Four Reasons I Think Jesus Really Existed

[glorybebe]

But what would motivate you to leave everything you have, your family, your job, everything; to go out and make the rest of the world believe in someone who was dead?

That's your motivator, that's what changed history, not words, not speeches ...POWER.

Back then, people didn't live long lives like we do today. The average life expectancy was half or even less. The promise of eternal life, coming from a man who they believe rose from the dead, was the motivation. They weren't stupid, they saw something different. They saw a unique power, and they ran and told everyone else until the day they died.

Not sure why you quoted me. I am not saying he didn't have power, meaning charisma, but IMO, that does not make him devine it makes him a special person. Human.

[Arpee]

Meh, people will just go to a website agreeing with their views that Jesus exist for more confirmation of the beliefs they ALREADY have. Likewise there are sites with good reasons that he DIDN'T exist as well and that's where those will go for those who already have the belief that he didn't exist.

(Of course there are those who are undecided and those who are convinced from one side to another as well).

[Doug1029]

And that's why none knew in Israel of the astronomy pointing to the birth of Jesus , whilst the Zoroastrians did. And we with modern science can trace these events right back to the very day ( or so)

I don't know about planetary ephemerii, but the lunar one gives 10:00 a.m. for the eclipse visible in Jerusalem on March 22, 33 AD. That's an error of about two hours over a span of almost 2000 years. Not bad. But knowing where the planets and stars were doesn't tell you much about the culture that observed them. The Jews didn't practice astrology, but Herod was an Arab - one of the reasons for the lack of popularity of the "Kings of the Jews." But when the "wise men" said they had seen the star, Herod asked "What star?" Couldn't have been a very prominent display if the king didn't know about it. Or maybe, Herod as "King of the Jews" didn't believe in astrology, either. At any rate, astrological beliefs changed over the centuries and it is now very difficult, if not impossible, to know what was believed 2000 years ago.

A lot of your work involves those from Rome, Justin the martyr was beheaded and not much of his work is known (from memory) .

Most of Justin's works are no longer extant. According to Christian tradition, Justin was beheaded along with six companions in 165 AD. A better estimate is 166 or 167 AD. At any rate, it was under the persecutions of Marcus Aurelius.

Eusebius lists The First Apology, the Second Apology, Discourse to the Greeks, Hortatory Address to the Greeks, On the Sovereignty of God, the Psalmist, On the Soul and Dialogue with Trypho as his works. Irenaeus credits him with Against Marcion and Justin mentions his own previous work Refutation of All Heresies. There are other works credited to him by various ancient writers, but how many are authentic, is unknown.

The Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho are believed to be authentic. The others are uncertain. Some dating clues: The First Apology has a phrase "when Felix was governor of Egypt." Marcus Antonius Felix was governor of Egypt from September 13, 51 AD to 58 AD. In the First Apology Justin says "that Christ was born 150 years ago under Cyrenius." Cyrenius was appointed legate governor of Syria in 6 AD; Judea had recently been added to Syria for census purposes. That would make Jesus' birth year 6 AD, to match up with the Roman census and the date of the First Apology would be 156 to 159 AD. There has been lots of argument over that census and it is always possible that Justin was using an approximate, rather than an exact figure for that 150 years.

Justin names his source as the "Memoirs of the Apostles." He could be referring to the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or to some unknown gospel. He did not consider his source to be "holy" or inspired. Justin is apparently ignorant of some parts of our gospels; he also provides details of Jesus' life that are not in our gospels and sometimes Justin's ideas contradict our gospels. Justin lists Mary's genealogy but does not list Joseph's, tracing Jesus' descent from David through Mary. Justin describes the Roman census as applying only to Judea, while Luke applies it to the whole Roman Empire. Justin states that Jesus was born "under Cyrenius and designates him as governor of Judea, not Syria. I conclude that Justin is NOT quoting our gospels.

The reference to "most excellent Felix" in Luke, suggests 152 to 159 AD for the writing of Luke and the reference to "most excellent Theophilus" suggests 159 to 180 when Theophilus was Patriarch of Antioch. The overlap in these two is the year 159 AD. That is the best estimate for the writing of Luke and its sequel, Acts.

