Did Jesus ever Live ?

[Smoke]

Nobody doubts that Paul existed; we have some of his writings. I think much of what Paul writes is unreliable, but I think we can trust him when he says that James was "the Lord's brother," especially since he and James clashed.

If James was Jesus' brother, it seems pretty likely that Jesus existed -- unless Jesus' brother was an only child.

 

[logician]

THe Cathoilic church invented CHrist, and yes, the Catholic church has had a great impact on the world, millions were killed during the Crusades, and many cultures have been crushed by Christianity.

 

[James the Persian]

THe Cathoilic church invented CHrist, and yes, the Catholic church has had a great impact on the world, millions were killed during the Crusades, and many cultures have been crushed by Christianity.

I take it you mean the Roman Catholic Church rather than the undivided Church referred to as Catholic in the Nicene Creed? If so, you really ought to read up on some history prior to 1054 and without ignoring eastern Europe and the Middle East. The RCC was never in a position to be able to invent Christ. If you don't mean that but rather do mean the undivided Church then I feel that I ought to point out that the Church was already twice divided by the time of the First Crusade and that only one section of the Church perpetrated those 'Holy' Wars. In fact, eastern Christians constitute a rather large percentage of the victims of them (especially the Fourth Crusade).

James

 

[logician]

Actually I meant what was to become the RC Church. Actually there were many, many competing sects of Christianity in the earlier years, including the gnostic sects which only believed in a spiritual Christ. The literalists, which basically took over the movement in the fourth century, who demanded a belief in a human/divine god, were responsible for the later atrocities of the crusades. Certainly, any group could be a victim of the crusades, even other Christian sects.

 

[James the Persian]

Actually I meant what was to become the RC Church. Actually there were many, many competing sects of Christianity in the earlier years, including the gnostic sects which only believed in a spiritual Christ. The literalists, which basically took over the movement in the fourth century, who demanded a belief in a human/divine god, were responsible for the later atrocities of the crusades. Certainly, any group could be a victim of the crusades, even other Christian sects.

You're still not correct. The Crusades were perpetrated only by the See of Rome, the RCC. The other four Patriarchates of the Pentarchy had not been in communion with Rome since 1054 and still are not. They did not take part in the Crusades but, rather, were victims of them. This has nothing to do with the heretical sects that sprang up in the first few centuries and everything to do with the Church defined as Catholic at Nicea.

James

 

[logician]

I never made a point about WHICH sects perpetrated the Crusades, only that the literalists tradition was responsible for the fundamentalism that arose in Christianity, and the resulting atrocities that Christianity has committed to this day.

 

[James the Persian]

I never made a point about WHICH sects perpetrated the Crusades, only that the literalists tradition was responsible for the fundamentalism that arose in Christianity, and the resulting atrocities that Christianity has committed to this day.

I'd love to know what you mean by 'literalist' as never in a million years would I use that word to describe Catholic (in the original sense) theology. Personally I'd put the blame for attrocities at the feet of heirarchs coopting temporal power (in the case of Rome) or temporal rulers interfering with the Church (in the case of certain of the 'Byzantine' Emperors and Russian Tsars) rather than blame religious teachings.

James

 

[robtex]

MOD POST:

Please stay on the topic of "Did Jesus ever live?" Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

THe Cathoilic church invented CHrist, and yes, the Catholic church has had a great impact on the world, millions were killed during the Crusades, and many cultures have been crushed by Christianity.

Sounds like you've been reading The Davinci Code. In a certain sense, you're right. The historical Jesus was probably different from the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. So, one could say that the Biblical Jesus is a trumped-up version of the historical Jesus -- "invented," as you say, by the early followers. So what?

 

[robtex]

The historical Jesus was probably different from the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. So, one could say that the Biblical Jesus is a trumped-up version of the historical Jesus --

Actually the difference between the "historical Jesus" and the "biblical Jesus" may be a red herring. You say different but assume that both exist. We non-christians are looking for historical evidence that Jesus existed. Do you have any?

"invented," as you say, by the early followers. So what?

If you conceed that parts of Jesus were invented than why is it so inconcievable, espcially in light of lack of evidence of his existance, that not part of him was invented but all of him.

 

[sojourner]

Actually the difference between the "historical Jesus" and the "biblical Jesus" may be a red herring. You say different but assume that both exist. We non-christians are looking for historical evidence that Jesus existed. Do you have any?



If you conceed that parts of Jesus were invented than why is it so inconcievable, espcially in light of lack of evidence of his existance, that not part of him was invented but all of him.

As I said in another post: We Xians seek belief, faith and truth -- not evidence, proof, and fact. The trap y'all try to get us to fall into is goading us into playing the "prove it!" game. Here's my take on your position:

If it could be proven, how much proof would you require? What would you do with that proof, once presented with it? Did you need proof of the existence of air before you claimed its benefits? Did you need proof of the healthful properties of good food before ingesting the vitamins and minerals? Did you need proof that girls could make you feel wonderful before becoming interested in them? God doesn't beg proof, but participation.

the question is interesting, but it's really a smoke-and-mirrors thing. Again, if you had proof, what would you do with it? Would you seek to participate in God, or would you seek to make God participate in you? In other words, having that proof, would you require more proof, subjecting God to an existence no larger than you are able to understand, or are you willing to participate in something beyond your understanding?

