Jesus is a Fictional Character

[74x12]

No. The references are directed squarely on the early Christians who believed in a christ. Not christ himself.

You're implying that later Christians edited Josephus to reference Jesus without proof. I mean they could have but you don't have any proof.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are you ok with Jesus as fictional or do you feel a need to insist that Jesus existed as a real person?

I would think so, but I'm not so sure after watching this video. The video is entertaining and goes through the various records about Jesus. I think we've had threads on this topic, before. Its nice to have all the arguments in one nice neat vid.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're implying that later Christians edited Josephus to reference Jesus without proof. I mean they could have but you don't have any proof.

Why would a Jewish historian document a christ when Judaism as a religion doesn't even acknowledge such a person. It makes no rhyme or reason.

It has to be a reference involving the early Christians and their belief in a Christ which is what is being described and mentioned.

That fits in with the historical context and Judaism in general.

 

[Nakosis]

Mythical makes more sense than "fictional"

That's fair but what do you feel is the difference?

 

[Ella S.]

In many Sethian texts, Jesus is not an actual, flesh-and-blood person, but a personification of Autogenes. The name just means "salvation," and is used an epithet to refer to Autogenes as the principle of spiritual liberation.

Jesus may have been a real person, but if he was, then he probably has very little to do with the teachings ascribed to him. As such, I consider the texts written by later Gnostics to be more important than whatever Jesus may or may not have said.

 

[Nakosis]

I would think so, but I'm not so sure after watching this video. The video is entertaining and goes through the various records about Jesus. I think we've had threads on this topic, before. Its nice to have all the arguments in one nice neat vid.

Yes, I recently watched one of his videos regarding Jesus' ethnicity.

 

[74x12]

Why would a Jewish historian document a christ when Judaism as a religion doesn't even acknowledge such a person. It makes no rhyme or reason.

It has to be a reference involving the early Christians and their belief in a Christ which is what is being described and mentioned.

That fits in with the historical context and Judaism in general.

In the time of Josephus Christianity was still largely considered a sect of Judaism. Wouldn't have been strange to find someone like Josephus vaguely having heard about such a Messiah figure but not knowing much about it.

Besides, Josephus wasn't the typical Jew.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, I recently watched one of his videos regarding Jesus' ethnicity.

Ok, well that being said I think Jesus is Israel, or New Israel or maybe the Spirit of Israel. He's something like that in the gospels, however I think the man Jesus is quite real. I also think that the original Christians do, in fact, believe that he is becoming or has become the word of God, somehow partaking of divinity and losing his human parentage. I don't consider the gospels to be literal accounts so much as arguments. They are a window into many aspects of Judaism, too.

Ultimately they argue to be at peace with the Romans and to view 'Today' as the Day of the L-RD. So they argue to embrace that as truth or to become irrelevant to the new reality. So you have the choice to be in Christ or out. If you're in then Jesus is the Son. If you're out he isn't. One reality <--> a different reality.

 

[lukethethird]

Hi,
Considering what historians have written, the fact that our calender is based on Jesus the influence of Jesus teaching on the world and that a major religion is based on him, Jesus not existing would be an even greater miracle than his existence could ever accomplish.

Spoiler alert: God doesn't exist either.

 

[Nakosis]

Not. There's other historical writings that mention him. And his name is Yeshua, loosely translated as Jesus in English.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5]


Then there's Josephus, first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

Kind of what I am saying is that we know nothing about a real person except stories told by other people. So the only "Jesus" we know is one created from these stories. It is impossible to know the real person even if they did exist.

 

[lukethethird]

And why is that? If you're going to make a claim like this, then please back it up with specific details. I don't immediately believe something someone else tells me on the internet just because they believe it and say it's true. I'd like to see some evidence.

There is more than enough debate regarding these dubious Josephus quotes. They are late just for one, and there are no first century non Christian writings for him to draw from, there are no eyewitness accounts, no contemporaries of a so called Jesus. It's safe not to assume anything about Jesus, historical or otherwise, all we have is religious texts.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus is a Fictional Character
From the earliest Christian writings, Paul's is a heavenly Christ that has yet to come to earth on a cloud of glory. 50-60CE

It is not known if the unknown author of gMark had a particular itinerent preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel. 70CE or later.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is simply not enough information about Jesus for Jesus to be real character.

Oh please. It is almost embarrassing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..God doesn't exist either.

That's impossible, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[lukethethird]

Hi,
Considering what historians have written, the fact that our calender is based on Jesus the influence of Jesus teaching on the world and that a major religion is based on him, Jesus not existing would be an even greater miracle than his existence could ever accomplish.

You appear to be under the impression that world influence must come from a real and actual figure of a man. Odd since all the Gods believed in by believers around the world aren't human.

 

[lukethethird]

That's impossible, as far as I'm concerned.

Says the believer, what else you got?

 

[lukethethird]

Oh please. It is almost embarrassing.

So you've been reading The Bible, well aren't you special.

 

[blü 2]

To be fair, if we apply the same standard, then so are Socrates, Confucius, and Pythagoras.

To be fair to Socrates, he was personally known both to Plato and to Xenophon, who each wrote about him. (On the other hand, I guess you could argue that Bacon wrote Plato and Xenophon as well as Shakespeare.)

 

[Audie]

I think regardless of whether there existed a Jew/Rabbi at the source of the Biblical account. Jesus did not write anything. Can't even be sure, if he existed, what he looked like.

What we have is a fictional character, not a real character. There is simply not enough information about Jesus for Jesus to be real character. Even the name Jesus is a fictional creation.

Are you ok with Jesus as fictional or do you feel a need to insist that Jesus existed as a real person?

Composite

 

[mangalavara]

Are you ok with Jesus as fictional or do you feel a need to insist that Jesus existed as a real person?

Sounds like you have a problem with people being Christian.