Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

Of course it's debatable. We have on-going debates among reasonable people over politics, and no side can "prove' that their position is correct, although I believe some are more reasonable than others.

 

I think his role in founding a world religion was posthumous and unintentional. His own mission, as he saw it, was probably to usher in the Kingdom of God, first in Israel, later the world. The world religion that developed in his name, dominated by gentiles, might have shocked him. As for "proof", there you go again.

That one is purely a matter of faith. Progressive Christians tend to view it metaphorically. Crossan doesn't think he even made it to a tomb.

I disagree with you about the atheists. Some obviously care a lot, because they're so ready to argue passionately on the subject. Traditional Christians think it's the most important thing there is, the key to their salvation. Some progressive Christians regard it as academic, but worth discussing as an exercise in clarity of thought.

 

"MeAgain, post: 8954012, member: 620"
"I agree it doesn't matter if he existed.
And I know you aren't defending the demigod Jesus, I'm presenting the counter arguments agaisnt for others in the thread.
Tishomingo. Like

 

Seen too much in this life to believe in any kindly creator. I’ll stick with nature and my Norse Gods. If you never seen the Documentary The God Who Wasn’t There, it’s free now here: http://youtu.be/alurfHwH_zY

 

The title of the thread is "Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed"? suggests just that: Do you think Jesus ha Nosri ever walked the earth?. Considered in the context of the popular "Jesus myth" controversy, it's a topical question. Of course the existence of Jesus is a necessary precondition for any supernatural characteristic He may or may not have had. The OP wondered Do you, based on what you know about history,etc, think that Jesus (Yes the "Jesus") ever really existed? Or is he a construct of the Church? " Sounds like the classic "quest for the historical Jesus" to me.

There have been lots of interesting studies on the Jesus movement, what it was about, and why it succeeded after the death of the leader, when other similar movements failed. They base their research not only on scriptures, but also on a study of the history and culture of the region where Jesus lived and preached.I find the studies by Borg and Crossan of the Jesus Seminar persuasive. Borg sees Jesus as a man who preached and practiced a gospel of compassion in a society where that challenged the purity codes that worked to preserve Israel's identity since the Babylonian captivity. With that in mind, we can understand why he clashed with the Temple and the Romans and got himself nailed up. Crossan presents Jesus as a young man who was first attracted to John the Baptist's movement, which used a form of guerilla theater based on baptism in the Jordan to prepare Israel for a coming eschatological event. When John was arrested and subsequently executed, Jesus went his own way, taking with him a couple of John's followers. The strategy was a different form of guerilla theater, in which Jesus or his disciples would show up in a town, do some healings and exorcisms, and then accept table fellowship from the host--provided everybody was invited. This plan was incredibly subversive, in two respects: performing healings and exorcisms outside the Temple was a NoNo. And table fellowship with riffraff--publicans, sinners, prostitutes, etc., was a blow to the Jewish purity code.

We can experience something like this at the national and regional gatherings of the Rainbow Family of the Living Life held on federal lands. If you've ever been to one, you may have found it to be a transformative experience. I think that when we die, and are called to the great gathering in the Sky to partake of the bounties of the Heavenly Dumpster, we'll sit together with drug addicts, prostitutes, lepers,derelicts, bathless, toothless homeless people, dilapidated hebephrenics, etc, of all colors and creeds. And it will be Heaven. But some may think they went to the other place.

 

This world has had 'faith healers' throughout the existence of of homo sapiens and Jesus was quite a common name. If such a 'faith healer existed, he was but one of hundreds or thousands of others.

 

But the only one to become the center of the largest world religion.

 

Why do you think that is at all "probable"? Would you say the same about, say, the Amish or the Quakers?

I was speaking metaphorically. I suspect the ego, the id, and the superego, will go "poof" and not make it to the "flux". The rest may help fertilize the daisies.

 

From what we know about early Christianity (I'm talking really early: first and second centuries, not Roman Catholics), it seems to have been pretty non-violent--in fact anti-violent. To say the Quakers are "not as violent" as Catholics strains the language. Quakers are notoriously pacifist--devotees of "friendly persuasion". Relative to the general human population, they are notably non-violent. And are they more "indoctrinated" than kids growing up in atheist families are? A belief in the power of the Abrahamic God does instill fear and guilt, but that isn't emphasized nearly as much by Quakers as by Catholics. As an early victim of Catholic schools, taught by nuns with rulers, I seriously doubt that many denominations can top that.

 

Well, in the chaos of an acid trip last night I had the opportunity to bring up this question to Jesus himself. And he told me that no, nothing exists. Everything is make believe and nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about. All of our beliefs, all of our ideas our arguments our traditions and our dreams.....all of it is only a series of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that make us all think that what goes on inside our head is somehow more important than what goes on in someone else's head, when in reality we are all just tiny specks bouncing around on another tiny speck, that is floating around in an infinitltly unfathomable black vacuum of space.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


Also, y'all mahfuckas need Jesus.