Proof ultimately seeks more proof. That's not the business God is in. God doesn't prove God's self to us. God reveals God's self to us so that we can participate more fully in God.

did Jesus really live? I believe he did. Can I prove it? Don't need to. Can you prove he didn't? Why do you seek to?

 

[robtex]

As I said in another post: We Xians seek belief, faith and truth -- not evidence, proof, and fact. The trap y'all try to get us to fall into is goading us into playing the "prove it!" game. Here's my take on your position:

The topic is "did Jesus exist." Evidence and proof are two different things. I asked for evidence not proof. It is not a trap but a reasonable proposition considering the assertion is made that this person did exist within the context of this debate.

If it could be proven, how much proof would you require? What would you do with that proof, once presented with it? Did you need proof of the existence of air before you claimed its benefits? Did you need proof of the healthful properties of good food before ingesting the vitamins and minerals? Did you need proof that girls could make you feel wonderful before becoming interested in them? God doesn't beg proof, but participation.

Any evidence or proof would be beneficial to the debate. If I were making a position for something and I have evidence or proof I would certainly use it to strengthen my position. The fact that you question the vaidity of having evidence and proof suggests to me that you don't have any.

the question is interesting, but it's really a smoke-and-mirrors thing. Again, if you had proof, what would you do with it? Would you seek to participate in God, or would you seek to make God participate in you? In other words, having that proof, would you require more proof, subjecting God to an existence no larger than you are able to understand, or are you willing to participate in something beyond your understanding?

I would only require evidence. If some were presented I would open-mindly re-assess my evaluation of the existance of God.

Proof ultimately seeks more proof. That's not the business God is in. God doesn't prove God's self to us. God reveals God's self to us so that we can participate more fully in God.

Hard to say in this case since no proof or evidence has yet to be interjected into this thread.

did Jesus really live? I believe he did. Can I prove it? Don't need to. Can you prove he didn't? Why do you seek to?

You may believe that he did but the topic any debate cannot be predicated on belief. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that there is a lock ness monster, that bigfoot lives in northern cali and that the moon is made of cheese but as soon as you enter into a debate on any belief, irregardless of what it is, it is only reasonable to assume the weight of the arguement should rest on evidence, and theories postulated on that evidence. Without any evidence of his existance this debate really isn't going to go anywhere because there is nothing to examine that is tangable. The Jesus-exists because-he-is-in-my-heart-theory isn't a debatable angle because their is no evidence to examine or debate.

 

[logician]

LIteralist means those sects that believed the gospels as written are literally true, i.e Jesus was born as a human, lived, did miracles, died, and was ressurrected according to the scriptures.

 

[Defij]

Actually the difference between the "historical Jesus" and the "biblical Jesus" may be a red herring. You say different but assume that both exist. We non-christians are looking for historical evidence that Jesus existed. Do you have any?

Historians deal with plausibility. Nobody knows 100% for sure what happened in the past, especially the ancient world. What we can do though is determine, to either a high or low plausibility, whether or not something happened. Jesus as a literal human being who existed on planet earth is very plausible. I think you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate historian, Christian or not, that would say otherwise.

 

[robtex]

Historians deal with plausibility. Nobody knows 100% for sure what happened in the past, especially the ancient world. What we can do though is determine, to either a high or low plausibility, whether or not something happened. Jesus as a literal human being who existed on planet earth is very plausible. I think you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate historian, Christian or not, that would say otherwise.

I will give you that. As a matter of fact, if in all likelyhood we could not evidence 99 % of the population that lived in the middle east 2000ish years ago. There would be no record of their births, deaths, no sketches or writings of them or such.

However, when you say "Jesus as a literal human being who existed on earth is very plausible" what you are really saying, when taken in context is God put his son on earth, the most important person to ever walk the earth if this were true, had him live and walk with man and than vanish without a trace. When I mean without a trace I mean, no records of anything other than a vision of Paul and others who "feel Jesus in their hearts." written in one text.

In the case of Jesus, as proposed by Christians we are not talking about some joe-shmo who ran a backery had a few kids and lived an solitray life. We are talking about the most famous person in Christian history. A religion that about one out of every three or one out of every four people in the world believes today.

I would say it is only plausible in preponderance of the evidence. And understand no evidence for Jesus is quite different than saying no evidence for Joe-shmo the baker.

 

[Defij]

I will give you that. As a matter of fact, if in all likelyhood we could not evidence 99 % of the population that lived in the middle east 2000ish years ago. There would be no record of their births, deaths, no sketches or writings of them or such.

However, when you say "Jesus as a literal human being who existed on earth is very plausible" what you are really saying, when taken in context is God put his son on earth, the most important person to ever walk the earth if this were true, had him live and walk with man and than vanish without a trace. When I mean without a trace I mean, no records of anything other than a vision of Paul and others who "feel Jesus in their hearts." written in one text.

