Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

We could go back and forth arguing whether any of your reasons are sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus, but I am not going to do this with you. I don't like the way such conversations work, because it implies that we who don't believe in his historical existence have to do a lot of work to try and figure out reasons why we don't, as if the evidence for his existence is very good. In practice, all such arguments lend support for the validity of Christianity, despite the fact that proof of Christ's existence is non-existent.

To answer the OPs question once more, no I don't believe in the historical figure of Christ. And though there are several compelling reasons not to, my major reason is that the records of his existence are so shoddy we wouldn't know who he was even if he did exist, which makes his existence a moot point. Even historically he wouldn't be important if everything that is written about him is rubbish. For all we know he was the teacher who happened to be there and could have really been anybody. I don't see why it's important to know whether there was some guy who inspired people to make things up about him or not. Its like the story of Alice in Wonderland possibly having been based upon a child Lewis Carroll knew. It isn't in any way rooted in fact just because the child existed.

So in other words we have to consider what Jesus could have been at the very least if we're going to take the issue of his existence seriously. And it's possible he was just a muse, a nude model for people to paint pictures of.

 

If it wasn't aliens that used those diamond cutting tools to build Puma Punku, there would be the tools that were used by them that did it. Nothing found. Logically the aliens took the tools with them.
Same with Gobekli Tepe and Baalbek, no tools have been found.
The Hindu have historical writings of aliens that had a nuclear war 6,000 years ago.
https://mathildasweirdworldweblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/a-nuclear-bomb-in-the-ancient-hindu-text-the-mahabharata/

 

Nuclear weapons in Mahabharata? When I read it I didn't notice any. It talks about 'Divine weapons' in places, but it's clear these were mainly in the form of mantras. Such is mythology that it's easy for people to use it as a basis for speculation. Had there been a nuclear war back then, surely some traces would remain.

A more interesting point about Mahabharata in the context of this thread is that it seems a lot of the stories around the birth of Sri Krishna seem to be repeated in the New Testament.
It's amusing when people say the Bible is untrue, then put forward Mahabharata as evidence for their theories about the past, as it contains many more things than the Bible which would be unacceptable to the modern scientific mindset.

 

The bible says that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. And Enoch was taken up to God in a UFO too. That's in the apocrypha. There's more scripture left out of the bible than was put in, thanks to the priests at Nicaea.

 

Let's leave this - I think it's likely to prove another fruitless discussion.

 

Interesting. I put forward seven reasons why I think Jesus existed and you aren't going to address them because: (1) you and others might then have to do a lot of work trying to refute them, (2) the evidence for his existence is "shoddy", and (3) his existence is irrelevant to the truth of his teachings, which should be able to stand or fall on their own. Fair enough. You certainly don't have to address arguments for anything you choose not to believe in. You phrased your disbelief correctly, since you didn't say the historical Jesus didn't exist. I'd quibble that "shoddy" has pejorative connotations, including "inferior","dishonest or reprehensible" (The Free Dictionary), or even "shitty" (The Urban Dictionary), while I consider the evidence substantial ( enough to convince reasonable people, even though other reasonable people remain unconvinced). Can you think of other historical figures of first century Galilee other than royalty for whom we have better evidence of existence? Surely somebody in that territory other than Herod Antipas and his relatives existed. Do we assume none of them did, or can we settle for less than courtroom proof. I've pursued the question mainly because a highly vocal minority has affirmatively asserted that Jesus did not exist, and backed their claims with "shoddy" evidence, as part of an agenda that seems (illogically) calculated to undermine Christianity. The analogy to Alice in Wonderland doesn't quite work. It's true that Alice's existence is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient, condition for the truth of Carrol's writings, because no claims have ever been made that the story is anything more than fantasy. In the case of Jesus, such truth claims have been made about the myth, and it's quite possible there is at least some truth to it. Is it useful for historians to know whether or not King Arthur was real, even though nobody thinks he had a round table and all those colorful knights. I'd say yes, as a means to how men, if real, become legends. It can also be useful to know whether or not there was a real Alice, in pursuing theories that Lewis Carroll was a possibly a child molester and whether or not that influenced his writings. For orthodox Christian believers, of which I am not one, it's important that Jesus was a real historical person who died for our sins. For me, it's useful in understanding the historical development of Christianity. Did it begin with a vision by Paul, or was there something going on before that which impressed him?

