities were great before we knew that the sun didn't really die everyday (as ancient man thought).  Now that we have science, we've proven that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice-versa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my, isnt this an incredibly loaded pair of sentances! :laughing

[Guest Game of Chance]

my, isnt this an incredibly loaded pair of sentances! :laughing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not have an intelligent response instead of just staying on the sidelines and being a smartass? You haven't contributed a thing.

[Steven]

Yeah, cause there aren't a billion Hindus in India.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm

I challenge you to find me irrefutable proof of both:

A.  Written documentation of a man (as you call him Yeshuah) saying any of this.

B.  Anything in Christianity's morals and dogmas that can't be found in a religous philosophy that preceded the so-called time of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is a fair challenge.

cant really "prove" anything irrefutably (who can???)- but its good topical back and forth.

let me ask a couple of questions first so that I can be prepared.

Challenge A: Written documentation. Is it out of the question for me to use biblical reference points? This would naturally be where i begin.

Challenge B: this one is more difficult - because your asking me to prove somethign by way of a framework or intrinsic identity that is based on morality, which in the case of Christianity - is not the case. Christianity is not a moral vehicle - its often accused of being one, but that's not its purpose. To be fair though - I can try - and - I can also agree to address challenge B with the topic of dogma. But first (and I'm not being a smart ass here Bro) can you define what Dogma actually is - so that I can have a clearer picture to what I'm trying to research and introduce to you?

Steve

[Steven]

PS -I forgot to address the billions of Hindus remark.

I'm not talking about numbers Steve. I'm talking about social impact on a global scale. one example might be the Bible itself - a feircly and passionately disputed book known worldwide. And - on a global standard - the most persecuted book of all time, the most banned book of all time, and yet - the number one best selling book of all time.

thats a global reference.

the basic tenants of Christianity as well: although (just my hacker opinion) most often grossly mis-represented or taught, the name of Jesus Christ, and the familiarity with Christianity as a religion is probably the most recognizable religeous vehicle today on a global scale.

[Steven]

More importantly than the above, is the fact that Christ can be viewed as a solar deity.  Just like the sun, the (so-called Son) lives (at noon), dies (at dusk), and is born again (at dawn). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See dude, arguments like this make sense to me, and I can apprecaite how your searchign and connecting some seemingly obvious dots, and I respect that. But at the same time - the comparisons you use such as the born again reference are incredibly vague. I say this because the language itself does not really tell the story. For example I should ask you to explain to me what you beleive being born again meant to the early saints and to Christ himself when he expressed it - and then tie that very intimate and powerful intention to earlier religeous teachings rooted in thigns such as Sun worship - and yet retain that same sense of intimacy and purpose.

Christ never taught anything to simply say "well there you are and there it is and thats just the way it goes", that was not his purpose, nor is it consistent with his historical nature. he was always creating with his teaching, always leading in a aprticular direction, and even more so with the types of questions that he asked of specific types of people in a public forum. His teachings were never mystical. They were bread and butter and blunt. They were for the liberation of the everyday man. They were not just introduce to attempt to place mankind in a position within the cosmos.

Can you share a similar approach to some of these earlier religions your reference? Honest question.

[phee]

See dude, arguments like this make sense to me, and I can apprecaite how your searchign and connecting some seemingly obvious dots, and I respect that.  But at the same time - the comparisons you use such as the born again reference are incredibly vague.  I say this because the language itself does not really tell the story.  For example I should ask you to explain to me what you beleive being born again meant to the early saints and to Christ himself when he expressed it - and then tie that very intimate and powerful intention to earlier religeous teachings rooted in thigns such as Sun worship - and yet retain that same sense of intimacy and purpose. 

Christ never taught anything to simply say "well there you are and there it is and thats just the way it goes", that was not his purpose, nor is it consistent with his historical nature.  he was always creating with his teaching, always leading in a aprticular direction, and even more so with the types of questions that he asked of specific types of people in a public forum.  His teachings were never mystical.  They were bread and butter and blunt.  They were for the liberation of the everyday man.  They were not just introduce to attempt to place mankind in a position within the cosmos. 

Can you share a similar approach to some of these earlier religions your reference?  Honest question.

I would have to disagree with this.... kinda.... I 100% agree that Jesus and his teachings may have had less to do with the cosmos then it does what he percieved as Gods teaching (this is of course assuming that the history and myth behind him has any accuracy) BUT: The Christianity religion and it's spread did try to incoperate the existing more "seasonal" religions in most areas into it's fold and therefore did kind of incorperate the cosmic aspects of Pagan religion into it's fabric (Easter being named after the Pagan goddess Oester, is a perfect example of this)

I find the who ever Jesus was (or Josia Ben Joseph as he would have been called as he was a practicing Rabbi)... and what Christianity is/was have very little to do with one another... just my opinion

[paradox]

Why not have an intelligent response instead of just staying on the sidelines and being a smartass?  You haven't contributed a thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, it was an observation, but instead of rudely bashing your post, lets ask a few questions.

Solar deities were great before we knew that the sun didn't really die everyday (as ancient man thought).  Now that we have science, we've proven that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice-versa.

1. exactly what defines "ancient"? are we talking ancient as in the greeks? egyptians? sumerians? lets set some parameters before we pass judgement on other peoples.

2. in what way is science superior to religion, as you so casually imply? does it matter whether you believe that the sun dies or that the earth spins? really? afterall, science is merely another belief structure which we have created to explain the world in which we live and is no more or less valid a means of understanding, explaining or defining it than any other way. i find this statement incredibly arrogant and assuming, but also quite typical of most of us in the "civilized" world. as if a difference or change in belief somehow shows a progression from primative or inferior to civilized or superior.