There is minor discrepancies in the canonised bible accounts, that shows its not made of collusion IMO.

The modern canon has so many historical mistakes and conflicts so badly with other gospels, that it is very hard to believe in a first century date for any of it. Each gospel takes material available when it was written and adds other stories to it. When I say that Mark/Matthew was written in 132 to 135 and Luke/Acts in 159 AD, I only mean that one version of them was written at that time. Later writers redacted them even further.

There's also the Gospel of Thomas...used by the Coptic Christians, in that the resurrection account differs, it was a spiritual resurrection, which interestingly enough points to why Jesus asked him to poke his flesh in the traditional Canonised books..

Thomas is a sayings gospel. It's very old and is probably among the first gospels ever written. I hypothesize that it was what Papias was referring to when he described "Mark" - he certainly wasn't describing what we now call "Mark."

And the way the traditional mt Sinai was founded by Constantine is likewise strange..

What we now call "Mount Sinai" is Gebel Musa (Mount Moses). It was selected by Constantine's Mother (St. Helena) to be "Mount Sinai." She learned this in a divine revelation.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Meh, people will just go to a website agreeing with their views that Jesus exist for more confirmation of the beliefs they ALREADY have. Likewise there are sites with good reasons that he DIDN'T exist as well and that's where those will go for those who already have the belief that he didn't exist.

(Of course there are those who are undecided and those who are convinced from one side to another as well).

One must beware of ANY site. I found a bald-faced statement on an anti-Christian site (Anti-Christian is correct; this was NOT an atheist site.) that Capernum was not a real city in Jesus' day. Guess again. Based on archeological excavations, Capernum dates from the second century BC. One must search for truth and think analytically about BOTH sides of any issue.

Doug

[Doug1029]

No we dont need to be careful because the Astrologers are using highly advance computer programs to predict the positions of the sun and the planets in ancient times...

The Late Rev Don Jacobs ( AKA: moby dick jacobs) published a ground breaking book called "Astrology's Pew In Church" ( 1981) by the Joshua Foundation ( USA) at the very year that he died. in it he outlines his careful research indicating that there was a 1in2500 year conjunction of the Sun with several Planets, including Jupiter ( known as the king maker) on 1st march 7bc.

it just so happens that the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Barbara Thiering from the university of Sydney in her book " Jesus the Man" page no 58 and page 283 ( published 1992 )had concluded that Jesus was born among the Essenes on 1st of march 7bc, therefore we have 2 independent scholars coming up with the same date! and there is much other evidence to support, but 2 reference is enough for now..

The hard part is going to be getting all these conflicting dates to line up. I would like to do my own study of Jesus' (alleged) life. But the source material is of such poor quality and contains so many mistakes and inconsistencies (I mean both the traditional canon AND other gospels.) that I may not be able to conclude even that Jesus existed. And THAT creates the possibility of trying to determine a birth date fro somebody who never existed. Does anybody see a problem here?

When Was Jesus Born?

by Hannibal Giudice (Published October 1996)

Was Jesus really born on December 25th?

No. That date was selected by the Emporer Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was a "compromise" date. The feuding bishops couldn't decide, so Constantine selected the issue by decree, choosing Mythra's birth date and place to be Jesus' birth date and place.

Christians were killing each other over matters of doctrine, vandalizing pagan churches and sacred groves and otherwise behaving like they do now (Think: Timothy McVey or, abortion clinics.). Constantine needed to restore peace to the empire and it little mattered to him which group prevailed. So matters that couldn't be settled by the church, were settled by the state.

If he were a Capricorn, wouldn't he have become a philanthropist or run for public office instead of sacrificing his life? Today most astrologers and historians agree that Jesus was probably not born in December, and he also was not born in 1 AD. Until now, exactly when he was born has been a mystery and the subject of much debate. It wasn't until the advent of main frame computers that an outstanding biblical scholar/ minister/astrologer, Rev. Don Jacobs, was able to accurately replicate the same celestial dyna- mics observed by the ancient Magi that Matthew glorified "center stage" in his gospel account of the nativity. Jacobs describes his research and the date he chose in his book, Astrology's Pew in Church.

