Was Jesus real?

[abhimanyu7]

Hello all,

I am new to these forums, but I have already noticed a disturbing trend amongst many who believe that Jesus was not real. Now, I am Hindu and my knowledge of Christianity is limited, yet I have learned even in my college history classes that in the first and second centuries, there were more than 500 gospels describing the life and teachings of Jesus! Only the most accurate were used for the Bible, but my point is... there is no direct evidence that Jesus existed, no gravestones or books by him or something (at least I don't think there is), but a man who accomplished as much as Jesus caused a massive rippling effects and so much literary works concerning his life and teachings in such a short, precise timespan that there is no way it can be discarded or considered false. That is why, for those who do not believe Jesus is real... what is your historical evidence? Why do you believe he did not exist? 2000 years ago was not exactly a mythological or barbaric age, so the comments kinda shocked me.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hello all,

I am new to these forums, but I have already noticed a disturbing trend amongst many who believe that Jesus was not real. Now, I am Hindu and my knowledge of Christianity is limited, yet I have learned even in my college history classes that in the first and second centuries, there were more than 500 gospels describing the life and teachings of Jesus! Only the most accurate were used for the Bible, but my point is... there is no direct evidence that Jesus existed, no gravestones or books by him or something (at least I don't think there is), but a man who accomplished as much as Jesus caused a massive rippling effects and so much literary works concerning his life and teachings in such a short, precise timespan that there is no way it can be discarded or considered false. That is why, for those who do not believe Jesus is real... what is your historical evidence? Why do you believe he did not exist? 2000 years ago was not exactly a mythological or barbaric age, so the comments kinda shocked me.

Who knows if he existed or not. However, even if he existed, that does not make any of the supernatural stuff true.

*

 

[RJ50]

I think a guy called Jesus existed, and he may have had a charismatic personality, but I very much doubt that most of what was claimed for him was true.

 

[Quintessence]

I find the question of physical existence within the scope of human awareness to be completely irrelevant in many cases. This is definitely one of those cases. The importance of Jesus as an aspect of reality isn't rooted in the question of his tangible existence, but in the teachings and ideas he represents. Clearly the teachings and ideas have outlived any potentially physical existence he may or may have not had, so who cares whether or not that physical existence was or wasn't there? I don't, and I wouldn't even if I was a Christian.

 

[RJ50]

The concept of Jesus being alive in the here and now isn't credible, imo.

 

[idea]

The concept of Jesus being alive in the here and now isn't credible, imo.

I believe our conscience - our inner sense of right and wrong - is the light of Christ. That the voice of the spirit is real - through prayer and meditation, you can hear it too.


[youtube]VPbDZnrxBLM[/youtube]
Voice of the Spirit - YouTube

 

[idea]

Actually, this might be a better series to explain it:
[youtube]fycvkAhYz1I[/youtube]
Patterns of Light: The Light of Christ - YouTube

 

[RJ50]

I believe our conscience - our inner sense of right and wrong - is the light of Christ. That the voice of the spirit is real - through prayer and meditation, you can hear it too.


[youtube]VPbDZnrxBLM[/youtube]
Voice of the Spirit - YouTube

FUNNY!:cover: When I was a believer, as a child, and sincerely prayed to Jesus to help me solve a problem which was doing my head in, I never had the slightest feeling there was anyone on the other end of the line. Either he didn't give a damn, or more likely he died 2000 years ago!

 

[idea]

FUNNY!:cover: When I was a believer, as a child, and sincerely prayed to Jesus to help me solve a problem which was doing my head in, I never had the slightest feeling there was anyone on the other end of the line. Either he didn't give a damn, or more likely he died 2000 years ago!

You have to admit that our thoughts do prompt us to do interesting things... some people call it the "id, the ego, and the superego... the cartoon with a devil on one shoulder, and an angel on another is popular, because we have all played those games with our thoughts... and there are some thoughts, you have to wonder "where did that come from?". God is closer than you know.

 

[RJ50]

That is a belief with no evidence to substantiate it!

 

[Awoon]

Post Deleted

You left out the part about "he shall teach you all things." When will raising dead people, curing All disease be taught?

