• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Real?

Jesus had a wonderful story of being perfect and loving. An entire religion was created after him as we all know.

However, was he even real?

horus-attis-mithra-krishna-dionysus.jpg
Why is there so many other stories identical to his before him?

Is it the same story that symbolically needs to be told or was it an uncreative yet effective mechanism for control?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The concept of God may or may not be a myth but there is a solid consensus among scholars of antiquity that Jesus did exist historically.

If you are going to make up a sinless mythical hero in the Roman Empire, you wouldn't have him as a Jewish carpenter from Galilee executed as a criminal by the Roman state and baptised by John for remission of sins. That's not a great pitch to Romans used to Apollo or Jupiter, and having him submit to someone else to have has sins washed away doesn't help the doctrine of his sinlessness.

I notice that these elements of his life, which all scholars concur are the most historically plausible, are missing from your comparison chart. The Virgin Birth is not mentioned by St. Paul or Mark's gospel, the earliest sources. It appears in the somewhat later Nativity narratives.

The other elements were, rather, inconvenient facts that the early Christians were embarrassed about and had to explain away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jos
The concept of God may or may not be a myth but there is a rock-solid consensus among scholars of antiquity that Jesus did exist historically.

If you are going to make up a sinless mythical hero in the Roman Empire, you wouldn't have him as a Jewish carpenter from Galilee executed as a criminal by the Roman state and baptised by John for remission of sins. That's not a great pitch to Romans used to Apollo or Jupiter.

Those were, rather, inconvenient facts that the early Christians were embarrassed about and had to explain away.

It worked so they apparently had the perfect story.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
It worked so they apparently had the perfect story.

Given the choice between the views of a consensus of scholars qualified in the study of classical antiquity and biblical studies, who have gone through years of specialised training, including in ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and an anonymous poster on the internet, I tend to opt for the former over the latter :D

For what its worth, I'm not sure that Krishna should necessarily be in your OP list of mythical deities either.

The cult of Krishna Vasudeva originated between 4th century BC and the 2nd century BC, when scholars generally believe that a historical figure (a son of the Satvata tribe) was deified as the incarnate supreme deity in a monotheistic fashion. This Krishna was then amalgamated with other traditions to result in the figure we know today.

What we have here is not a mythical character being historicized but a historical person subsequently being deified, which also occurred in the case of Gautama Buddha and other personalities from history, including the Roman Emperor Augustus.

The consensus opinion among scholars now - called "the emerging consensus" around an "early high christology" - is that soon after his death, probably in the first few months or years (and certainly well in advance of the composition of the Pauline epistles some 20 years later), Jesus quickly became regarded in early Jewish Christian circles as the personally pre-existent divine agent of creation and the exalted Son of God who had been subsumed within the cultic worship owed to God the Father.

For Buddhism, we have evidence that the early Mahāsāṃghika school (which split from the Sthaviras - from whom the Therevadins trace their lineage - at the Second Buddhost Council) believed the historical Buddha possessed a transcendental, supramundane nature, although even the Sthavira vinaya attributed miracles to him.
 
Last edited:
Given the choice between the views of a consensus of scholars qualified in the study of classical antiquity and biblical studies, who have gone through years of specialised training, including in ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and an anonymous poster on the internet, I tend to opt for the former over the latter :D

For what its worth, I'm not sure that Krishna should be in your OP list of mythical deities either.

The cult of Krishna Vasudeva originated between 4th century BC and the 2nd century BC, when scholars generally believe that a historical figure (a son of the Satvata tribe) was deified as the incarnate supreme deity in a monotheistic fashion. This Krishna was then amalgamated with other traditions to result in the figure we know today.

What we have here is not a mythical character being historicized but a historical person subsequently being deified, which also occurred in the case of Gautama Buddha and other personalities from history, including the Roman Emperor Augustus.

The consensus opinion among scholars now - called "the emerging consensus" around an "early high christology" - is that soon after his death, probably in the first few months or years (and certainly well in advance of the composition of the Pauline epistles some 20 years later), Jesus quickly became regarded in early Jewish Christian circles as the personally pre-existent divine agent of creation and the exalted Son of God who had been subsumed within the cultic worship owed to God the Father.

For Buddhism, we have evidence that the early Mahāsāṃghika school (which split from the Sthaviras - from whom the Therevadins trace their lineage - at the Second Buddhost Council) believed the historical Buddha possessed a transcendental, supramundane nature, although even the Sthavira vinaya attributed miracles to him.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Could be real, who am I to say? Could also be a mix of one or more people and legends. I leave it up to people who are historians and archaeologists to discuss it. For me it isn't a big deal anyway, I like parts of the message, one likes to think that the good parts come from one guy and the bad parts from some interpretations by people who came later.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
Was also about the 8th child (iirc) of his 'virgin' mother.

Horus is my favourite though: "The virgin Isis lovingly crafted her husband Osiris a magical golden cock so that she could remain pure and chaste".
I was just thinking that...
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Jesus had a wonderful story of being perfect and loving. An entire religion was created after him as we all know.

