Do you believe Jesus existed?

[ChrisP]

Anyone who's spent some time looking into religion comes upon the unsurprising fact that legends myths and religious texts must have SOME grounding in fact. People can imagine anything, but they have to have some... context... to create their imaginings from.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

Occam's Razor sorta demands such a belief, imo. That is, I think the idea that a non-existent person could inspire something that's been as large, influential and long-lasting as Christianity is about on a par with the idea that the Moon Landing was all a hoax./QUOTE]

The fact that Christianly has been so infuential has little to do with the facts that there have so many Christ like figures throughout history. Figures that in fact performed the same miracles and died in the same way for the salvation of man kind. Mostly like Christ existed but the reason his message has existed for so long and has changed the world is because of the myth created around the man. That being said there is nothing said of him in the history of the era besides in the bible beginning to be written 40 years after his death. It seems that the apostles were probably with in ten years of his age and life expectancy was a very short period of time. So the words in the books of the bible are most likely heresy. Stories passed down over and over again and changed just as the Bible still evolves today. It is possible he was entirely made up by people that wanted to change a world of hate and fear into one of compassion. A means to an end so to speak. Drawing on legends, saviors, and other myths. No one will ever know. Its all belief and trust as is everything.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

sorry not heresy, but hear say i don't know how to spell

 

[Booko]

The fact that Christianly has been so infuential has little to do with the facts that there have so many Christ like figures throughout history. Figures that in fact performed the same miracles and died in the same way for the salvation of man kind.

You're telling this to a *Baha'i*? I hope you weren't thinking I would contradict any of this, but alas, that discussion would be off topic.

It seems that the apostles were probably with in ten years of his age and life expectancy was a very short period of time. So the words in the books of the bible are most likely heresy.

Not to worry, I know you meant hearsay.

I would give it another name, though. "Tradition." When it comes to history, we often depend on traditions, if the age we're talking about is distant enough. But for some odd reason, the tools that are acceptable for historical research at any other time are not acceptable when it's dealing with the existence of Jesus.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I find approach to be anywhere from unscholarly to hypocritical.

Stories passed down over and over again and changed just as the Bible still evolves today.

I have never made a comment as to whether the record in the Bible about Jesus are accurate stories -- only that it is historical evidence that such a person existed. Would I like there to be other sources? Sure. But there aren't. And there aren't for a lot of other figures in history we consider historical.

It is possible he was entirely made up by people that wanted to change a world of hate and fear into one of compassion.

No sale. Even philosophy doesn't have the power to do that. Imaginary fairy tales have even less chance of that working.

When you can show me an example in human history of a completely fictional person ending up inspiring billions, creating a civilization, and being accepted as having actually existed, then I'll reconsider. But that's so much of a stretch and to my knowledge is without precedent in human history.

A means to an end so to speak. Drawing on legends, saviors, and other myths. No one will ever know. Its all belief and trust as is everything.

I see where a similar pattern has occured in human history on several occasions, and with similar results. So I find it more plausible to accept the historicity of the figure of Jesus as much as I do Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

But for some odd reason, the tools that are acceptable for historical research at any other time are not acceptable when it's dealing with the existence of Jesus.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I find approach to be anywhere from unscholarly to hypocritical.

elaborate please

I see where a similar pattern has occured in human history on several occasions, and with similar results. So I find it more plausible to accept the historicity of the figure of Jesus as much as I do Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Very true, I'm not saying he did or didn't exist I guess I'm trying to find a fact that he did through documented history. Preserved documents just a mention of his name. I said unsure. It is just as hard to find of Muhammad, Buddha, and Krishna I'll have to do some research on the last three.

 

[finalfrogo]

I'm unsure. Does the question refer to the actual figure of Jesus depicted by the Bible, or of a historical person that figure is based upon? I reject the former mainly because the biblical story of Jesus seems heavily borrowed from older stories in ancient religion; the scriptures are doubtable and contradictory; and we might not even know Jesus's real name (all commonly thought names for "Jesus" may only be titles, as they have double-meanings... I can present more information on this later if anyone requests but don't have it with me at the moment). However, a historical figure on which the biblical stories center on seems possible.