 

[steeltoes]

Hello all,

I am new to these forums, but I have already noticed a disturbing trend amongst many who believe that Jesus was not real. Now, I am Hindu and my knowledge of Christianity is limited, yet I have learned even in my college history classes that in the first and second centuries, there were more than 500 gospels describing the life and teachings of Jesus! Only the most accurate were used for the Bible, but my point is... there is no direct evidence that Jesus existed, no gravestones or books by him or something (at least I don't think there is), but a man who accomplished as much as Jesus caused a massive rippling effects and so much literary works concerning his life and teachings in such a short, precise timespan that there is no way it can be discarded or considered false. That is why, for those who do not believe Jesus is real... what is your historical evidence? Why do you believe he did not exist? 2000 years ago was not exactly a mythological or barbaric age, so the comments kinda shocked me.

We have this story written who knows where and by an unknown author that caused this "massive rippling effect." It's the mythology, the story that Jesus died for our sins, the dying and rising Son of God, redeemer of mankind that "accomplished" so much. We have literature and no shortage of those claiming Jesus was/is real, but in reality all we have is a tautology regarding his existence.

 

[Ingledsva]

The best understanding comes - not from looking to the past - but in recognition that Jesus is currently alive - here and now - in the present tense.

(New Testament | John 14:26)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The above is not just poetry or philosophy - it's real. The Spirit is real, and actually does testify of Christ.

However, the question was, "Is Jesus Real?"

You believe he is alive here and now, but that doesn't prove it.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually, this might be a better series to explain it:

Sorry, but that video is just bull.

God is not needed for empathy, or doing "good," etc.

I'm getting tired of this idea from religious people, that people without gods are low lifes, mean, evil, going to hell, etc.

*

 

[nash8]

Was there a man named Jesus who lived once upon a time? I would say with 100% assurance that a man named Jesus lived at one point in History. Jesus is simply a Greek translation of the name Yeshua, or Yehashua, which translates to the name Joshua in modern English.

There are actually historical accounts of a man named Yeshua/Jesus, in the Jewish Talmund, who was considered a sorcerer, teacher, and overall troublemaker by the Jewish political authority of the time. His life in the Talmund was very similar to the life of Jesus in the Bible, although there was a much smaller emphasis placed his exploits, and it was written from a totally different perspective. The only big difference I recall off the top of my head was that he was stoned as opposed to being crucified.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have this story written who knows where and by an unknown author that caused this "massive rippling effect."

If only somebody had thought about that before! Oh wait. They did. In the 1830s. Right about the time the mythicist argument began.

It's the mythology

It's the myth of mythology. A process that started a long time ago, with armchair anthropologists like Frazer or Bachofen, and continues today: the myths one hears about concerning Zeus, Attis, Bacchus, Mithras, Hercules, etc., are all lumped together into one big collection as if anybody in antiquity thought that received myth was religion. Mythology, as commonly understood, didn't exist in antiquity. It was created mostly in the past few centuries by cutting and pasting from ancient novels, plays, comedies, etc. The fact that many of the "myths" of Greek religion were never part of Greek religion but were stories made up to be understood as made-up stories (and comical at that) is well-known among historians of antiquity, but not those whose interest in ancient history stops at whether Jesus existed (and even then is not enough to motivate actual research).

all we have is a tautology regarding his existence.

Sure. The fact that we have more evidence for Jesus than for just about anyone of antiquity is all a construct by that vast conspiracy of biblical scholars and classicists who repeat the same story about a historical Jesus for fear of being booted out of scholarship. However, the "quest" for this historical Jesus, at least according to the one (Schweitzer) who's responsible for calling it that, began with an attempt to undermine Christianity and by the time Schweitzer wrote his history of the quest in in 1906, we'd already heard most of the mythicist arguments, and Schweitzer covered their problems. In 1925, Maurice Goguel published Jésus de Nazareth: Mythe ou histoire? which again surveyed the mythicist position, only now included those like Drews and Couchould. In Metzger's bibliographic reference (Index to Periodical Literature on the Gospels), we can add other names, such as Dunkmann, Arkroyd, and Windisch. By now, pretty much every argument that continues to be regurgitated (due in particular to the internet) existed and was addressed repeatedly. After the 1920s, only a handful of scholars in any field questioned that Jesus existed, as we already had addressed this question and the arguments marshaled for it since around 1830. And mythicism was relegated to the amateurs who deliberately lied and misused what knowledge of the ancient world they had. Wells was an exception, as he was a scholar (albeit one of German studies), but he backed off of his position by Dunn's 1985 The Evidence for Jesus. Since that time, various works of varying quality have been produced with much the same goal: demonstrating the evidence we have and why no historians doubt that Jesus existed.

