Did Jesus Really Exist? (Historically)

[Joanna The Mad]

Further to the passage above from Wikipedia,

As to the notion that "the theory of Jesus non-existence is now dead as a scholarly question", perhaps not, given the different views on how to interpret the Tacitus passage.

Wikipedia Shmikipedia.

The three far more likely possibilities are:

1. There was a figure, or several figures, that had careers as itinerant preachers at the end of the first third of the first century, and that the gospel of Mark is a compelation of various oral traditions surrounding this individual.

2. That the entire story is a collection of fabrications and folk myths/legends, possibly again loosely based on the claims of previous Messiah cults, concocted by St. Paul and his followers.

3. A combination of the previous two.

My guts tell me it's option 1 or 3. I just think they'd make up a better story if the whole story was made up.. You know?

Oh yes, awesomest passage in the Koran and Jesus is in it:

After the prayer, Isa (Jesus - peace be upon him) will prepare himself to do battle and shall take up a spear. An army shall return from a campaign launched before the arrival of Isa (Jesus - peeace be upon him). They shall bring glad tidings of victory over India, granted to them by the Lord Almighty. Isa (Jesus - peeace be upon him) shall set out in pursuit of Dajjal. All those who embraced the evil of Dajjal shall perish even as the breath of Isa (Jesus - peeace be upon him) touches them. The breath of Isa (Jesus - peeace be upon him) shall proceed him as far as the eye can see. Dajjal will be captured at Lydda. The Dark Messiah shall begin to melt, as lead melts in fire. The spear of Isa (Jesus - peace be upon him) shall plunge into Dajjal’s chest, ending his dreaded reign. The followers of Dajjal will be rooted out, for even the trees and rocks will speak out against them. Then all battles shall cease and the world will know an age of peace. Then truly the sheep will lie in the shadow of the wolf without fear. The rule of Jesus will be just and all shall flock to him to enter the folds of the one true religion, Islam.

I'll post a decent response when I'm back from my trip!

[Buzz62]

Did Jesus really exist?

What difference does it make? Millions of people find comfort in the belief that he did. I'm OK with that, as long as they respect my warped beliefs as well.

I will say this though...
IF this dude did exist...is it possible that he was just a cool guy who's ideas turned on a whack of poor people, and that Constantine and his merry band of religious amalgamators simply picked him to be the idol of their "new religion" because of the popularity he enjoyed?

[Anguspure]

More to the point did any other historic figure (say Julias Ceaser or the Budha) really exist?
There is after all considerably less evidence for the existence of many of these people than there is for the existence of Jesus ben YHWH of Nazereth and yet we accept their former existence without question.

[Cruella]

Cesar existed - you're comparing apples and oranges though, as there is no major religion built around Cesar. There is, however a LOT of evidence that he existed. I am assuming though, that you mean Julius Cesar, rather than some other anonymous Cesar.

Your comment about Buddha is nearer the mark, but still, he's considered a religious icon rather than an, as you put it "historical figure".

[Chris the Chees]

Cesar existed - you're comparing apples and oranges though, as there is no major religion built around Cesar. There is, however a LOT of evidence that he existed. I am assuming though, that you mean Julius Cesar, rather than some other anonymous Cesar.

Your comment about Buddha is nearer the mark, but still, he's considered a religious icon rather than an, as you put it "historical figure".

Quitw. Unlike Jesus, Ceasar penned works which have survived, other contemporaries wrote about him, he appears in the Roman archives, etc.

A better example would be Socrates.

[FriedrichSeneca]

A better example would be Socrates.

The thing is that there is three contemporary different authors who wrote about Socrates: Xenophon, Plato (most notably in his early dialogues) and Aristophanes (who made fun of him in one of his play); Aristotle also give us good second-hand testimonies of the role Socrates played in what we now know as philosophy.

Although we face a problem, the fact that the three testimonies are somewhat different, we can't really doubt Socrates existed.

