Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

I am a believer who has rejected the idea of Jesus being just some prophet or moral teacher whose story was twisted to make him something more. Either there is a reliable historical account to the gospels that firmly establish Him and His divinity even if minor details are wrong or they do not all agree, or the whole thing is a giant work of fiction pushed by ancient writers to reform the religion of the day and make sense of earlier Hebrew prophecies. To me, it is far easier to make it all up than it is to cherry-pick what is historically reasonable and what is later fairy tale.

 

r

That's true.

"Supernatural" describes things that are outside our experience or scientific models. I think nothing is certain, not even that, so I try to keep an open mind. I tend not to believe in reports of supernatural occurrences for which there are no reliable witnesses, or to invoke "God" as an explanation concept to close off discussion. However, I suspect that we've only scratched the surface in trying to figure out what it's all about. Nothing is certain, not even that, and I don't rule out my being a brain in a jar and my experience being a Matrix-style computer simulation. However, I'm betting that it's not. I'm a Christian as a result of a conversion experience (moment of clarity, psychotic break, whatever), that I had several years ago in which a hermeneutic of love made everything much clearer. I opted to go with it, and haven't been disappointed yet. To me, "God" is Ultimate Meaning--the felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:28). I don't think God is the Dude in the Sky. "God is the expression I use for ultimate meaning (that which other things like money, power, status, sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and other false gods shouldn't be put before). John (1 John 48) tells us God is Love, and it is the message of unconditional love for everyone including society's rejects that I find so appealing in the message attributed to Jesus. Nobody says sit better! In giving credit for my beliefs and expressing the best fit with some established belief system, I feel obliged to say I'm a Christian, which is different from saying I must believe every doctrine stated in the Nicaean creed . Love is the hermeneutic that guides me in understanding what the Bible and the sacred writings of other traditions are saying. There is also the matter of fine tuning and the integrated complexity of the universe, but to me that's of secondary interest. The possibility of an afterlife is tertiary at best.

Thank you for giving us a fresh opinion!

 

"The entire history of learning"? We're talking about one of many philosophical theories introduced by a fringe school of ancient Greek philosophers. Like atomic theory came from the philosophical atomism of Democritus.

I think multiverses can be true. Maybe they are true. They just haven been validated or refuted by empirical evidence.

With historical figures, it's a matter of plausibility. I've given my reasons for thinking it's more plausible than not that Jesus existed.

That's about it. The rest is pure conjecture. Many people led cults, many people were crucified, so that may be possible, but we have no proof of this one in the bible having been (other than religious texts). Are we back to that? There was one Yeshua ha Nosri, and unlike all the other dudes in the Nazarene phone book there seems to have been something special about Him since He became the center of the largest world religion--one that's existed over 2,000 years. Maybe there was something special about Him.

That's right. We either take it on faith or metaphorically.

We're talking about whether the existence or non-existence of a particular prophet. On the basis of the arguments I've presented and the books I've mentioned I think it's simpler to believe that he was a real man who became a legend than somebody who was made up out of whole cloth (because why would they make up a "failed" (from a Jewish standpoint) crucified Messiah from Nazareth who had to be baptized when He was sinless, etc. That's pretty complicated.)

 

May Jesus be divine as just so a Hindu guru is a god-man ? I am tickled with a story that Jesus
travelled with the caravan traders to and from India .

 

It doesn't. I brought up multiverses in post 311 to show that intelligent scientists can find unproven and unprovable theories useful.

The multiverse theory is in a different class from scientific theories like, say, evolution or the Big Bang, in that it has no empirical grounding but is developed only mathematically on the blackboard, like string theory.

Exactly! But gotta admit, it's simple.
.

You seem to be impressed by 2,000 year old naturalistic theories but not about 2,000 year old religious ones. Those ancient Greeks were admittedly clever people., and had lots of interesting ideas about what the universe was made of and how it worked. Thales thought its quintessential substance was water, Anaximenes said air, Anaximander said it was something infinite and indeterminate, Heraclitus said fire and flux, Democritus introduced the idea of atoms, and Chrysippus gave us the multiverse theory--in very elemental form. Lots of ideas for future scientists to play with. To say that the multiverse or any of the other speculative theory was part of a solid scientific tradition, however, is really stretching it. For all practical purposes, the multiverse theory began with Schrödinger in the early 1950s, and remains, when all is said and done, a speculative theory derived from QM, which they didn't have back in Miletus, Ionia or Ciliicia back in the day. It has a following among physicists, some believing that it holds great promise, others not so much. Fact is, as I've said before on several occasions, it hasn't been tested, and its proponents admit there is no foreseeable way of testing it. On the other hand, we have lots of historical records referring to a Yeshua ha Nosri, and although there are Problems with all of them, reputable scholars studying them in the context of information about the time, conclude that He is more likely to have been real than fake.

