Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

it's really important to me that it be proven to be true before I believe it. I just can't make the leap from the evidence that's been presented to belief. There is too much room for doubt, and as you yourself have said, it is reasonable to doubt. I think any time it is reasonable to doubt, doubt should be one's primary position. So I don't think it's really reasonable to both believe and to doubt. In a courtroom, if it's reasonable to doubt a defendant's guilt, you wouldn't cast a verdict of guilty because it's possible to imagine them having committed the crime based on the evidence presented. It's possible that Jesus existed, given the evidence, but I wouldn't say it's probable. It's as likely as not that he didn't exist, that Paul was a raving lunatic who started a crazy cult, that Constantine needed a religion for his empire and Christianity was as good as any. It's easy for me to see how the entire thing could have been completely fabricated.

A lot of scholars may support your belief, but surely you must admit this is an instance where doubt is a very useful thing. What would happen if we all just accepted the evidence as so compelling that everyone on earth believed Jesus Christ existed? Would there be some precedent set for standards of evidence by which things become true, whether they are proven or not? We have to doubt that for which there is no proof. So you and your precious scholars can believe in the absence of proof all you want. I just thank God not everyone is so lenient with their judgments.

There is good evidence to show that Christianity doesn't help, though. I posted a link earlier in this thread (post 272) that links to a study showing that nonsecular children are actually meaner than secular children. People can make a lot of claims about it working, but I don't buy those claims. Whereas Buddhists can light themselves on fire and not scream out "Why hast thou forsaken me?!" The evidence would point towards Buddhists reaching a transcendent state of mind. There is no evidence that Christians reach a transcendent state of mind, is there? I would say that's how it has to "work," or otherwise you just have people claiming it works with no real evidence.

So now we're saying that Jesus existed and preached universal love for everyone? How do you prove that's what he said? Do you have a similar set of evidence for this as you had that Jesus existed, or are you saying now that since you think it's reasonable to assume the authors weren't lying when they said he existed, it's reasonable to believe some of the things written about him were factual? This is what I'm talking about. The guy is a non-entity.

Also, don't give Christianity credit for what people have just as likely been believing since the beginning of humanity, that we should all love each other and take care of each other. This idea doesn't belong to Christianity, so to say Christianity "works" on those grounds is not sustainable.

 

Gnostics are the original Christians, and aimed for Gnosis, which would be equivalent to the transcendent state that you speak about.

And can any Buddhists on this forum light themselves on fire without flinching? The picture is impressive, but I don't really think it proves much that they didn't scream and Jesus said what he said prior to even being nailed on the cross, anticipating his demise. Besides, lighting yourself on fire would kill you in minutes. Being nailed to a cross took hours.

 

The notion that the original Christians were Gnostics and aimed at gnosticism is not generally accepted by scholars, but part of the problem comes in defining Gnosticism. If we take the Nag Hamadi library as our point of reference, there are a number of elements associated with second and third century Gnosticism that don't quite fit, especially : the notion that the Creator was not the true God, but a lower Demiurge; and the idea that Jesus was not human at all, but was a spirit who just seemed human. If we take a broader view of Gnosticism as an emphasis on Jesus' role as a teacher of enlightenment bringing insight into the true nature of reality and human destiny, a case can be made, especially if we follow the Jesus Seminar in accepting the Gospel of Thomas as very early. Paul's letters were our first writings about Christianity, and he was definitely not a Gnostic, altough there were strong charismatic tendencies in his movement. The Jerusalem Church seems to have been very Jewish, and not at all inclined to regard Yahweh as an inferior Demiurge. But there were mystical strains of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism that resemble aspects of Gnosicism, such as the Meerkabah/Merkarah (Chariot) mysticism around the Book of Ezekiel, which seems to have been influential on the Jesus movement. The Essenes are sometimes considered to be Jewish Gnostics, and Pope Benedict considered them to be closely ied to the earliest Christians. In Mark, the earliest canonical Gospel, there are statements about Scripture having a hidden meaning and Jesus conveying "secret wisdom"--ideas associated with Gnosticism.