[Anguspure]

Cesar existed - you're comparing apples and oranges though, as there is no major religion built around Cesar. There is, however a LOT of evidence that he existed. I am assuming though, that you mean Julius Cesar, rather than some other anonymous Cesar.

Your comment about Buddha is nearer the mark, but still, he's considered a religious icon rather than an, as you put it "historical figure".

I would contend that the evidence that the person of Jesus of Nazerath actually existed is far stronger than that of any other contemporanous individual but then I may be biased, I also happen to trust the writings contained in the bible for what it they claim to be.

As you say however no major religion was built around the other historical characters and so it is relatively irrelevant to anybody as to whether or not they existed.
There is no trust to destroy, not figure to be despised, no receptacle for all of our hatred for religion in these others. In the case of Budha his teachings in no way hinge upon his historicity, it is the message that is more important, and therefore he himself may or may not have been an actual person with very little damage to the beleif.

For beleivers in Jesus however; if he is only the stuff of legend, if he was not an historical character, if he was not crucified and did not die, if he was not ressurected then the whole of any religion created around him is much worse than useless.
In the words of Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:17-19 (NIV)
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

And furthermore:

1 Corinthians 15:32 (NIV)
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

The practice of morality according to Jesus teachings becomes a complete waste of time, the Agape love that he (exclusively) taught about is a mere myth and a sadistic joke to those who have tried to make a practice of it, if he did not die and rise from the grave.

The question of whether Jesus was an historical character along with his death and ressurection lies at the very core of any beleif that claims him as Messiah and there has been a hell of a lot written about it from all sides, not as an interesting question but rather as an attack or defence of the practice of beleiving in him.

As was the case at the time of the writing of the gospels however the real answer to the question depends upon who you are prepared to trust.

[Cruella]

The bible itself is not proof that Jesus existed. Using the bible to prove that Jesus was real is like using, say, The Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling to prove that Harry Potter exists.

[Angry Citizen]

I would contend that the evidence that the person of Jesus of Nazerath actually existed is far stronger than that of any other contemporanous individual but then I may be biased, I happen to trust the writings contained in the bible for what it thaey claim to be.

Well, there's the problem. Either you believe everything you see written in a book, without bothering to consider other sources (or lack thereof), or you are a skeptic and insulate yourself against false claims. The former leads to gullibility, the latter leads to a purer form of understanding. Your choice.

[Anguspure]

The bible itself is not proof that Jesus existed. Using the bible to prove that Jesus was real is like using, say, The Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling to prove that Harry Potter exists.

You miss my point somewhat.
My point is that if you are not prepared to TRUST the story from the bible in particular the ressurection (and that has to be one of the most difficult religous or otherwise stories around with the only 'evidence' being that many have beleived in it to the point of death), who gives a flying toss as to whether the man existed or not unless, that is, you are simply using him to vent your crap?

As an interesting aside howevr, the entire person of Jesus Messiah can be constructed through the use of the Jewish scriptures in the form of the prophecies about the coming Messiah.

[Anguspure]

Well, there's the problem. Either you believe everything you see written in a book, without bothering to consider other sources (or lack thereof), or you are a skeptic and insulate yourself against false claims. The former leads to gullibility, the latter leads to a purer form of understanding. Your choice.

I am a skeptic, skeptical of all the crap I've been taught that was to support the Humanist idealogy and destroy the only story that speaks of anything worth hoping for.

[Angry Citizen]

I am a skeptic, skeptical of all the crap I've been taught that was to support the Humanist idealogy and destroy the only story that speaks of anything worth hoping for.

So in short, you believe because it's a cutesy little story that gives you false hope. Gotcha. Why aren't you a Muslim, pray tell? Or a Buddhist? Personally, if I were going to go for a story just out of false hope, it'd have to be Buddhism... at least I don't have a nonsensical Biblical story to justify, gods to appease, or logical leaps to make -- just a little anti-materialism and I'm good for the next life. Maybe you should consider it.