did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

Yeah, I think some people miss the point when they place more value on Jesus's supposed divinity and the whole being saved thing, rather than trying to practice what Jesus preached. Peace, love, mercy, tolerance and that whole 'treat people the way you'd want to be treated' thing . . . to me, that's what's really important.

Of course, you do realize, that you and I are going straight to hell for missing the important part of Jesus's message? I Just thought I'd let you know, waitasec, that's what some folks believe about us. Ehhh, but you probably already knew that. If not, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But, at least we'll be there together . . . Whew, let's party.

Those teachings did not originate with Jesus. There really is nothing original in the story other than the idea that those that don't believe will pay a price in Hell.

 

[MW0082]

Just to deal with this. It doesn't violate the rules of historiography. Much of history is written after the fact. We see this daily with newspapers.

If you look at a history book, people are writing about events after the fact. That's simply history.

Actually it completely violates ALL rules. You cannot write something on paper 70+ years after the fact that it happened, with absolutely no evidence and expect it to be taken as fact or history.

History is to be written down WHEN IT HAPPENS, with eye witness accounts. Thats true histooriography...

No there was never a true jesus Christ, he's an allegorical myth......

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, I think some people miss the point when they place more value on Jesus's supposed divinity and the whole being saved thing, rather than trying to practice what Jesus preached. Peace, love, mercy, tolerance and that whole 'treat people the way you'd want to be treated' thing . . . to me, that's what's really important.

Of course, you do realize, that you and I are going straight to hell for missing the important part of Jesus's message? I Just thought I'd let you know, waitasec, that's what some folks believe about us. Ehhh, but you probably already knew that. If not, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But, at least we'll be there together . . . Whew, let's party.

ha ha
well, i used to believe that too!
i turned my head around 180 degrees.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Those teachings did not originate with Jesus. There really is nothing original in the story other than the idea that those that don't believe will pay a price in Hell.

Yeah, but it doesn't make 'em any less valuable or true. And given Jesus's popularity over some other philosophers who preceded him, Jesus version of those lessons might be the most accessible. Unfortunately, some so-called Christians ignore the lessons in favor of getting their ticket to heaven.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually it completely violates ALL rules. You cannot write something on paper 70+ years after the fact that it happened, with absolutely no evidence and expect it to be taken as fact or history.

History is to be written down WHEN IT HAPPENS, with eye witness accounts. Thats true histooriography...

No there was never a true jesus Christ, he's an allegorical myth......

You really don't understand ancient history then, or oral culture at all. In a society that has a literacy rate of 1-3%, the way to pass on history was orally. This is true for many stories. Even Tiberius, an emperor of Rome, had just one biography written about him during that time period. All the others were written much later, yet we can still learn from them.

Also, we learn a lot about history through archeology. Guess what, in many of those cases, not a single thing was written down. We learn from the objects that we discover. The point being that you are wrong about how history is known. It's more than just writing about it at the time that it happened. Even today we are still learning more about other figures, centuries after the fact.

Also, the first mention of Jesus, a Jewish peasant, was about 20 years after the fact. Really, not that long of a time for ancient times.

 

[waitasec]

You really don't understand ancient history then, or oral culture at all. In a society that has a literacy rate of 1-3%, the way to pass on history was orally. This is true for many stories. Even Tiberius, an emperor of Rome, had just one biography written about him during that time period. All the others were written much later, yet we can still learn from them.

Also, we learn a lot about history through archeology. Guess what, in many of those cases, not a single thing was written down. We learn from the objects that we discover. The point being that you are wrong about how history is known. It's more than just writing about it at the time that it happened. Even today we are still learning more about other figures, centuries after the fact.

Also, the first mention of Jesus, a Jewish peasant, was about 20 years after the fact. Really, not that long of a time for ancient times.

so the historians and philosophers (listed in the OP) of jesus day never wrote anything down? i don't follow.

here's what i am referring to...

“Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!”

“Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).”

 

[dogsgod]

Yeah, but it doesn't make 'em any less valuable or true. And given Jesus's popularity over some other philosophers who preceded him, Jesus version of those lessons might be the most accessible. Unfortunately, some so-called Christians ignore the lessons in favor of getting their ticket to heaven.