 

I was referring to the early Christian community during the first century. This was admittedly Jewish, as were the Gentiles who succeded them in the second and third centuries, but let's not attribute to them the characteristics of Old Testament Judaism which they were reacting against. It's well documented they were pacifists. Yes, Christianity really "took off" in the 4th century, and that was about the time it turned violent. Christianity forged a fateful relationship with the Roman Emperor Constantine, who claimed to have had a vision of a cross in the sky accompanied by the words "By this sign conquer", and he went on to conquer his opposition. At that point the Prince of Peace became general Jesus. After three centuries of martyrdom, Christian bishops made a bargain with the emperor without which Christianity, if it existed at all, might still be a fringe sect of pacifists. Instead the Christians may have sold their souls. Christians should be able to relate to this, since the Evangelicals have given their backing to Trump in exchange for judgeships and a place at the table of the powerful. We'll see how this one turns out.

I'm not sure that's certain. The atheist could be indoctrinating their kids in anti-religious beliefs. Same difference. The alternative would be not to teach their kids, which would in my opinion be a worse form of abuse. I'm not sure most Quakers are more likely than atheists to teach their kids by words or example what they think is right and wrong. Most atheists I know think religion is wrong. I don't know of any studies that have been done on the subject.

 

I think a good parent tries to teach his/her child what they think is right or the right way to live. Usually, that comes wrapped in a set of beliefs about reality, as well as values. If it is embedded in too a set of rigid religious attitudes, that would be undesirable, if the beliefs are rigid, dogmatic, false or intolerant. For an atheist, I think a strong anti-religious upbringing that might impede understanding or tolerance of religious neighbors would be a comparably bad thing. But I think it would be worse not to teach the child anything at all or fail to provide any positive parental guidance. It risks the condition Durkheim called anomie, which he thought was a leading cause of depression and suicide. It's a condition of normlessness or normative confusion resulting from a relinquishment of social constraints. Absent parenting is all too common in our society, and we pay a heavy price for it.

We're talking about relative evils here. On the one hand, authoritarian, dogmatic parenting produces authoritarian, uncreative, intolerant kids. On the other hand, lax parenting without guidance risks producing anomic kids.who are guided by impulses or are up for grabs by any ideology that can fill the normative void. Good parenting, atheist or Christian, inculcates good values along with critical thought. In the real world, the values often come in a religious package, although secular humanism can convey them, as well. I think an atheist who is offended that a parent is teaching a kid good values in the context of a religious upbringing is a bit of a prig--and fighting a quixotic battle against the real world. It would be unrealistic to expect a parent to put his or her convictions aside and conceal them from their child in an effort to produce some kind of human tabula rasa. And it's questionable how tolerant a person can be if they think all religious beliefs are so damaging that it's wrong to pass them along to children. Plato thought that the children of the Guardians should be taken from their parents and raised by the State. Good idea? Or should we follow Richard Dawkins' suggestion and report religious parents to the authorities for child abuse?

Not at all. I know Quakers and atheists, and I know their kids. I used to belong to an atheist association that had social gatherings where there were plenty of well-behaved kids. I paid close attention to how the parents related to their kids, in the process of sizing up atheists. The parents were moral, and I think they conveyed that to their children. Since then, I've moved to a community where the local freethinkers group is older and there aren't many kids around, but they're good people. I bring a conservative Catholic friend with me to the dinners, and he's impressed. In my own case, I was raised by Catholic parents, but fortunately they were Catholic lite. My Mama taught me that people were usually doing the best they can, and that Allah was just the Muslim name for the same God we prayed to. Unfortunately, they were Republican heavy, but they overdid the conservative indoctrination to the point it became ineffective. My sister and I are supporting Biden.

 

Some do and some don't. Atheists come in many varieties. I'm saying, based on some experience, that there can indeed be dogmatic atheists who convey to their children that religious folks are a bunch of nutjobs.

I think we're having a communication problem. What I meant by the sentence is that for a majority of people in the world today and in the past, moral values have been presented in the context of supernatural beliefs. Naturally, these parents--Quakers, Amish, Catholics, whatever, are going to try to inculcate moral values in these terms. Atheist parents will presumably try to inculcate them in terms of secular humanism. Nowhere does this imply superiority or inferiority of the different value systems. I think both are a good thing. Yes, unfortunately, it is possible for parents to neglect their responsibilities to teach good values to their kids. They can't be bothered and don't care what personal example they set. It seems to me, though, that you've been saying it would be abusive for religious parents to try to teach morality to their kids in a religious package. I think disagree.

I thought you did. In fact I thought that's what you said regarding Quakers and Amish: "The Amish and Quakers are subsets of Christianity. They use fear and brain washing, they are not as violent but certainly indoctrinated to a larger degree than say, Roman Catholics." "Any one who teaches a religion to their children is indoctrinating them to a degree to believe in religion. As atheist have no religion they can't be indoctrinating anyone in regards to religious beliefs." So do you think there is some religious indoctrination that isn't damaging?

My sympathies. Glad you survived!