 

I believe so. Possibly an abstract belief, since I haven't witnessed any proof. On the basis that many forms of religion seem to note a historical 'God-like' presence around a certain time in history performing feats that seemed to be greater than human ability.

 

You know that UFO means Unidentified flying object right? As in, by definition, you cannot say it was aliens. Occam's Razor applies here as well; are you familiar with all models of military aircraft and all manner of atmospheric phenomena? Or are you part of the lucky few americans who have seen alien spacecraft from advanced civilizations, trying to be discreet but can't hide their ships from people looking up with naked eye?

Yes, the myth itself makes the claim that the myth is true. This is not special or unique or to be taken as a sign of warranting deep investigation.

This always strikes me as the absolute weakest thing to say. What if Alice in Wonderland had contained the opening line, "Everything you are about to read really happened"? Would we feel secure seeing 2 billion humans structuring their lives around that book? Here the christian reply is often "But it didn't say that, and the bible DID", as though when a book SAYS its true, we have to really take that claim seriously, ESPECIALLY in the context of bronze age rumors and sun god plagiarisms.

It doesn't matter a single bit that the bible claims that the bible is true.

The Quran makes this claim and much more strongly, yet you're not a muslim.

 

I'm not going to address them because addressing them bolsters your arguments. As though your reasoning were so sound others need to take up the defensive position. Now MeAgain has addressed them, and quite succinctly in my opinion, but I know exactly what will happen. You will simply continue to expound upon your arguments as though they are concrete, and in the end this whole thread will revolve around Jesus Christ. So it will become, in practice, a Christian thread supporting the idea that this Christ person is very important.

Don't you see how circular that is? You're forcing Christ's importance upon us all and then you're saying it's important to know if he was a historical figure...because he is so important. I'm just saying he's only as important as we make him. And since no one is examining his teachings as a path to enlightenment, I don't think there's any evidence that he is important, because there's no evidence that his teachings work. Just like "the real Alice" wouldn't become historically important just because everybody suddenly started believing Alice in Wonderland was a true story. No, she's not historically important. She's still just some girl who had a bunch of nonsense thrust upon her.

I will say a historical Jesus didn't exist, because what is his history? Nobody can prove anything he said is exactly what he said if he said anything at all.

Yes, we're all reasonable. At least in the sense that we aren't all raving lunatics. But we don't all believe things based on logic rather than gut instincts, which is not the reasonable I think you're speaking of, but is what I think you're guilty of. Your suspicions are telling you a historical Jesus existed. Proof is not telling you this.

Not offhand, but I don't doubt there exists better evidence for the existence of at least one person than Jesus. Even if there were no proof that anybody existed in Galilee, I wouldn't start believing random people existed there because some old stories mention their names in that place. Especially if the stories are telling me preposterous tales about casting out demons.

You're saying it's illogical to try and undermine Christianity?

It's useful in a sense to know that anybody was real who was real. But this thread is about whether I believe these people are real without proof, and I don't believe in Jesus or King Arthur.

I guess I can understand wanting to know if some guy inspired these stories, even in the loosest way imaginable. Because how do you know, for instance, that Jesus wasn't just some really nice dude who got crucified for stealing a Roman soldier's cow to feed his starving family and this inspired his genius brother to write a story about a man with his name who did wonderful things and was crucified? I mean, is there really any way of knowing what happened?

Also, if you're already convinced of the existence of sin despite there being no possible evidence that sin exists, I don't think evidence is really going to make a difference. These people just want to shut their opponents up. It doesn't make an ounce of difference to their faith.

I think it would be detrimental to our collective historical knowledge to prove that Jesus existed, because everyone's beliefs about him are false. What good is it to help foster false beliefs?

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my arguments.

#1. Quote Meagain: A crucified god may or may not have gone against Jewish beliefs, if it does that is not conclusive evidence that JC existed. You are projecting your motives and subjective thinking onto an ancient people, IMO. Your "therefore" is not conclusive, many other motives could be surmised. [/Quote]

Okie: you keep talking about "conclusive evidence' and "proof". I've been explaining why I believe there was an historical Jesus, and why I think it's reasonable to do so. I've never claimed that the reasons I've given constitute "proof", let alone conclusive proof. What I claim is that they, taken together, constitute substantial evidence. A crucified god did go against Jewish beliefs. Deuteronomy states that anyone hung from a tree is cursed. The long-awaited Messiah was expected to deliver the Jewish people from bondage, and when instead He was crucified like a common criminal , his followers had lots of 'splainin to do. They rose to the occasion (see The New Testament), but if He was a completely made up figure, they could have spared themselves the effort.