According to Jacobs, Jesus was born March 1st in the year 7 BC, at 1:21 a.m. in Bethlehem. The birth chart for this moment in time contains a cluster of six planets in Pisces: the Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. (No wonder the fish was used as a symbol for Jesus.) With all this Pisces energy, Jesus was highly spiritual, compassionate, and willing to sacrifice himself for others. A Mercury in Aquarius reveals a revolutionary mind, and Mars in Virgo indicates a tireless worker. Sagittarius rising adds the perfect personality for spreading the truth and for bringing the search for truth and meaning to others. Jacobs used this chart to follow the events which occurred in Jesus' life, and showed what astrological transits he was experiencing each time. But is this really the birth chart of Jesus?

Finally, one of the most compelling mysteries of the past two millennia has been solved. Cuneiform tablets discovered during this century in the ancient astrology school in Sippar (Babylon) reveal that the astrologers were nearly obsessed with noting and tracking movements of an extremely rare heavenly occurrence in the year 7 BC. It was a "once in 25,000 years" celestial event when the two zodiacs (sidereal and tropical) met. It was considered the promise of the birth of an avatar of all avatars. Is this why the Magi journeyed so far to meet the infant Jesus and instruct his parents as to their son's important mission, as well as to warn them of impending danger?

Exhaustive research on this rediscovered birth chart, combined with the latest historical evidence of that period, validate beyond any reasonable doubt that it is indeed the moment of incarnation of the man we have come to know as Jesus, The Christ. The implication of this recent find, once fully realized, will be nearly incalculable. The wealth of information already gleaned would fill volumes. One significant fall-out of this unique revelation will be the emergence and elevation of the use of astrology in the near future to a level unknown since the time of Jesus.

The most significant outcome of this astrological renaissance, however, will be the ability for us to now see the real Jesus illuminated in the light of astrology, the original science of the human experience. We now know what those wise Magi told the parents of Jesus concerning his life's destiny. We also know that he fulfilled his mission in absolute perfection.

Hannibal Giudice (born January 14, 1939) was a professional astrologer and futurist who maintained a full-time practice in Marin County, California, since 1978. He was been a student of history and theology for his entire adult life. Hannibal has researched the Message of the Magi since 1978.

All I did was look up the history. Nothing magical about it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Maybe from a psychic but could be some what true. John Mark Jesus`s consin wrote the frist letter of Jesus`s life, he was the beloved at the cross. He was seventeen at the time of the crucifiction. He was the compiler of a letter that later became the gospel of Mark, He wrote the letter at the age of fifty nine, 42AD. Paul and Barmbas did not ever meet or know Jesus only what known from John Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark

The truth is that nobody knows who wrote the gospels. All we have on Mark is Papias' word and that has a lot of problems. For example, Papias mentions two people named John. One was John the Presbyter; I have no idea who he might have been. The other is claimed to be John the Apostle. Papias wrote that he had "the words of John ringing in my ears." As Papias was martyred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, about 164 to 167 AD, it isn't John the Apostle he was talking about. Papias also lamented that there were no biographical accounts of Jesus' life. This from a contemporary of Justin the Martyr. So the Bishop of Hierapolis, about the year 150 AD had never heard of a biographical account of Jesus' life. But our modern canon, including Mark, is a biographical account of Jesus' life. So the claim that Mark was Paul's secretary is wrong. The person who wrote the Book of Mark lived over a century later.

Doug

[Doug1029]

For the best available information about the birth (August 21, 7bc), life and teachings, crucifixion (April 7 AD30), and resurrection (April 9) of Jesus of Nazareth, I recommend the URANTIA BOOK, (www.urantiabook).

The solar eclipse that created the "great darkness" mentioned in the gospels occurred on March 22, 33 AD. The gospels also say that Jesus was executed on Passover, which was on April 3 that year. So Jesus was executed either on March 22, 33 AD or April 3, 33 AD, if one is to believe the gospels. Any other date has to include an explanation of what caused the "great darkness."

With all due respect to Urantia, I am pursuing a scholarly approach to this. Urantia is a fantasy.

