did jesus exist?

[Sententia]

Did jesus exist? Perhaps? Most likely? Did he have supernatural powers? (Why would you even think about an answer to this?)

Like hmm... When I look around today it appears that some humans can fly and walk on water. (David Blain, Kris angel etc)

So... Was Jesus able to turn water into wine and rise from the dead? Good question... Obviously some humans constantly return from the dead...

Wait if god let himself be killed by humans and could have chosen not to die is that not suicide which is actually forbidden?

 

[Quagmire]

Sorry, my misunderstanding. I thought it was a common belief amongst Christians that Jesus Christ founded Christianity.

It is, what does that have to do with anything?

You said:

The Jesus Christ of the gospels is impossible and most likely an invention of an existing church rather than that of a single person that brought us the church.

What it sounds like you're saying here is that someone was claiming that Christianity was brought to us by a single person who invented Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

....Did he have supernatural powers? (Why would you even think about an answer to this?)

Like hmm... When I look around today it appears that some humans can fly and walk on water. (David Blain, Kris angel etc)

So... Was Jesus able to turn water into wine and rise from the dead? Good question... Obviously some humans constantly return from the dead...

Wait if god let himself be killed by humans and could have chosen not to die is that not suicide which is actually forbidden?

None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[dogsgod]

Doesn't matter if that was their intention, they wound up doing it anyway.



Well duh. The whole purpose for writing the Gospels was to promote Christianity and portray Jesus as the promised Messiah. All ancient historians (to say nothing of modern ones) colored their accounts in accordance with their own agendas (Josephus tried to present Vespasian as the Messiah), and the Gospel writers weren't historians (not intentionally anyway) they were evangelists and propagandists.



That's right. And George Washington most likely never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a silver dollar across the Potomac.

Daniel Boone probably didn't kill a grizzly bear with his bare hands.

Davey Crockett probably couldn't really make a raccoon fall dead out of a tree by smiling at it.

All historical figures are surrounded in legends, myths, and folklore.

To point to all the plot holes in the gospels and try to claim that their existence disproves the existence of an historical Jesus is just as ridiculous.

I would agree, that is why I am not trying to disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. I'm trying to explain that Christ is a mythological character and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is based on that character. The figure of Jesus in the New Testament may even have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity.

 

[Quagmire]

I would agree, that is why I am not trying to disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. I'm trying to explain that Christ is a mythological character and that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is based on that character. The figure of Jesus in the New Testament may even have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity.

Also not the topic of this thread. Here, go back and read the OP http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/104342-did-jesus-exist.html

 

[dogsgod]

It is, what does that have to do with anything?

You said:

What it sounds like you're saying here is that someone was claiming that Christianity was brought to us by a single person who invented Jesus.

No, I was saying that a single person, namely Jesus, did not invent the church. I'm saying that the church invented Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

No, I was saying that a single person, namely Jesus, did not invent the church. I'm saying that the church invented Jesus.

That's much more symmetrical.

 

[Sententia]

None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

When people think about jesus and did he exist they think about the fantasy world jesus supposedly lived in where he could cure the blind, raise the dead and turn water to wine.

when I say I think jesus existed I need to quantify that he most likely existed but existed as a normal human and not as a yhwh poltergeist of supernatural power.

Seems quite related.

 

[dogsgod]

When people think about jesus and did he exist they think about the fantasy world jesus supposedly lived in where he could cure the blind, raise the dead and turn water to wine.

when I say I think jesus existed I need to quantify that he most likely existed but existed as a normal human and not as a yhwh poltergeist of supernatural power.

Seems quite related.

Some believe there was a normal person behind the myth, but why?

 

[Sententia]

Some believe there was a normal person behind the myth, but why?

As opposed to what? Some people believe there was a normal person behind the Dracula story while others believe that there is eternal undead behind the stories that feed on human blood.

There is no example of humans capable of raising the dead so I am uncertain why I would believe in a tale that once there was a single human capable of ridiculous feats like turning water to wine instantaneously or raising the dead.

And normal person? I consider many humans extraordinary and there is no reason to believe jesus was not extraordinary that also necessitates a belief that one human born just 2000 years ago was actually the son of god throwing miracles around. In fact it seems silly to think he was the son of god.

 

[waitasec]

Some believe there was a normal person behind the myth, but why?

i think it has to do with the political climate of the time,
he was educated and maybe very charismatic, and approached the jewish leaders with contempt for giving in to the roman empire...
the jews were waiting for a messiah to come and rescue them.

another interesting thing is "the kingdom of heaven" didn't necessarily mean heaven as we think of it today, it was probably meant to be understood as the jews were to live in peace and not to be subjected to roman rule or any rule for that matter.