#2. Quote Meagain: Same here. [/Quote]

Okie:Same ditto. No proof claimed, but why would they bring up a baptism by John the Baptist when it caused difficulties for them by implying that:Jesus needed baptizing and that John was somehow Jesus' inferior but was the one doing the baptizing?

#3. Quote Meagain: "And here. In addition you are again referencing the Bible, with no secular support." [/Quote]

Okie:The point I was making is that Paul reports a meeting with Peter and with James, the Brother of the Lord. Was Paul a made up figure? We have letters, most of which scholars think are authentic, including the one in which he makes this claim. And James and Peter are people with whom Paul has an uneasy relationship. It does seem to stretch the bonds of credibility to think he was making up imaginary rivals. That would be taking schizophrenia to a new level. If Jesus had a brother James and a disciple named Peter (Cephas), that would seem to support His existence.

#4.Quote Meagin. "The Testimonium Flavianum has been contested since the 17th century. At best we can say it may be wholly genuine and true, partly genuine and true, or a complete fabrication"[/Quote]

Okie: I think the Testimonium Flavium (Book 18, chp. 3.3 of the Antiquities) describing Jesus as a wise teacher is probably a complete fabrication, but that wasn't the passage I was referring to. I was referring to Book 20, chp. 19, in which Josephus mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". Most scholars consider this passage to be authentic. Ordinarily if someone has a brother, that's good evidence the someone exists.

#5. Quote Meagain. "Again, all these sources can be contested. Nothing conclusive in any of them, etc"[/Quote]

Okie: Of course not..Who said anything about conclusive. But relative to the number of sources we have for the Buddha, none of them independent nor near contemporaneous, it's nothing to sneeze at.

#6. Quote Meagain. "Most scholars in the field may or may not be bias, however that is of little account as most scholars believed, at one time, that the Sun traveled around the Earth." [/Quote]

Okie The standards of scholarship have improved since then!

#7. Quote Meagain.(re alleged pagan sources) "That doesn't prove he existed."[/Quote]

Okie: No. It does address arguments put forward by people who say he didn't.

#1. Quote Meagain.(re orthodox Christian doctrine holds that his existence was a necessary precondition for the sacrifice that saved the world"That doesn't prove he existed."[/Quote]

Okie: No. it doesn't. In fact, this quotation by me was taken out of context, and was never among the seven reasons I put forward. I said this in a reply to neospectraltoast in explaining why it might be important to orthodox Chrisitans (not me) to establish the existence of Jesus. Since I don't believe Paul's vicarious atonement theory, but instead believe Luke's inspirational example theory, I don't ascribe to this particular reason for believing in Jesus.

#2. Quote Meagain. (re the existence of other legendary figures. "Or it could be that the "mythicists" are not convinced that he existed and are attempting to set the record straight with the goal of discovering the true history of Western man and religion. Same as questioning the true figure of Shakespeare or King Arthur."

Okie: All the more reason to study the matter and look at their evidence and arguments.

#3. Quote Meagain (re freedom to believe).

Okie:Of course I am, and I'm free to believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, too, not to mention the Loch Ness Monster. But I submit there's substantial evidence to believe in Jesus, unlike the others. I suspect you'd have trouble proving conclusively most of the stuff you do or don't believe in.

 

