Was Jesus a real person?

[jason1990]

In another thread, Riddick wrote: "And regarding the birth of Jesus, isn't it widely regarded among our intellectual superiors and other high ranking historian-types, both atheist and not, that Jesus was in fact a real person?"

Is this widely regarded as a fact? If so, by whom? What evidence is there? Should the default assumption, in the absence of evidence, be that he is a fictional/mythical character that actually never existed? Do similarities between the story of Jesus and the stories of other mythical religious figures make it less likely that any of them existed as real people?

[RJT]

J1990,

We have those like phil153 who say he doubts Jesus was a real person. Then we have folk of David S.’s caliber who (I assume) don’t waste their time on such ideas. Use David’s theory about those smarter than you and what they think to arrive at your answer.

RJT

I would suggest that you read a book called 'The case for Christ' written by Lee Strobel. It's written by a journalist who investigates the evidence for Jesus.

The four gospels (matthew, mark, luke and john) are based on either direct or indirect eye witness testimony.

The fact that the year being 2005 AD, means 2005 years after the death of this 'Jesus'.

Theres a lot of supporting documents outside of the bible too, written by Josephus, a trusted historian, and Tacitus.

There is better documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion.

[BluffTHIS!]

Yes, He IS.

[hashi92]

what about the other gospels that werent included in the bible.

There is significant debate still going on about whether or not Jesus really existed. The debate is far more vigerous than say whether or not evolution is real.

That said, the "Jesus never existed" camp is relatively small primarily because their best argument (so little independent information about him) doesn't prove anything.

A far more solid position is that there was a guy named Jesus who walked around modern Israel 2000 years ago but almost everything we "know" about him is more myth (as in a narrative story) than historical fact. It's perfectly possible (and arguably quite probable) that the NT stories about Jesus are based on a real person who didn't do 95% of what is attributed to him. You could then argue that although a Jesus esisted, he wasn't who most think he was and thus in a way the traditional Jesus never really existed.

Kind of like Saint Nicolas/Santa Claus or _____/Robin Hood.

[Shakezula]

"There were three separate individuals whose history blended, and they because known collectively as Christ." ---Seth

Seasons Greetings, and I thought would throw that in the mix. According to the channelled material delivered by Jane/Seth, the name "Jesus" was a fairly common name back in those long-ago times.

"The concept (original sin) itself existed long before Christianity’s initiation, and was told in various forms throughout the centuries and in all civilizations. On the side of consciousness, it is a tale symbolically representing the birth of the conscious mind in the species as a whole, and the emergence of self-responsibility." ---Seth

Speaking of symbolism, symbology, or whatever:

"Each of the twelve (disciples) represented qualities of personality that belong to one individual, and Christ as you know him represented the inner self."

...inner self, in those terms, meaning the non-physical self, or the self that looks inward, or the PART OF the self that deals with non-physical realities (emotions, thoughts, etc.), the portion that does NOT deal with camouflage/physical reality.

"When Christ spoke he did so in the context of his times, using the symbolism and vocabulary that made sense to a particular people in a particular period of history, in your terms. He began with their beliefs, and using their references tried to lead them into freer realms of understanding." ---Seth

Ideas should expand, naturally. ANY idea could be considered as "fuel for the fire". Why not? Spur the mind into activity!

Then of course:

"Christianity has become, however, a tangled sorry tale, its cohesiveness largely vanished. Such a religion becomes isolated from daily life." ---Seth

The ideas were not expanded. We/they/the people stayed with the symbolism and why oh why! did we not use our intelligence to launch ourselves past the out-dated ideas used back then? I mean, come on! Who really thinks there are demons and devils, fire and brimstone, holy ghosts and spirits, floating all about? I guess one belief is as good as another, if it comes to extremes, but to have common sense and a speck of a brain, some of those past ideas are worn slap out!

"Without exception, all of the horrors connected with Christianity’s name came from following the letter rather than the spirit of the law, or by insistence upon literal interpretations -- while the spiritual, imaginative concepts beneath were ignored." ---Seth

Imagination! Oh my! Who would have thunk it? Not me, but perhaps:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ---Einstein

John Lennon might have been on to something afterall! Too bad we killed him. Oh well, live and learn. (I need a beer, the season for niceties is upon me, be cheerful and of good spirits, and have a happy...whatever. Peace out.)

[hashi92]

the bible was a book made and edited for the church. i think its a litte biased dont you think.

[ QUOTE ]
You could then argue that although a Jesus esisted, he wasn't who most think he was and thus in a way the traditional Jesus never really existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think. I actually agreed with something Phil said in another thread, and responded to RJT with:

I mean, I'm sure SOME guy named Jesus existed... and some of the details are probably accurate... but which ones, and how many... that's definitely questionable. And, in the end, if you don't know which details of the Biblical Jesus are true, it's hard to say that that Jesus actually existed.

So, how many of the details of Jesus have to be true for us to say that Jesus existed? For Christians, of course, he has to be God incarnate, died & raised from the dead, because if he wasn't, then their Jesus doesn't exist, and their religion is worthless.

One significant point is that most religions don't require their founders to have been real people. Their religion can still exist regardless of their founder. (Not all, but most that I know of.) Christianity is not like that -- if Jesus was not God incarnate, died & resurrected for the sins of the world, then Christianity is pointless. Confuscisim doesn't need Confusious. Buddhism doen't need Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha). Judaism doesn't need Moses or Abraham. Islaam doesn't need Mohammed. Sure, those people play a very important role in the religion -- but the religion's value isn't based on those actual people. Christianity is worthless without the actual Jesus.