Doug

[Zaphod222]

call what you like,( the answer you seek is in my main post on the first page..)

No there is no such thing in your "main post" on the first page.

Just a lot of discombobled religious rambling.

[Irrelevant]

And that would make him 40 years old, if people read my main post on page 1 of this thread about 4 being a indemnity number some may now understand why i posted this info..

[Raptor Witness]

Not sure why you quoted me. I am not saying he didn't have power, meaning charisma, but IMO, that does not make him devine it makes him a special person. Human.

It takes far more than "charisma" to make people believe that you're Divine, especially when you start telling the story second and third hand. Stories about someone have no "charisma." It's just a story at that point, and you don't teach charisma to someone. They either have it, or they don't.,

What display of power would you need to see to make you believe in Divinity? A dead relative whose body had started to decompose, coming back to life, perhaps? That would do it for me.

If that guy said, I'll raise you up the same way. I'd believe Him. That's far beyond charisma, and I believe that story.

[absols]

everyone dies so in abstract terms the zombi that seem to b for few days more then it was thought, didnt rise from death

that is why all life is an illusion so who knows its ways is the evil will that mean to fool others rights and turn them to slaves possessed

life is the creation of possible destructions

wat is falling is possessed to fake life from powers over it

that is how who means to save u is the same that mean to kill u

which is absurd

in truth any is absolutely that is why existence truth is about freedom that cant happen but individually, u cant mean nor do a thing and its opposite unless u r a liar leaning on else abuses and never free

[Irrelevant]

a little known thing i will share..

when Jesus was resurrected after his death others were too!, this is very often forgotten a great many were also resurrected at the same time and appeared to many.

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

i can only state that for me and my understanding that the resurrection was spiritual, Thomas suggested this, Jesus asking him to poke the flesh , IMO what followed was a redaction. I will also state the Mary did not recognize Jesus and thought he was the gardener...the others who were resurrected at the same time a quietly forgotten in most teachings and never spoken about..

Saint Paul gives somewhat a clue here also:

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

the question is if we believe a physical body can enter the spirit world ( non-corporeal world) ?? can flesh enter the spirit world?? can it!? no way..and what of the others who were also resurrected at the same time??

This is why i have respect for the Atheists somewhat, because what your asked to believe is strange .

A good point made earlier was about the ' virgin birth"..IMO ( and please note this is only a opinion) Jesus father was Zechariah, father of John the baptist, who mother was also a cousin of Mary called Mary, the virgin birth was stated to hide it somewhat, Zechariah was the chief priest, therefore his sperm was slightly more holy..( im trying to say this plainly), this makes Jesus and John the baptist half brothers, in part IMO this is why John did not follow Jesus, he was a little resentful, and even after he was told who Jesus was " this is my Son' at the end of his life whilst in prison, sent his messengers to ask " are you the one who is to come or shall we expect another' the reply from Jesus " happy are those who take no offense at me/ have no doubts in me" , i believe this is because Jesus was often around sinners and this caused John to doubt him even more..I also believe it was John who was intended to be head disciple not Simon Peter, i also believe that John the baptist was Elijah! as Jesus stated " if you will accept it he is Elijah" & " I tell you Elijah did come!" , and that he ( Elijah) was meant to prepare a people to receive Jesus, instead Jesus had to find his own followers and disciples from fishermen, that these disciples were not well trained theologians and often had to ask Jesus questions when they were confronted by the learned in town, having to ask Jesus things like " why do they say Elijah must come first?"

I state Jesus was the Son of God, but found no faith, was betrayed, requiring the spirit that worked through Jesus to have to come again in the " Lord of the Second Advent"..

also the idea that the Holy spirit is male is confusing, IMO ( once again this is only my opinion) the holy spirit is the Female part of God, SHE entered Mary to give birth to her Son, then left, there's a few passages where Mary is somewhat embarrassed by Jesus teaching, and Jesus says " who is my mother, who are my brothers, only those who did the will of my father"

in closing i will ask the reader to remember what it takes to worthy of Jesus? and bring a reference to this passage about the end times ( end of the fallen world)

" Many will say to me in that day "lord, lord, have we not cast out many demons and done great wonders in your name", and i shall say to them " depart from me you workers of inequity, i was never known to you!"

i will not say more in this thread, what has been offered will already cause some offense ( only my opinion) because its different to what the others will tell you.. Jesus is my King,my lords life was sad, he never celebrated a birthday because his life was a offering, he was betrayed by everybody.. the true path is rocky, narrow, and the lions are always waiting to devour somebody. Take care.