But it's always a judgment call. We live in an era where, despite our vast resources in information, communication, and news reporting, there are diametrically opposed versions of the most basic facts, with one side dismissing the other's as "fake news'. How much more difficult then to be confident of anything in the distant past when such resources weren't available. Reality is a gamble. We try to do the best we can, use good judgment, place our bets, and hope for the best.

Namaste

 

It does not matter.

 

When it does not matter , just bugger off and do not write about it .

 

Now you tell us!

 

Jesus has been dead for along time.

 

There have been lots of Elvises, and a few famous ones. There may even be a man or woman by the name of Elvis King. In time, there probably will be, if there hasn't yet been one. There have been even more Jesuses, and even more famous ones. I've been to Nazareth. It's a large town today. There are probably at least several guys named Yeshu from there and living there right now. Yes, multiple Jesuses of Nazareth, and people with the same name living there before now.

I can say that a guy named Josh works the desk and co-owns a vehicle repair shop. I know because I've been there, and spoken with him, and he answers the phone as "Josh." If, 2,000 years from now, someone wants irrefutable proof of the existence of this Josh, I can say now with a high degree of certainty that there won't be any, nor of my existence, nor of yours. However, he's not the only Josh who lives in his town, so there shouldn't be much debate about whether some Josh existed, even if the records connecting that particular Josh to the tires he most recently sold me are long gone.

 

To me, it's not relevant. Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a historical or mythological figure, the teachings attributed to him in the synoptic gospels are still just as relevant. Obviously, I'm not a Christian, so the whole divinity, 'blood sacrifice' thing doesn't apply, therefore I don't presume to speak for what others believe.

 

I'm a Muslim and now think you sound like one of us. Early Christians from my part of the world questioned The God status of Jesus. Peter Nestorius from Nestor Iraq suggested a Dual Nature of Christ, one human, and one Godly. He also, among other early Christian scholars questioned whether Mary the mother of Jesus was a God herself. The Muslims believed and still believe that a God is infinite and therefore cannot create a son, because having a son is an indication of the life and death and rebirth cycle, therefore would result in a none infinite God.

 

A'salaam alaikum.

 

I think he existed at that time and as Jack Wythe told Jesus was in fact the leader of the Jewish resistance to Rome, after Rome insulted the Jews by removing the Maccabees and replaced them with Rome's Pharisees. The Maccabees were the known and respected Jewish judges and removing them was a usurpation and the ultimate insult. Wythe told Rome at that time did not punish thieves by crucifixion. That was done for crimes against Rome, as in a rebellion. The two men crucified next to Jesus were not thieves. They were fighters of the Jewish Resistance.

 

Thank You Brother.

 

Source? (personally, I do think it's a hoax). Catholic Bishop Pierre d’Arcis told the Pope in 1390 it was fake by someone “falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”. I think he was on to something.
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-shroud-turin-fake-retracted.html
The Shroud of Turin is a Fake. But You Already Knew That
Sorry, the Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten
New forensic tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake
Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest | Live Science.
New DNA Test May Have Finally Solved The Ancient 'Shroud Of Turin' Mystery
What is the Turin Shroud? It's a medieval fake, right?
Here's Why the Shroud of Turin is Fake
Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

On the other hand:
Shroud of Turin - evidence it is authentic; the real shroud of Jesus Christ
Facts About the Shroud of Turin (Age, Dimensions, Blood Stains)
The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin | Review of Religions
Shroud of Turin -- Christ’s Blood Is Both There and on the Sudarium of Oviedo | National Review

Religion is a complex phenomenon, and multifunctional. Inter alia, it's a control mechanism, but. also a source of meaning, cognitive balance and social bonding for individual believers like me.

Let's not give the bishops in Rome all the credit. St. Irenaeus of Lyons got the ball rolling, and St. Athanasius of Alexandria came up with the 27-book version that was accepted at the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

 

I think Jesus did exist, there’s actually evidence to suggest so. It’s the whole son of god nonsense and all the other laughable bollocks which isn’t true.