Well that's not what I mean. The whole concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith. That's an entirely different debate. I was responding to the question about Jesus existing as a historical person at all.

Jesus as a historical person is very plausible for several different reasons or "evidence" if you will. First and foremost, at least in my mind, would be the criterion of "Multiple Attestation". There are many different independent source that document the person, or at least allude to Jesus; both Christian and non-Christian (Jewish and "Pagan" read Roman).

 

[sojourner]

I will give you that. As a matter of fact, if in all likelyhood we could not evidence 99 % of the population that lived in the middle east 2000ish years ago. There would be no record of their births, deaths, no sketches or writings of them or such.

However, when you say "Jesus as a literal human being who existed on earth is very plausible" what you are really saying, when taken in context is God put his son on earth, the most important person to ever walk the earth if this were true, had him live and walk with man and than vanish without a trace. When I mean without a trace I mean, no records of anything other than a vision of Paul and others who "feel Jesus in their hearts." written in one text.

In the case of Jesus, as proposed by Christians we are not talking about some joe-shmo who ran a backery had a few kids and lived an solitray life. We are talking about the most famous person in Christian history. A religion that about one out of every three or one out of every four people in the world believes today.

I would say it is only plausible in preponderance of the evidence. And understand no evidence for Jesus is quite different than saying no evidence for Joe-shmo the baker.

Vanish without a trace? He appeared to 500 people following his crucifixion, including Paul. That's quite a lineup of eyewitnesses, whose stories corroborate.

Written in one text? Do you not realize that the Bible is a collection of separate texts?

Not at the time he lived, nor for a few years after the crucifixion. Jesus didn't become well-known, I'd say, until Xy became the state religion. By which time we're talking about the Biblical Jesus and not the historical Jesus. I wouldn't say that the historical Jesus was ever "famous."

why? Joe-Schmo was probably at least as well-known as the historical Jesus, especially if he made wonderful baklava.

 

[robtex]

Vanish without a trace? He appeared to 500 people following his crucifixion, including Paul. That's quite a lineup of eyewitnesses, whose stories corroborate.

Can you name some of these people because no other historian has been able to. Corinthians 1 chp 15 versus 6 has become a nightmare for the bible because the 500 witness Paul likely fabricated, never ever came forward, were identified or collaborated anything Paul said in print. What are the odds of that? The odds that so many people could watch a dead person come back to life and be so taken aback by it that they don't tell anyone esle (who records it as history) or record it themselves in print?

Written in one text? Do you not realize that the Bible is a collection of separate texts?

Many written hundreds of years after Jesus alleged death. Also, many were selected as authentic and many were not. Basically what went into the bible is what sounded good to the original church. No attempts to authenticate any of it was ever done. It was all, as you have stated in past posts, taken on faith and what felt right.

Not at the time he lived, nor for a few years after the crucifixion. Jesus didn't become well-known, I'd say, until Xy became the state religion. By which time we're talking about the Biblical Jesus and not the historical Jesus. I wouldn't say that the historical Jesus was ever "famous."

The historical Jesus was in Paul's head. Acts chapter 9 first 10 versus. Other than that nobody else mentions him that doesn't either know Paul or use the Bible as their source for info on Jesus.

why? Joe-Schmo was probably at least as well-known as the historical Jesus, especially if he made wonderful baklava.

Why is pre-destination. God sent his only son to die for sins as an act of predestination and as a part of the paradigm of that predestination feels it is a good idea to leave no recordable evidence of the event ?

 

[robtex]

. There are many different independent source that document the person, or at least allude to Jesus; both Christian and non-Christian (Jewish and "Pagan" read Roman).

Can you list some of those sources, and more importantly did they use the Bible or the Christian faith as a reference when talking about Jesus. Realize anything written after 50 a.d. would have used Christianty as a reference.

 

[sojourner]

as soon as you enter into a debate on any belief, irrregardless of what it is, it is only reasonable to assume the weight of the arguement should rest on evidence, and theories postulated on that evidence. Without any evidence of his existance this debate really isn't going to go anywhere because there is nothing to examine that is tangable. The Jesus-exists because-he-is-in-my-heart-theory isn't a debatable angle because their is no evidence to examine or debate.

That's the whole point I was trying to make with my post. The modus operendi of Xy is not about evidence, proof, or fact. We can't argue from that standpoint because to do so is to subject God to human standards.

We have habeas corpus in the presence of the Church -- the Body of Christ on earth. That's as "tangible" as it gets. Not very evidenciary by humanity's standards, I'll admit, but, again, we're not hoping to put God in a box.

My claim isn't that Jesus exists because he's in my heart. My claim is that Jesus existed. We have evidence of his human existence that exceeds the needs of many scholars and historians to claim plausibility. My argument is that the "Did Jesus exist" question is moot to the veracity of the Christian religion. Answering that question really doesn't make God any more real, nor does it really lend any creedence to the religion. Producing a body would only produce more skepticism. The veracity of Xy must finally rest on the questioner's ability to accept on divine tenets of faith, belief and truth, rather than on human tenets of evidence, proof and fact. Evidence can be tampered with. Proof can be misunderstood. Fact can be twisted.