 

[clark]

Anyone who's spent some time looking into religion comes upon the unsurprising fact that legends myths and religious texts must have SOME grounding in fact. People can imagine anything, but they have to have some... context... to create their imaginings from.

How about Father Christmas the Tooth fairy or the heroes of Greek mythology,
are they based on FACT?
a story is told and each person and each generation add their little bit and the story gets bigger and better,
how about Robin Hood, there is no evidence the man ever existed but his story is known by millions of people, the same with King Arthur, no evidence at all, then add the word God and you have a whole new ball game.

 

[Bishka]

Perhpas Father Christmas and the Tooth Faity were at one point real people in a real town or village who went around taking the teeth (perhaps a tvillage dentist) and perhaps Father Christmas was the kindly old man in town. We don't really know how many of these ideas got started, but I believe most stories, legends, myths, truths, etc., were all usually based in truth, but got stuck or completley changed around at some point.

 

[ChrisP]

How about Father Christmas the Tooth fairy or the heroes of Greek mythology,
are they based on FACT?
a story is told and each person and each generation add their little bit and the story gets bigger and better,
how about Robin Hood, there is no evidence the man ever existed but his story is known by millions of people, the same with King Arthur, no evidence at all, then add the word God and you have a whole new ball game.

Exactly... the question is not what is the truth, it is "Did Jesus exist". I believe he did. I don't believe everything that is said occured in a literal sense. I do believe there was a spiritual teacher who was enlightened and who lived in that area around the time given for Jesus life. His name may or may not have been Jesus, but that is unimportant to me.

 

[Halcyon]

How about Father Christmas the Tooth fairy or the heroes of Greek mythology,
are they based on FACT?
a story is told and each person and each generation add their little bit and the story gets bigger and better,
how about Robin Hood, there is no evidence the man ever existed but his story is known by millions of people, the same with King Arthur, no evidence at all, then add the word God and you have a whole new ball game.

Father Christmas = Saint Nicolas of Myra. The modern version incorporates the pagan tradition of "Old Man Winter". So that's 1 based on a real person.

The Tooth Fairy originates from the ancient practice of purchasing childrens' milk teeth, so that they could be used as magical charms. Not a real person, but a real ancient practice.

Greek Mythology - with ancient Greek heroes we have the problem that the ancient Greeks had a habit of rewriting and expanding upon their myths. We don't know they were based on real people, but can you say with certainty that there never existed a great warrior called Achilles?

It's fair to say that most, if not all, ancient figures have had their real lives edited with myth, but that doesn't mean they never existed.

Imhotep was an ancient genius, an architect, scribe and high priest under Pharoah Djoser around 2600 BC. He was a real man, but he was also deified - they made him a god.
We know he was a real man, but he is also a god. Now, just because he became a god does that mean the man never existed?

Just because Jesus was deified, does that mean he never existed?
I think people who believe Jesus was never alive just because his life has had mythology incorporated into it need to do some more research.

Sorry i was gone for a little while. Where did you get your information on Judas. Is this all canonized?

From the etymology if the "name" Iscariot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iscariot#Etymology_of_.22Judas_Iscariot.22

It is not canonised because the church cares little for Judas nor his background.

 

[eudaimonia]

Do you believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ? If not, why not? If so, why?

No, I don't, mainly for the sort of reasons presented in The Jesus Puzzle, in particular the curious lack of contemporary non-Christian citations of the existence of Jesus.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyone who's spent some time looking into religion comes upon the unsurprising fact that legends myths and religious texts must have SOME grounding in fact. People can imagine anything, but they have to have some... context... to create their imaginings from.

Therefore, how could anyone doubt the historicity of Neptune?

You know, ChrisP, underwhelming observations become more than a little inane when fallaciously suggested as argument. There is a near unbounded class of myth, lore, fraud and fiction which "must have SOME grounding in fact", but that makes their subjects no less ahistoric.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just because Jesus was deified, does that mean he never existed?