It seems bizarre to me on the Christianity forum to say that a statement supporting the existence of Jesus is out of bounds. The OP asked whether or not we think Jesus is real. I gave a reasoned answer, explicitly disclaiming that it was proof of anything. How is this imposing my views on anyone? And since Christianity is the religion of about a third of the world's population, I'd say "this Christ person", real or imaginary, must be important. I don't recall saying or even implying that it is illogical to try to undermine Christianity. If you think it's false or harmful, go to it. But in a forum, it's best to use reasoned arguments and evidence. Stating my opinion on a Forum is hardly "forcing" anything on anybody. You can ignore my comments or disbelieve them. Meagain seems agreeable to that. But I thought the free exchange of ideas was what the forum is all about. You say:"I think it would be detrimental to our collective historical knowledge to prove that Jesus existed, because everyone's beliefs about him are false. What good is it to help foster false beliefs?" That statement makes no sense. How would it be detrimental to our knowledge to prove that Jesus existed? If it could be proved, which I don't think it can, it seems to me that would add considerably to our knowledge. How could finding out whether or not he existed help to foster false beliefs. Also, I hope you realize that by asserting as a matter of fact that "everyone's beliefs about him are false", you assume the burden of proving that claim, however strenuously you or Meagain might argue otherwise. And you were being so reasonable in your previous post! What happened?

 

Of course the claims of scripture that it is true doesn't make it true, but it puts it in a somewhat different category from a book claiming to be fantasy. Much more critical scrutiny and evidence should be required though to accept the claim as valid. I don't accept the Qur'an as true because I don't think it's claims are credible, although I've seen it work positively in the lives of decent people. I'm a Christian because I think teachings attributed to Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Luke, ring true, and would do so whether or not such a person existed or really said them. The agape principle provides the unifying thread for Christian scripture. God is Love.

 

Oh , as it was foretold , the Messiah to come would be an homely little man . The earliest depictions
of a Jesus were like that . We have a local very small-town preacher like that , and he speaks with
marvelous and kindly imaginations . His words at my old Auntie's funeral were the glory of light and
nonsense . Afterwards at the luncheon , though , he was so quiet ... and in studying upon him , ya ,
I see he'd arisen from bumness and the streets . It's a humbleness of appearance and demeanor
that's unmistakeable . It's something very alone , alone , with a feeling for food for one thing . It's
how a man watches his sandwich very closely .

 

I'm just stating my opinions. No big deal -- I don't expect anyone to listen to me.

I see you as somebody who has decided Christ is important and is going to do his best to ensure that everyone thinks he's important. I don't think he's important, despite how deluded a third of the world's population might be. I think a third of the world's population would have believed any story, and it's just happenstance that people aren't worshiping Mithra right now. I don't think many people worshiping something makes it inherently important. A whole lotta stupid is just a whole lotta stupid to me. I don't see really how Christianity effects me any more than a lot of people seeing the latest Vin Diesel movie effects me. I believe the world is subtly changed by every event that happens, so I don't really see the effects of Christianity as being particularly significant. A guy decides to go to see Vin Diesel and doesn't stay home, where his apartment explodes, and later he impregnates a girl who gives birth to the gal who creates the cure for cancer. It's all relative.

Seriously? It would foster false beliefs because nobody knows for sure if what they believe about "him" is true. A point I have made many times now. So finding out that he actually existed, people are still going to believe he died for our sins, for instance, but they're going to be even more zealous about this belief. In effect I think it would be a cultural disaster as far as our understanding of true history goes. Thank goodness, as you agree, it's highly unlikely that JC will ever be proven true.

Well you know how it is. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I know how these threads go.

Can you point to the group whose beliefs about Jesus are absolutely true? If we can't know which groups beliefs are true, then in my opinion they all have an element of falsehood to them in that they are all pretending to know the truth, when in fact they don't.

 

And it doesn't matter a single bit that Occam's Razor need be applied as some sort of Law to all things just because you and other Scientists say it should be either.

 

But yeah...I'll post this one more time...how do you explain this with Occam's Razor? https://www.************/innerstand/videos/vb.100000029781888/1114811791863136/?type=2&theater

 

The first simple explanation is that the video has been doctored. This should be the first thing in your mind and the last thing in your mind as you watch and read sources, especially amateur sources claiming grandiose things like "theres a planet in the sky that NASA is lying to you about". Hoaxes like this are common and actually have been even more elaborate throughout history; in today's age a 12 year old has access to software and hardware for video editing that steven spielberg would have sold his soul for in the 80s.

Please understand that if that were actually a planet in the sky or something like that the worlds scientific community would be clawing over each other to explain it first, as would be the mainstream media.

The second simple explanation is that it is a Parhelion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dogs) aka a Sun Dog, or a new variation thereof:



But I have a question for you china . . . if you are not seeking the simplest explanation first, then how do YOU explain that video? By what means do you seek to understand the world around you? How would you study that phenomena?