"solar deities were great when..."

please.

science has coexisted with "solar deities" for thousands of years and some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics were devout followers of "solar deities".

next time, stop to think about how flawed and incomplete our perceptions still are and where the origins of our Western belief structures lie and who developed the "science" you seem to hold in such high esteem as a proof against the "ancient" beliefs of others. "we" have proven nothing, merely parroted a belief that has been fed to us our whole lives, a belief that historically is incredibly prejudiced and limited in scope and vision.

now, if its ok with you, ill continue to enjoy my free time commenting as i please.

[Brenda Starrr]

I think this "debate" is a good one, however, I don't believe that rudeness is a necessity. Just my two cents, whether you like it or not.

Thanks for handling yourself decently, paradox.

[Steven]

I would have to disagree with this.... kinda.... I 100% agree that Jesus and his teachings may have had less to do with the cosmos then it does what he percieved as Gods teaching (this is of course assuming that the history and myth behind him has any accuracy) BUT: The Christianity religion and it's spread did try to incoperate the existing more "seasonal" religions in most areas into it's fold and therefore did kind of incorperate the cosmic aspects of Pagan religion into it's fabric (Easter being named after the Pagan goddess Oester, is a perfect example of this)

I find the who ever Jesus was (or Josia Ben Joseph as he would have been called as he was a practicing Rabbi)... and what Christianity is/was have very little to do with one another... just my opinion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

good observations. ANd your opinion is basically correct.

the pagan inclusions into Christendom however are not rooted in Christ - they are instead rooted in the power structure within the church. From the beginning Christ has been in pursuit of, and yet at odds with the organized church. And from the beginning he established the church and yet warned us about what it was to become. What many people introduce as evidence regarding the hsitory of Christianity is often true - and yet at the same time - these thigns are also in opposition to the model of Jesus himself. I suppose we must therefore decide what then is true Christianity and move outward from there. Christ himself made many warnings to the the chruch in the book of Revalation and has in the past used graphic examples such as his "vomiting them out of his mouth" in regard to those who claimed to move in his name and yet were never a part of him.

Interesting side note/opposing point of view on the rabbinical thiing; yes by some Christ was addressed as "Rabbi" because he took on the personification of a teacher and did so with great authority and passion, and this address of him this way by some was an act of respect, or reverance, much as calling somone "My Lord" would have been in the day. But he was not a recognized nor practicing rabbi as may have been previously understood, nor was he trained and reared as a Levite, the tribe from which men of the preisthood came. Therefore he would have simply been known as Yeshuah, common man, common name, because that's what he was. In fact it is precisely his blue collar approach that incensed the Sanhedrin and the pharisees...the "recognized" jewish spiritual authority of the time.

They literally thought "Who the hell is this beeping commoner leading the people and teaching this ridiculous idea of a personal relationship with God? On who's authority does he act and teach?"

[Blackmail]

I think it is most probable that Jesus did exist.

Luke, John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians were first hand accounts. They name check king Herod and Pontius Pilate. Luke was a noted historian for christs sake (oops - sorry for the pun).

Julius Meuller is an expert on mythology who says that it takes at least two generations for a myth to develop. the story of jesus was widely accepted by many right after his death and within two decades had transformed the world.....all while contemporaries of Jesus were alive.....the new testament can't be proven myth like say 2nd and 3rd century apocryphal documents.

[Guest Game of Chance]

I'm in the lovely state of Minnesota this week with limited internet access, but I will take the time to respnd to this post:

actually, it was an observation, but instead of rudely bashing your post, lets ask a few questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it was quite rude, considering the tone of your post and the lack of any kind of intelligent response. This back and forth between Steven and I stemmed from a PM from me to him in an attempt to keep meaningful conversation alive on DGN. Some of us have better things to do with our time than make continuous posts in the The Person Above You thread

1. exactly what defines "ancient"?  are we talking ancient as in the greeks? egyptians? sumerians?  lets set some parameters before we pass judgement on other peoples.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring specifically to people alive during the alleged time of Christ. However, we could very well be talking about the greeks, egyptians or sumerians.

2. in what way is science superior to religion, as you so casually imply?  does it matter whether you believe that the sun dies or that the earth spins?  really? afterall, science is merely another belief structure which we have created to explain the world in which we live and is no more or less valid a means of understanding, explaining or defining it than any other way. i find this statement incredibly arrogant and assuming, but also quite typical of most of us in the "civilized" world.  as if a difference or change in belief somehow shows a progression from primative or inferior to civilized or superior. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I urge you to read the entire thread carefully before posting. When you have a clue what you're talking about, come back and talk to me.

"solar deities were great when..."

please. 

science has coexisted with "solar deities" for thousands of years and some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics were devout followers of "solar deities".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you aware of which deity's image is displayed in my signature line? You look more and more the fool with each post.

next time, stop to think about how flawed and incomplete our perceptions still are and where the origins of our Western belief structures lie and who developed the "science" you seem to hold in such high esteem as a proof against the "ancient" beliefs of others.  "we" have proven nothing, merely parroted a belief that has been fed to us our whole lives, a belief that historically is incredibly prejudiced and limited in scope and vision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, read the entire thread before you post. Seriously, if that isn't the golden rule of message boards...I'm not sure what is.

Good luck.

[paradox]

Some of us have better things to do with our time than make continuous posts in the The Person Above You thread

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats pretty amazing how i often see you in such threads, then. but, obviously, you are far too intellectual for me. thanks for missing the point entirely!