What about them?
I think that the careful choice of books in the bible just says that they were putting together the new testament with care, not putting in anything anybody wrote about Jesus. The reason that they weren't allowed in the new testament was because of their obvious inconsistency with all that was known about Jesus.

That being said, there is reason to believe that the people just wrote down what they saw and did not pretty it up. There is a lot of things writtten that could be considered embarassing towards Jesus or his disciples. Yet, it was written, as they saw it happen even though that meant critiscism, ostracism and martydom.

[SNOWBALL138]

Its hard to believe that Josephus, and the the the authors of the gospels simply made up the existence of Jesus. Whether the stories told about him are true or not is a different question.

Around the same time, it was written that someone named Appolonius (not of Nazareth) did a lot of the same stuff that Jesus did, so both stories might have a common third origin.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the stories told about him are true or not is a different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Between the gospels (Matthew, Mark , Luke and John) "there is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independant narrators of the same great transaction."

The writers had nothing to gain from putting this out there, but they faced persecution because of it. They seem to have written down what they saw and put it out there because they believed it.

there is also reason to believe that Jesus' biographies were reliably preserved for us to read today. This is why it is understood that Jesus was a real person and did the things that are attributed to Him.

The case for christ, written by Lee Strobel, is full of evidence supporting the belief that Jesus was a real person.
He was an atheist too.

[ QUOTE ]
Between the gospels (Matthew, Mark , Luke and John) "there is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they were all independant narrators of the same great transaction."

[/ QUOTE ]
All this means is that they drew upon the same common source material and/or oral tradition. I'm sure you could look up all the early stories about King Arthur and discover something very similar. It's important to realize that these gospels were written 30+ years after the fact. This is more than enough time for legends to grow. In fact, the oldest gospel (Mark) is the simplest and the newest (John) is the most complex. Just what you'd expect of a growing legend.

[ QUOTE ]
The writers had nothing to gain from putting this out there, but they faced persecution because of it. They seem to have written down what they saw and put it out there because they believed it.

[/ QUOTE ]
We know they didn't write down what they saw because the gospel writers weren't witnesses. They were recording an oral tradition deacdes (up to almost a century for John) after these events were supposed to have taken place.

[ QUOTE ]
The case for christ, written by Lee Strobel, is full of evidence supporting the belief that Jesus was a real person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lee Strobel is one of the worst writers out there. I suggest that anyone who reads any of his books google any of the numerous rebuttals available online.
[ QUOTE ]
He was an atheist too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not when he wrote that book he wasn't.

[hashi92]

heres something i googled.

A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection:

A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14)

[hashi92]

oh yeah the above was copy and pasted.
i do not take credit for writing the above.
sorry if copy and pasting offends anyone

[ QUOTE ]
We have those like phil153 who say he doubts Jesus was a real person

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's what I said:

[ QUOTE ]
I question whether he ever existed. Without the bible, there would not be enough evidence for a historian to consider him a real historical character.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ONLY evidence of his existence is a ancient religious text, appended to another very dubious book (Adam and the apple, people turning into pillars of salt, floods that cover the earth, etc). That's all I'm saying.

While it is unlikely, given the timeframe involved , that Jesus was totally made up, it's definitely possible.

[ QUOTE ]
then we have folk of David S.’s caliber

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[ QUOTE ]
Use David’s theory about those smarter than you and what they think to arrive at your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a good chance I'm smarter than Sklansky. Does that mean I'm right?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY evidence of his existence is a ancient religious text

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply untrue. Jospehus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus' existence in several separate, entirely secular, documents and letters.

I am sure Jesus was a real person and I am an atheist. Yet, I would suspect that there were quite a few Jesus at the time and place. Unfortunately none attributed with the so cherished xtians virtues or qualities.

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply untrue. Jospehus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus' existence in several separate, entirely secular, documents and letters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please read about this some more, then get back to me.

[SNOWBALL138]

I'd ask you to elaborate but I'm afraid of what you might say.

<font color="red"> Use David’s theory about those smarter than you and what they think to arrive at your answer. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Phil153: There's a good chance I'm smarter than Sklansky. Does that mean I'm right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

[maurile]

Interesting stuff here:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY evidence of his existence is a ancient religious text

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply untrue. Jospehus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus' existence in several separate, entirely secular, documents and letters.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, there are not several documents, there is one paragraph - that's all. Second, it's a very dubious paragraph that most scholars (Christian or not) believe has been compromised at one time or another by one or more Chriatian transcribers.

If you've ever read the test in question it's next to impossible to believe that it was written by Josephus. Here it is again (most controvertial parts in bold):

[ QUOTE ]
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of controversy about this quote. The oldest existing manuscrpits we have are copies of copies made by early Christian monks. Secondly, early church fathers who were familiar with Josephus' writings don't mention this quote. Finally, the style of this quote makes no sense from a non-Christian Jew who otherwise had only negative things to say about would be Messiahs and wrote far more about John the Baptist.

The main battle ground is over how much of it was actually written by Josephus. Some say the non-overtly Christan bits are probably his work. Others doubt the whole thing. Only radical fundamentalists even hint that the whole thing is his work.

In one other place Josephus mentions the trial of "James the brother of Jesus". He makes no other mention of any Jesus.

There are no other non-biblical accounts of Jesus of any remotely comparable standing. This is the very best there is - by far. Even so it's terrible.