Then mythicism gained a new champion with Richard Carrier, the guy who flaunts his degree in ancient history yet has published almost nothing on the subject and the one major work he has published (his dissertation) is among the most speculative work I've ever seen. He also didn't bother to use his infamous "Bayes' Theorem" that he had already twice, in published works, advocated for any and all historical studies. Apparently, what he meant was that when he wanted to be able to dismiss historical studies, then they should have used Bayes'. But when he wanted his PhD in ancient history, it was ok to reject his own methods because he was no longer dealing with his blog fans but people who had actually studied history.

However, mythicism has and will continue, because just like creationism, conspiracy theories, and every subculture which rejects the authority of the specialists and relies on whatever information supports what it is they believed in the first place, mythicists care only about Jesus not being real and will continue to approach the subject from that viewpoint.

 

[RJ50]

Sorry, but that video is just bull.

God is not needed for empathy, or doing "good," etc.

I'm getting tired of this idea from religious people, that people without gods are low lifes, mean, evil, going to hell, etc.

*

Many religious people are highly unpleasant. Having a faith certainly doesn't always guarantee a good person!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Many religious people are highly unpleasant. Having a faith certainly doesn't always guarantee a good person!

Very true. In fact, I wouldn't even ad the qualifier "doesn't always". Having faith simply does not make a good person. Granted, with relativism this is a far more nuanced issue, but as most of the English speaking world (among other places) has more in common with respect to cultural ethics and morality than differences, we can use that. And using that, Religious faith is simply not a predictor of what most people would call a "good person", independent of beliefs that are controversial and religiously based (e.g., views on abortion, sexuality, etc.). Nice people are nice people for many reasons, and sometimes it has to do with a religious upbringing, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Windwalker]

That is a belief with no evidence to substantiate it!

Actually, no it's not. If someone is speaking of direct experience, it's not just a belief with no evidence. The experience itself is the evidence. That in fact is what all evidence is; direct experience, in one fashion or another.

Someone will counter that religious experience is merely 'subjective' and doesn't count. That is arguable, and I just came across this yesterday in something I was reading I thought put this very well. Regardless if one wishes to call this "the living Christ" or not, is besides the point. Here's how this author worded this approach to evidence:

"You may have the impression that when I talk about 'going deeper into your heart to discover the living Christ' that I mean a subjective emotional experience. I don't. The wisdom tradition has always taught that the the subjective (what we call 'subjective' anyway) is really introduced by your personality, sustained by the binary operating system. When you go deeper than that, when you tunnel beneath it to the still waters, you are able to actually mirror a truth that this is in a final sense objective, hence recognizable as truth to all hearts that are open at that same level."

~Cynthia Bourgeault, The Wisdom Jesus, pg. 137​

I very much appreciate how she expresses this, "a truth that this is in a final sense objective." One actually does move beyond the subjective in this type of inner discovery. And hence why as another mystic, Meister Eckhart said, "Theologians may quarrel, but mystics the world over speak the same language". So yes, there is evidence of that which people name names such as "the living Christ". At that point, all theologies become quite secondary to the objective fact of what is encountered. Such evidence is available to anyone who adequately performs the experiments, in the same way it is in any of the sciences. You simply have to learn how to use the tools in a qualified way, no different than some student learning how to properly align a telescope has to.

 

[natasha levchenko]

Jesus would often seek a private place to pray, and he recommended that his followers do the same. The Bible says: “On the occasion of his being in a certain place praying, when he stopped, a certain one of his disciples said to him: ‘Lord, teach us how to pray’ . . . He said to them: ‘Whenever you pray, say, “Father, let your name be sanctified.”’” (Luke 5:16; 11:1, 2) Thus Jesus showed that prayers should be directed to his Father. He alone is our Creator and the “Hearer of prayer.”—Psalm 65:2.
but he never mentioned of praying to him.......God knows whether we really desire what we pray for or we are merely repeating a set of words. “When praying,” said Jesus, “do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they [wrongly] imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.”—Matt. 6:7.
sometimes we assume that our deeds aren't bad or our actions contradict the Bible.
Jehovah is far away from the wicked ones, but the prayer of the righteous ones he hears proverbs 15:29