However, was he even real?

View attachment 26577 Why is there so many other stories identical to his before him?

Is it the same story that symbolically needs to be told or was it an uncreative yet effective mechanism for control?
People rewriting these old mythological characters(cherry picking) to make them more "Jesus like" so people can then claim Jesus was just a copy of other characters. Basically it's sort of ridiculous.

However I do admit that the idea of a sun god dying every year and coming back to life is nothing new. This was due to ancient people observing the sun every year decrease in strength and then grow stronger. However, serious Bible scholars realize that Jesus was not really born on Dec 25th. That was a pagan holiday that was adopted as Jesus' birthday. December 25th being the day when the sun begins to draw closer. For the Romans and others this signified a day when their sun god would be symbolically reborn after he "died". This is why they chose it as Jesus' birthday because the people were used to celebrations on that day.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The concept of God may or may not be a myth but there is a solid consensus among scholars of antiquity that Jesus did exist historically.

If you are going to make up a sinless mythical hero in the Roman Empire, you wouldn't have him as a Jewish carpenter from Galilee executed as a criminal by the Roman state and baptised by John for remission of sins. That's not a great pitch to Romans used to Apollo or Jupiter, and having him submit to someone else to have has sins washed away doesn't help the doctrine of his sinlessness.

I notice that these elements of his life, which all scholars concur are the most historically plausible, are missing from your comparison chart. The Virgin Birth is not mentioned by St. Paul or Mark's gospel, the earliest sources. It appears in the somewhat later Nativity narratives.

The other elements were, rather, inconvenient facts that the early Christians were embarrassed about and had to explain away.

Somebody existed. The virgin birth guy did not.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
The concept of God may or may not be a myth but there is a solid consensus among scholars of antiquity that Jesus did exist historically.

If you are going to make up a sinless mythical hero in the Roman Empire, you wouldn't have him as a Jewish carpenter from Galilee executed as a criminal by the Roman state and baptised by John for remission of sins. That's not a great pitch to Romans used to Apollo or Jupiter, and having him submit to someone else to have has sins washed away doesn't help the doctrine of his sinlessness.

I notice that these elements of his life, which all scholars concur are the most historically plausible, are missing from your comparison chart. The Virgin Birth is not mentioned by St. Paul or Mark's gospel, the earliest sources. It appears in the somewhat later Nativity narratives.

The other elements were, rather, inconvenient facts that the early Christians were embarrassed about and had to explain away.
I'm a bit curious but are you a Christian?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
People rewriting these old mythological characters(cherry picking) to make them more "Jesus like" so people can then claim Jesus was just a copy of other characters. Basically it's sort of ridiculous.

However I do admit that the idea of a sun god dying every year and coming back to life is nothing new. This was due to ancient people observing the sun every year decrease in strength and then grow stronger. However, serious Bible scholars realize that Jesus was not really born on Dec 25th. That was a pagan holiday that was adopted as Jesus' birthday. December 25th being the day when the sun begins to draw closer. For the Romans and others this signified a day when their sun god would be symbolically reborn after he "died". This is why they chose it as Jesus' birthday because the people were used to celebrations on that day.

A guy who thinks noahs ark was real is
not in the best position to hold forth on
what is ridiculous.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I believe Jesus was real and a great spiritual teacher and master. The Bible is not all correct unfortunately. The Bible I believe was put together by people sympathetic to certain themes.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Jesus had a wonderful story of being perfect and loving. An entire religion was created after him as we all know.

However, was he even real?

View attachment 26577 Why is there so many other stories identical to his before him?

Is it the same story that symbolically needs to be told or was it an uncreative yet effective mechanism for control?
Some more info from Wiki:


"It was said that (Zoroaster's) birth was foretold from the beginning of time, and that the moment he was born, he burst out laughing and the whole universe rejoiced with him." After his birth evil demons tried to destroy him, but with Ahura Mazda's protection, he survived all attempts on his life.[20] The Zoroastrian tradition differs from the Christian one because the divine only assists in the preservation of Zoroaster’s seed. "The central scripture, the Avesta and also the Pahlavi texts include the tradition that the 'kingly glory' is handed onward from ruler to ruler and from saint to saint for the purpose of illuminating ultimately the soul of the Zarathushtra." Also the scriptures clearly allude to conjugal relations between his parents, during which evil spirits try to prevent his conception.[4] But according to later tradition, Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was a virgin when she conceived Zoroaster by a shaft of light.[20]

Miraculous births - Wikipedia
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I can understand people believing there was a Jesus behind the myth, and I can understand that he never existed at all, but I don't understand what difference it makes.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
As another poster has said, all qualified historians are agreed that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus of Nasareth, son of Joseph, whose followers believed he was the Messiah. The people who've written books claiming that he was a myth are journalists or crackpots with no academic qualifications

The later additions to the story are a different kettle of fish. The two sources in the NT which pass muster as historical sources, Mark and Paul, say nothing about virgin birth or incarnation. The Gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke, and John were unknown to Bishop Papias, who wrote in the 120s and are not attested until the 170s or so.
 
Top