Good grief! What a fine piece of strawman rhetoric that was! Who has argued that Jesus is ahistoruc because he was deified?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I find it more plausible to accept the historicity of the figure of Jesus as much as I do Moses, ...

Now there's an interesting sentence.

 

[Halcyon]

Good grief! What a fine piece of strawman rhetoric that was! Who has argued that Jesus is ahistoruc because he was deified?

People who disbelieve in the existance of the historical Jesus because of the mythological similarities to Osiris/Dionysus.

 

[ChrisP]

You may care to look at the question in the OP which was :

Do you believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ? If not, why not? If so, why?

I have shown why I believe. The humanity of historians, and the human inability to create something from nothing.

Other than a lack of anything that can be weighed on scales or have a tape measure wrapped around it, why DON'T you believe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, I don't, mainly for the sort of reasons presented in The Jesus Puzzle, in particular the curious lack of contemporary non-Christian citations of the existence of Jesus.

The question becomes: Just how curious is this "curious lack of contemporary non-Christian citations"? Once you allow for the possibility of a heavily redacted legend with a good deal of exaggeration, the answer becomes "Not very".

Much of what we know about a number of mesianic claimants comes to us from a single source. In the absence of this singe source, Josephus, each of these claimants would similarly suffer. Conversely, given the political and theological turmoil that characterized the close of the 2nd Temple Period, it would be absurd to assume that Josephus represents an exhaustive study. So, the problem is not one of a "curious lack of contemporary non-Christian citations" but, rather, an unfortunate lack of contemporary history.

So, where does that leave us?

There is two pieces of circumstantial evidence that, in my opinion, tip the scales in favor of historicity:

1. To quote Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories on Wells: "Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; and so some elements ascribed there to the life of Jesus presumably derive ultimately from the life of a first century Galilean preacher. The essential point, as Wells sees it, is that this personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the Pauline and other early documents, and that the two have quite separate origins. The Jesus of the earliest Christians did not, on this view, preach and work miracles (or what were taken for such) in Galilee, and was not crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem."
2. It strains credulity to suggest that the Jerusalem sect as found in Acts is some sort of Pauline (or Lukan) fiction, although we are clearly seeing it through Pauline eyes. Given the historicity of this sect and its "Pillars" - and, for that matter, the historicity of the early Ebionites - it seems far from unreasonably to infer a sect leader around which this group originally coalesced. Whether or not his name was 'Yeshua' seems of lesser importance.

What we end up with is a figure of no particularly unique insight or wisdom, a figure who possibly suffered the fate that so many Jews suffered at the time, and a figure who was used to construct a Pauline fiction that was later cynically adopted by Constantine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just because Jesus was deified, does that mean he never existed?

Good grief! What a fine piece of strawman rhetoric that was! Who has argued that Jesus is ahistoric because he was deified?

People who disbelieve in the existance of the historical Jesus because of the mythological similarities to Osiris/Dionysus.

Please, Halcyon, that was simply disingenuous. You know very well that

rejecting historicity just "because Jesus was deified"​

is an entirely different argument than is

rejecting historicity just "because of the mythological similarities to Osiris/Dionysus"​

At least I hope you do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have shown why I believe. The humanity of historians, and the human inability to create something from nothing.

Thanks for sharing ...​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhpas Father Christmas and the Tooth Faity were at one point real people ... We don't really know how many of these ideas got started, but I believe most stories, legends, myths, truths, etc., were all usually based in truth, but got stuck or completley changed around at some point.

And perhaps the Daoine Sidhe were at one point real faerie folk and the Unicorn at one point a very horny horse. Perhaps Durga/Parvati was originally a female arm-wrestler, and Pan - well, let's not speculate on Pan.

And, beckysoup61, what does it mean to say "I believe most ... truths, etc., were all usually based in truth"?

Is self-decepton and delusion likewise "usually based in truth"?