[Frank Merton]

I have no problem with the apparent conflict between the teaching of the virgin birth and the idea that Joseph son of Zechariah was Jesus' father. Joseph was engaged to Mary at the time of the conception, and decided to accept the child as his. This is not unusual, and the adoption would be counted as descent.

There are some discrepancies in the reported descent from David, something that clues us that part of it was invented. By this point in time these descents were forgotten.

The basic idea that Jesus had to be the literal "Son of God," in the sense that he was parented by a deity, seems to have derived from similar claims made of quite a few ancients, such as Alexander and Caesar and almost all of the noble families or Rome and the Monarchic families of the Hellenistic kingdoms. It is of course a primitive idea that does not show well of Christian philosophy and raises all sorts of problems regarding how such a child could have had a childhood.

[glorybebe]

It takes far more than "charisma" to make people believe that you're Divine, especially when you start telling the story second and third hand. Stories about someone have no "charisma." It's just a story at that point, and you don't teach charisma to someone. They either have it, or they don't.,

What display of power would you need to see to make you believe in Divinity? A dead relative whose body had started to decompose, coming back to life, perhaps? That would do it for me.

If that guy said, I'll raise you up the same way. I'd believe Him. That's far beyond charisma, and I believe that story.

You take the Bible at face value-fair enough. IMO it is a grain of truth that was taken and blown out of proportion along with all other mythology.

[Frank Merton]

If some writing is big enough, it is bound to hit the truth occasionally, if only by accident.

[Likely Guy]

Jesus may very well have existed. What he was or represented, I can't say. Even, if true, I just don't see what bearing that has on my life.

[Raptor Witness]

You take the Bible at face value-fair enough. IMO it is a grain of truth that was taken and blown out of proportion along with all other mythology.

I believe in stories told by the campfire, written down so they wouldn't be forgotten.

What is death, without a memory of it? What is life, without death to remind us of that memory?

Life and death are no myth.

[libstaK]

Last week we watched 'The Last Temptation of Christ' for the first time which is now 25 years old (the book 28 years older than that) and I was floored. I can understand why it was so controversial, especially 25 years ago. It's aged really well too and I can't remember another movie I've seen in the past year that's had me thinking about it so much the day after.

Heartily agree, it is a much better and more poignant offering than Mel Gibson's more recent offering. I never understood the controversy it was a part of it's brilliance that it pointed out what Jesus truly sacrificed, the same things we take for granted in our own lives.

[Bluefinger]

Nothing, nothing and more nothing.

Wouldn't it be more wise to hear him out first?

[Bluefinger]

Jesus may very well have existed. What he was or represented, I can't say. Even, if true, I just don't see what bearing that has on my life.

And what if everything the Bible says about Him is true?

[Rlyeh]

Wouldn't it be more wise to hear him out first?

Wise? No, I don't expect a response from a character whose authors are long dead.

[Frank Merton]

And what if everything the Bible says about Him is true?

Speculation contrary to fact.

[UrantianX]

The solar eclipse that created the "great darkness" mentioned in the gospels occurred on March 22, 33 AD. The gospels also say that Jesus was executed on Passover, which was on April 3 that year. So Jesus was executed either on March 22, 33 AD or April 3, 33 AD, if one is to believe the gospels. Any other date has to include an explanation of what caused the "great darkness."

With all due respect to Urantia, I am pursuing a scholarly approach to this. Urantia is a fantasy.

Doug

With all your due respect, Urantia is scholarly in a few topics, and gives an extraordinary account of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This is what the Urantia Revelation says about itself:

^(1008.2)

^92:4.9

5.

The Urantia Papers.

The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.

And this is one of the print books it looks like .

LuisMarco, 29, Mexico City