 

[fallingblood]

Two hundred years and you refer to Josephus interpolations to support your fairy tale? Two hundred years and what have you got? Gospels validating gospels, religious texts validating religious text when they are not conflicting each other. Wow, sounds like a wasted two hundred years.

And what do you have? Ignorance? All you can do is simply ignore the facts. That is, which has been explained to you multiple times, is that there are two references in Josephus that talks about Jesus, one that is nearly universally accepted as authentic. But I guess ignoring anything that proves your wrong is probably the only thing you can do. I haven't seen any logical arguments actually come from you yet.

 

[fallingblood]

i think it has to do with the political climate of the time,
he was educated and maybe very charismatic, and approached the jewish leaders with contempt for giving in to the roman empire...
the jews were waiting for a messiah to come and rescue them.

another interesting thing is "the kingdom of heaven" didn't necessarily mean heaven as we think of it today, it was probably meant to be understood as the jews were to live in peace and not to be subjected to roman rule or any rule for that matter.

That really doesn't make sense as to why Jesus would have been invented. The reason being that there were many other supposed Messiahs running around during that time. Many, including John the Baptist, were preaching about the Kingdom of God.

For the Jews to invent Jesus would have been silly. The reason being that as soon as they stated that Jesus died, it meant that Jesus was not the Messiah. So essentially, those who say that Jesus was just an invention are saying that the Jews purposely created a false messiah for who knows what reason.

 

[dogsgod]

And what do you have? Ignorance? All you can do is simply ignore the facts. That is, which has been explained to you multiple times, is that there are two references in Josephus that talks about Jesus, one that is nearly universally accepted as authentic. But I guess ignoring anything that proves your wrong is probably the only thing you can do. I haven't seen any logical arguments actually come from you yet.

I don't care what you call nearly universally accepted, it's not a valid argument. Invisible gods are nearly universally accepted in the USA and Iran, doesn't make them real.

 

[waitasec]

That really doesn't make sense as to why Jesus would have been invented. The reason being that there were many other supposed Messiahs running around during that time. Many, including John the Baptist, were preaching about the Kingdom of God.

For the Jews to invent Jesus would have been silly. The reason being that as soon as they stated that Jesus died, it meant that Jesus was not the Messiah. So essentially, those who say that Jesus was just an invention are saying that the Jews purposely created a false messiah for who knows what reason.

not that he was invented but embellished through the gospels
each gospel spoke to a different group of jews in the 'jesus movement'

jesus died, but resurrected...paul and some apostles saw and spoke and even ate with the resurrected jesus...seems too me there was a political motivation behind it...

 

[fallingblood]

I don't care what you call nearly universally accepted, it's not a valid argument. Invisible gods are nearly universally accepted in the USA and Iran, doesn't make them real.

It's not valid because you don't care about the facts. The fact that Josephus did in fact write something about Jesus shows that your'e wrong. It is accepted that Josephus wrote something about Jesus. You've never shown this to be wrong. You just keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

 

[fallingblood]

not that he was invented but embellished through the gospels
each gospel spoke to a different group of jews in the 'jesus movement'

jesus died, but resurrected...paul and some apostles saw and spoke and even ate with the resurrected jesus...seems too me there was a political motivation behind it...

I could agree that there was some political motivation behind it. For Paul, it was to show that he had some authority and could be a leader of the Jesus movement.

At the same time though, they could have definitely believed they saw something though.

 

[logician]

It's not valid because you don't care about the facts. The fact that Josephus did in fact write something about Jesus shows that your'e wrong. It is accepted that Josephus wrote something about Jesus. You've never shown this to be wrong. You just keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

This is plainly false, it is accepted the brief reference to a Jesus by Josephus was a blantant forgery.

 

[fallingblood]

This is plainly false, it is accepted the brief reference to a Jesus by Josephus was a blantant forgery.

There are two references. One is accepted as authentic (where Jesus is called the brother of Jesus). The other is considered to have had something about Jesus in it. Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to keep spreading misinformation, please, show some evidence for your claim.

 

[logician]

There are two references. One is accepted as authentic (where Jesus is called the brother of Jesus). The other is considered to have had something about Jesus in it. Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to keep spreading misinformation, please, show some evidence for your claim.

Only accept as authentic by "biblical" scholars, not exactly an unbiased group. LOL