There is a problem with religions declaring the golden rule as its own invention, and what religion does not declare the golden rule as a central tenet? Believers can view non members as those denying "their" truth, that if they don't believe in our savior, then they don't live by the golden rule and can't be good. The moral fabric that binds a religious community is the same fabric that divides people.

 

[MW0082]

You really don't understand ancient history then, or oral culture at all. In a society that has a literacy rate of 1-3%, the way to pass on history was orally. This is true for many stories. Even Tiberius, an emperor of Rome, had just one biography written about him during that time period. All the others were written much later, yet we can still learn from them.

Also, we learn a lot about history through archeology. Guess what, in many of those cases, not a single thing was written down. We learn from the objects that we discover. The point being that you are wrong about how history is known. It's more than just writing about it at the time that it happened. Even today we are still learning more about other figures, centuries after the fact.

Also, the first mention of Jesus, a Jewish peasant, was about 20 years after the fact. Really, not that long of a time for ancient times.

HUGE difference if we find artifacts or ancient writings or images well then that is in fact proof of an existence. I am quite aware of how cultures would use word of mouth to hand down stories and legends and "history". However we would find actual evidence to support the history it's telling. By the time jesus was "alive", we were more than aware for a need to record or history as it is happening. There were over 50 historians in and around the mediteranean when jesus was "alive", and not once did a historian once mention such a great man. yet they had historians and even forms of news papers. There is no evidence what so ever when it comes to Jesus. Also the first written scripture was AT LEAST 70 years after Jesus's supposed death, and some believe even longer.....

 

[fallingblood]

i think this point back to the fact there are no non biblical eye witnesses to the famous jesus in addition to that for example,

Much of the information we have about Tiberius was not done first hand. Much of the information we even have about Harry Houdini (only a century back in time) is second hand accounts. Much of the information we have about the first Jewish revolt is second hand accounts compiled by a historian. Eye witnesses really do not mean more credible. Actually, many times it can be the exact opposite. This is why we use multiple sources to get more accurate pictures of ideas.

We are also talking about an oral culture, which is extremely important in this instance. It was a culture that had an extremely low literacy rate, and it was common to pass on information orally as people simply couldn't read or write.

 

[waitasec]

There is a problem with religions declaring the golden rule as its own invention, and what religion does not declare the golden rule as a central tenet? Believers can view non members as those denying "their" truth, that if they don't believe in our savior, then they don't live by the golden rule and can't be good. The moral fabric that binds a religious community is the same fabric that divides people.

the golden rule should be
treat others as you think they want to be treated...

 

[waitasec]

Much of the information we have about Tiberius was not done first hand. Much of the information we even have about Harry Houdini (only a century back in time) is second hand accounts. Much of the information we have about the first Jewish revolt is second hand accounts compiled by a historian. Eye witnesses really do not mean more credible. Actually, many times it can be the exact opposite. This is why we use multiple sources to get more accurate pictures of ideas.

We are also talking about an oral culture, which is extremely important in this instance. It was a culture that had an extremely low literacy rate, and it was common to pass on information orally as people simply couldn't read or write.

suetonius was tiberius contemporary as were others
harry houdini had eye witness accounts to his existence,
i still don't follow...

 

[Willamena]

i think the real issue here isn't if jesus actually existed, it's the notion we have of this figure called jesus...

Why/how is that the issue?

 

[Eliot Wild]

There is a problem with religions declaring the golden rule as its own invention, and what religion does not declare the golden rule as a central tenet? Believers can view non members as those denying "their" truth, that if they don't believe in our savior, then they don't live by the golden rule and can't be good. The moral fabric that binds a religious community is the same fabric that divides people.

Good point. I tend to agree, at least somewhat. I would like to think it is possible for religion to accept others beliefs without denouncement, especially if they are similar to their own dogmatic teachings.

However, unfortunately it is too often the case that what you've said is true. But let's face it, religions and religious practitioners who are willing to view the world with such an 'us-and-them' perspective, making claims that if you don't believe it was their holy dude who came up with the concept of treating others as you'd want to be treated, these religions and their practitioners are going to find any reason, whether it be ethically-based, epistemologically-based or ontologically-based, to claim everybody else is effed-up and going to hell. At least that's what I've found, just like you mentioned.