 

Wow I didn't know that about Mark regarding the reference to the secret writings. And yeah, I would call The Gospel of Thomas the hidden meanings and writings. Jewish Kabbalah also sees the Old Testament as a code with hidden meaning as well.

So the writings of Paul are earlier than Thomas?

There's also other hidden writings like the Gospel of Mary, and even a Gospel of Jesus

 

Teachings about secret knowledge might be better than secret writings. I was thinking in particular of the often criticized passage in which Jesus says his parables are not meant to be understood by the masses. Mark 4:10-13; also Matthew 13:10-15; Luke 8:9-10). An emphasis on esoteric knowledge is often associated with Gnosticism. It was for those who were "in the know".

 

Then why did he start Buddhism if he really didn't want to be worshipped? Was he not wise enough to see that that wouldn't work?

I agree that Enlightenment is dealing with the cycles of life and death, but if this is true, then it's not merely a mortal phenomenon. If it was merely mortal, then it wouldn't be able to tap into anything regarding the cycles of death.

A Soul and/or Spirit is also being implied if we are dealing with some sort of "You" that can or can't escape the cycles of multiple incarnations. Sounds like something Divine to me.

 

Are people really that desensitized?

 

Hey, I'm all for Christianity if it can indeed help you to reach a transcendent state. I don't think you'd have to necessarily believe Jesus existed in order to follow the precepts and reach a transcendent state. I'm not aware of any Christians who have reached a transcendent state in order to lend credence to the idea that Christianity can do this. Nobody is really discussing how Christianity can do this, as far as I'm aware. No one ever seems to. Maybe people are just too shy about it.

Christianity seems more like an iconic authority figure on how we should live our lives rather than a true set of guidelines on how one can reach transcendence. Christians, to me, seem to be people who don't feel they have the authority on their own to declare that it's good to live a righteous life, or it seems like they need a constant reminder in the form of Christianity that they can rise above the pettiness and spite. It lends authority to their actions. But I don't think it has a real authority. You have to take the authority completely on faith, and that just won't suffice in the end. To me the greatest authority on the matter of how we should conduct ourselves are the countless people who have really, for sure, martyred themselves in the name of truth and justice. I don't see why you'd need any more inspiration than that.

Are you sure about that? I don't know the history like you do, but I always thought Jesus cried that out while he was being crucified. At least he cried it out after being flagellated, right? I guess if I were myself seeking a transcendent state, it would be above all agony, even crucifixion. I think we're aiming low if we're trying for a transcendent state that comes up short sometimes. Here is what St. Andrew supposedly said at his crucifixion:

“O cross!” he declared, “O cross most welcome and long anticipated! I come to you with a willing mind, with joy and desire. Since I am a follower and a student of the One who died on you, I have always loved you and sought to embrace you.”

That's a drastically different attitude than Jesus's. Something about this story just doesn't add up to me. Andrew never complained that God had forsaken him. And shouldn't Jesus have known that God hadn't really forsaken him? That passage just confuses the hell out of me. How can people think Jesus is one with "the father" and yet believe himself to be forsaken by "the father"? Was Jesus just completely unaware that he was going to have to die for mankind's sins? This passage seems totally out of character for him. I suppose it's trying to show us that Jesus was a man, too, to remind us that we, as men, can do great things.

 

There are Christian mystical writings by people like St. Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Miester Eckhart, Julian of Norwich and others. It seems to me that they did claim to have reached some kind of transcendence. Presumably they did believe in the reality of Jesus.
I agree though that the vast majority of Christian believers don't seemingly arrive at any such realization.

 

Whether Enlightened or not, I think each person has a right to have any attitude they want towards a gruesome death like that.

I agree overall with all your sentiments on Christianity and its shitty nature. Which is why you have to separate Jesus from Christianity. The Christian view of Jesus is a very watered down view and outdated.

