Did Jesus Exist? I don't think so. Do You?

[_marg]

I don't think a Jesus as per the N.T. existed, that's a concocted mythical story.

I don't think a Jewish individual claiming to be a son of God would have caused much of a stir if any. That concept that a person could be half god ..half human was a pagan one. And others at the time made such claims and were ignored.

[_krose]

I think it's about a 50-50 proposition that one or more humans existed at about that time, upon whom the Christ mythology was loosely based.

[_antishock8]

Oh? CC did you run a statistical analysis on Josephus' word count and juxtapose that with the TF? It seems the TF contains vocabulary and grammar not otherwise used by Josephus.

And you know that because you've read it in the Greek? You are full of ****, and you know it. Quit while you are behind.

I'll take that as a:

"I can't answer this, nor can I discuss it in any substantive manner. Therefore antishock8 is right."

[_solomarineris]

In a different thread there was a couple of claims that Jesus existed and that it's a FACT.

I don't think so. Here are my reasons:

1) Any mention of Jesus was hearsay.

2) The Gospel didn't weren't written by the apostles.

3) Paul never met Jesus.

4) Gnosticism, which was widely practiced, differs greatly from Christianity and in its description of Christ.

5) Testimonium Flavianum is "patently fraudulent".

6) The ossuary of James the "brother of Jesus" was found to be a "patent fraud" as are other "proofs" like the shroud of Turin.

7) No contemporary accounts of Jesus.

But Jeesus loves you
And everybody else thinks you're an A**hole.
(Not you personally)

[_Dr. Shades]

How does placing the Biblical story within a historical context prove anything more than geographical features and population centers described in the Bible exist?

A fair question. It doesn't "prove" much of anything; it merely ups the odds that the bare-bones narrative is based in an actual, literal, specific time and place.

Couldn't the same thing then be said about Zeus or Hercules? Vishnu? Buddha? Muhammed's visions? Joseph Smith's claims?

You're missing the point. We know that there was a historical Buddha, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. We know because they lived in specific times and places. I'm merely laying out my reasons for believing that a historical figure on whom Jesus is based did actually exist.

I am NOT using this to assume that the miracles, walking on water, cursing the fig tree, etc. actually occurred any more than I assume that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ merely because Joseph Smith existed.

[_John Larsen]

I believe that a historical figure whom our concept of "Jesus" was based upon actually existed.

How so? Please share...

It is just the most logical explanation. Since the gospels first started appearing a couple of decades after his death, it is much more likely that the movement was based on the teachings of an influential guy named Joshua then based on no one and just invented out of thin air. It is likely that he wasn't anything like he is attributed.

[_karl61]

read this book -Robin Lane Fox - he's an athiest and is a historian from Oxford or Cambridge. He says the Gospel of John is first hand and basically the only book in the Bible that has any credibility. He rips apart everthing else.

http://www.amazon.com/Unauthorized-Vers ... 0679744061

[_Brackite]

I came to this conclusion thanks to the discovery of Gamla, an ancient Jewish city, in the Golan heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Archaeological finds there place it squarely into a New Testament context. Specifically:


It is built on a pinnacle with nearly a sheer cliff face a short walk from its synagogue, which is a perfect match for the people trying to throw Jesus off the cliff after his sermon in the synagogue--Nazareth is flat and thus doesn't fit.
Gamla is roughly five miles from the Sea of Galilee, thus fitting the description of Jesus and his disciples walking right to it following His departure from his hometown. (I don't recall Nazareth being anywhere near the Sea of Galilee).
Olive farming was a major industry there, thus explaining Jesus' familiarity with olive horticulture and His parables related thereunto.
Gamla was a hotbed of nationalistic fanaticism, being (I believe) the spot where the Zealots originated. This explains the far more plausible scenario of the historical Jesus being merely a local revolutionary whose goal was to overthrow the Roman authorities and install himself as king.

The specific-ness of these discoveries lead me to believe that the framework of the gospel narrative was based on some sort of fact.

You're missing the point. We know that there was a historical Buddha, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. We know because they lived in specific times and places. I'm merely laying out my reasons for believing that a historical figure on whom Jesus is based did actually exist.

I am NOT using this to assume that the miracles, walking on water, cursing the fig tree, etc. actually occurred any more than I assume that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ merely because Joseph Smith existed.

Well Stated, Dr. Shades!

[Guest]

achoo... oops where did it go? lol

[_marg]

I act like I don't see it but I do and I have for a while. Some friends even publicly bring me down and make me out an aweful person and I take it! Why? Like right in front of me and twist my words and text to look bad.

Well there's the problem. True friends you can speak openly with.

And Pirate, try to stop calling women bitches.