 

[waitasec]

Much of the information we have about Tiberius was not done first hand. Much of the information we even have about Harry Houdini (only a century back in time) is second hand accounts. Much of the information we have about the first Jewish revolt is second hand accounts compiled by a historian. Eye witnesses really do not mean more credible. Actually, many times it can be the exact opposite. This is why we use multiple sources to get more accurate pictures of ideas.

We are also talking about an oral culture, which is extremely important in this instance. It was a culture that had an extremely low literacy rate, and it was common to pass on information orally as people simply couldn't read or write.

another thought would be
the more eye witnesses there are, the more credible it is...
in this case the bible is the only "eye witness account" not verified by non biblical accounts, due to jesus being famous as the bible claims...

 

[fallingblood]

so the historians and philosophers (listed in the OP) of jesus day never wrote anything down? i don't follow.

Of course they did. However, they were among the few that could read and write. And really, they had no interest in some Jewish peasant, one of many who were claiming to be Messiah in an area that didn't really matter.

here's what i am referring to...

“Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!”

Here's the problem. We have little written about 1st century Judaism at all. We have very little written about Jewish religious leaders. Why should we expect anyone to write about a figure you really made no impact during his time? He was just one more religious leader running around. And really, we have little written about people like him. Yet, we accept the others lived, such as John the Baptist.

The difference with Jesus is that his followers later made an impact. I propose this to be because they believed that he issued in the Kingdom of God.

The key point is quite simple, Jesus was a Jewish peasant and thus did not matter during that time. We have what is expected of him. And really, for others like Jesus, who we don't have information until after the fact, we don't even consider that they may not have existed.

 

[dogsgod]

the golden rule should be
treat others as you think they want to be treated...

However you care to word it, it goes without saying.

 

[MW0082]

Why/how is that the issue?

It's an issue to me for I feel he never truly existed and feel deceived. Why would that not be an issue, a powerful organization lying to you....?

 

[Willamena]

Maybe it's just me, but I have always thought the teachings attributed to Jesus were more important than whether or not he actually existed. And that certainly is not intended to be dismissive of the OP. Obviously, the question of Jesus's existence is an important one, at least to those who claim it is necessary to believe in Jesus's divinity to be 'saved'.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist household and every baptist preacher I've ever met has declared that a person cannot attain salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven if, among other things, they don't believe and declare that Jesus was the son of God who lived as a man and died for the explicit purpose of sacrificial atonement for the sins of mankind. (I'm paraphrasing some of those preachers, by the way)

I honestly don't know, and really I don't care. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. But my thinking is this, I would rather live in a manner worthy of Jesus's teachings and still remain ignorant of the truth about his existence and his divinity, than I would to know for certain he did or didn't exist and behave in a way that would shame him. But, hey, that's just me.

Hey! Welcome to the religion of Just Me.

Thing is, with a non-literal interpretation, what that Baptist Preacher says is true and it doesn't matter if Jesus existed.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[MW0082]

Of course they did. However, they were among the few that could read and write. And really, they had no interest in some Jewish peasant, one of many who were claiming to be Messiah in an area that didn't really matter.
Here's the problem. We have little written about 1st century Judaism at all. We have very little written about Jewish religious leaders. Why should we expect anyone to write about a figure you really made no impact during his time? He was just one more religious leader running around. And really, we have little written about people like him. Yet, we accept the others lived, such as John the Baptist.

The difference with Jesus is that his followers later made an impact. I propose this to be because they believed that he issued in the Kingdom of God.

The key point is quite simple, Jesus was a Jewish peasant and thus did not matter during that time. We have what is expected of him. And really, for others like Jesus, who we don't have information until after the fact, we don't even consider that they may not have existed.

A peasent who performed miracles for all to see, including DYING AND ASCENDING TO HEAVEN for all to see. I think everyone would want THAT recorded...lol

 

[waitasec]

Why/how is that the issue?

it is the "authority" certain believers claim to have...
because jesus did "in fact" exist that gives them the authority to have this stance on any given issue (same sex marriage, for example, which of course has nothing to do with what jesus ever supposedly said, but you cannot deny the bibles claim of jesus' existence is the reasoning behind it)
if the knowledge that the jesus character never did "in fact" exist, then their whole entire religion would fail.