 

The Christian will say that Jesus exists now , and forever shall be . If anyone be an enemy of this , the
teaching is to love your enemy . I think this quite an original and advanced teaching , and I mean the
advancement of understanding this love has foreverness .

I

 

How odd. You don't think Jesus existed but you ding him for crying out. How can a non-existent person cry out? But let's suppose He did exist. What makes you think He cried out? The passages in Mark and Mattheww that you refer to, that are missing from the other two accounts? Luke reports he was calm, cool and collected and even forgiving the people who crucified him right from the cross. Now that's transcedent! So apparently you not only believe Jesus existed but believe the Bible is inerrant or think Christians must believe it all in toto. But suppose He did say that. Why did he say it? Possibly to fulfill prophecy. or to quote Psalm 22, from which those words were take verbatim. Possibly to fill in dialogue, which was a common practice of historians at the time: putting words in the mouths of their protagonists that seem appropriate to convey something. Mark's portrayal of Jesus emphasizes the theme of Isaiah's Suffering Servant. Mark and Matthew are also at pains to portray Jesus as fully human, and that would be a fully human thing to say. While I believe Jesus existed, I don't believe that every detail about him in the Bible is true. Some of the saints and martyrs whose writings revel in the prospects of being torn apart by wild beasts strike me as less "transcendent" than pathological. You've stated your belief that George Washington existed. Do you also believe he never told a lie?

 

We need proof, though, in order to grant Christianity the authority that it claims, I think. It's too bad more people aren't really trying today. Though I suppose if they did, people would just say it was Buddhism. You can't just drink your coffee and eat your meat and act like you have some pompous authority over the masses without really trying. But Christians excuse themselves by simply saying, "We all fall short. This is why Christ had to die." So what, we're all doomed to be half-assed about our principles?

Yeah, I was thinking about it today, and I suppose Christ could just be symbolic of all those who have suffered in the name of love. Maybe it's just love people really worship, and Jesus is just the arbitrary symbol of that. Even if he was a guy, maybe he was just a really smart guy. Nothing wrong with that.

Well I'm just kind of reiterating that even if he did exist, there would be a lot of doubt as to he was. Crying out on the cross seems a moment of weakness inappropriate for the friggin' Christ for instance. Though I bet it must have been pretty hard being crucified, especially since he must have known that he could make his own lungs levitate at any given moment. That might be a trick difficult even for the Buddhists.

I'm open to Jesus having existed, but I don't believe it yet. It isn't a matter of me disliking a guy who, at least, said love your enemy and wound up getting, basically, crucified for it. If such a man existed, I admire him greatly. But yes, exactly. What should make me think he said any of the things he supposedly said? I am interested in finding out who this man could have possibly been if he did exist, because it's pointless to me to prove that he did exist and then not know what in the hell he did or said. And I think if he did exist, it would be out of character for him to cry out. His other words seem to disagree with this outlook of having been "forsaken" don't they? How can a man of God ever be truly forsaken? Surely he didn't suddenly, after telling everybody exactly what the Kingdom of Heaven was like, think he had completely failed in his quest just because a bunch of dickheads decided to crucify him.

Really it would make more sense to me, if we're speaking of an enlightened being that holds the keys to Heaven and Hell, that the words were added later in order to make it clear that Jesus had fulfilled the prophecy. The ideal Jesus to me wouldn't have cried out. He would have taken it happily, like Andrew did, knowing what awaited him. I think there are things you can logically conclude about what he did and did not say. Hopefully he didn't just cry it out in order to fulfill the prophecy, himself knowing the prophecy. That would be kind of self-aggrandizing.

It's just that his words portray him as some keeper of esoteric knowledge. He's practically omniscient. So you would think he knew at least as much as these Buddhists who seemingly are impervious to pain. I mean pain is pain. I don't think it really matters how long you have to endure pain. Let's face it, it hurts like heck to set yourself on fire and these guys are not uttering a sound. I don't think that if burning yourself took hours they would suddenly start crying out that they'd been forsaken after nine hours.

I think the worst pain is loving life and knowing that it is ending. But would Jesus ever think his life was truly ending? I can see being a man and being in love with life and the people around you and truly suffering. So maybe that man cried out. I just really have no clue who this guy was, and it doesn't seem that anybody really does. So I'm saying, hypothetically, what if we prove he existed? Then how do we figure out who this person is that we're left with? Can we assume anything about him, or is it, as I say, like a case of Alice in Wonderland, where the guy just happened to be the guy who inspired brilliant writers to take up their pens?

 

I want to revisit these points.

You're saying that Buddhism can act as a guide. I agree, and this is how anyone should be approaching any spiritual path no matter what form it takes. The Tree of Life of the Kabbalah, the various Tantric Yoga techniques, and the various maxims of Taoist internal Alchemy are all equally just a guide, a finger pointing to the moon for your own self-discovery. I could list many more.

In other words, Buddhism isn't special here in regards to acting as a "finger pointing to the moon". And none of what I listed involves any Gods or anything outside of yourself either. But even chanting to some Hindu image or God can act as its own form of Meditation; it's just merely projecting the energy and focus outwards rather than inwards, and we already established that Buddhism also involves the Unity of Opposites of internal and external reality.

So you're claiming that Buddhism "works", because it acts as some sort of guide towards your own self-discovery....

But what does it do exactly? How do you know that you have reached Enlightenment? What's the difference between Enlightenment and non-Enlightenment for you, and how do you know where you are on the path?

And why feel that only Buddhism can offer this opportunity? That's sounding just as biased as the Christians saying that ONLY Jesus can give you Salvation. You can have your preferences, but acting like your path is the only true or correct path is when you turn into Dogmatic.

 

Just for the sake of clarity, I repeat that I'm not myself a Christian. I'm interested in it only in a general way, as a cultural and historical phenomenon.
You said there's no record of Christians having attained transcendence, I was just furnishing examples of a few who claimed they had. Maybe it's notable that the one's I mentioned were all Catholics, who lived in previous ages. Also, they were all either monks or nuns. Teresa was suspected of heresy and had to write in a very guarded way to avoid persecution, whilst Eckhart was declared an heretic (I think he's now been rehabilitated if that's the right word).

I agree with the criticism you're making here - all too often Christians are indeed pompous and don't actually follow the teachings they themselves choose to believe in. I think there are good apples in the barrel, but usually their voices are drowned out by the ignorant mass who probably believe more because of fear than because they seek transcendence. No doubt for some, it's just a way of gaining respectability in countries where Christianity is the norm.

As for the attitude 'we fall short', in the Gospel Jesus says 'be ye perfect'. I wonder if he would say that if he thought they could never hope to be perfect?
I think a lot of them are lazy and corrupt and don't truly believe their own BS.

 

Yes. The bashers of Christianity need to be more mature and look into the deeper depths of the Christian Mystics like Eckhart who did actually live an authentic Christian path. The masses ruin it, I agree, but it doesn't just stop there. That's just surface-society shit.

 

St. Germain is another notable name that I will list. And there's another guy whom I can't think of the name at the moment...


But just as there are various sects and branches of Buddhism across the world, as is expected over 2,000 years, there are also various forms of Christianity. Some are more bloated than others.

Here's something that's very similar to Buddhism but has a different feel to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_in_Buddhism

 

I myself am a basher of some aspects of Christianity, especially modern Christianity.
The people I mentioned, and I could have mentioned more but chose them because they are relatively well known, all lived in an age that was pre-scientific, and that had no real access in a wide sense to any other kind of religious or mystical teaching. And their works are exceptional because they were exceptional people and their experience with Christianity was exceptional, and not the experience of the average believer even in that historical period.

Since Buddhism seems to have come up a lot in this thread, better say that I don't follow Buddhism either, but for reasons completely different from the reasons I'm not a Christian. My own spiritual interests derive mainly from Hinduism. From that perspective, if JC did exist, he was an avatar of love who got brutally murdered because he challenged the darkness of the prevailing religion.