Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
zep73

Did Jesus Exist?

3,831 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will do

 

It's quite comforting when you think about it.

That the kingdom of God is within you. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
29 minutes ago, Will Due said:

It's quite comforting when you think about it.

That the kingdom of God is within you.

And that's why Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity, being the Son of God or any of the Bible. That was all just imposed on him and said to be his words as a way to create a religion used to instil fear of death and damnation so that people would come under the church and allow themselves to be controlled.

Jesus' teachings speak of spirituality - and whoever wrote them down (most likely someone close to the Romans, who were in control of Jerusalem but not the Jews at the time) just put a religious spin on them to include God into it. Here we have this wild, contradictory mix of destructive, racist God who picks the Hebrews out of everybody to favour and allows them to slaughter everyone else in His name. Then you've got hippy Jesus who's all about love, forgiveness, grace, humility, goodness, "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's" and "turning the other cheek". Throw that at the Jews and watch the crux of the revolution melt out under the fire of the Holy Ghost. What the hell, let's start the Roman Catholic Church while we're at it. This way we can scare them into church by threatening their eternal salvation - AND convince them to tithe their earnings as well. They think they're being charitable and obedient while we're earning double the taxes now. And they think they're getting something good now, because they're all promised God's love and favour so long as they believe. Bloody foolproof, I tells ya!

In all likelihood, Jesus was more of a hippy-spiritualist-Buddhist than the incarnation of God himself. Jesus-era Jerusalem wasn't just full of Jews and Romans like every depiction likes to suggest (including the Bible). My theory is that Jesus was a spiritual teacher, but never proclaimed to be the Son of God. Probably more like teaching people about their own divinity and spiritual immortality, reincarnation, mindfulness, consciousness, meditation etc. He wasn't special. He just got hijacked because he was popular at a time when the real creators of New Testament Christianity needed a scapegoat to start their new branch of Judeo-Christian religion. They knew the Jews were expecting a Messiah, Saviour and King - so why not tell them that he's already been and gone - and that he wants you to blindly believe in him, be nice to everybody and make sure you donate to the church and respect authority. Throw in a few miracles and POOF! You've just created a Christ.

Bet they didn't count on it going global and lasting 2000 years though.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

The last time I read about Thor's origins the best that was suggested (due to him being a god of thunder and his association with oaks) that he developed from a Proto-Indo-European Storm god, who was also developed into other similar deities (like Perun) and in Greece possibly was merged into Zeus (since oaks were also the holy tree of Zeus at Dodona)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkwunos

Thor was the merger of the storm god and blacksmith god.

Edited by Piney
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

According to Netflix... 

Quote

 

[00.02:11]

~

He's coming back on pay for view... 

~

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Eternal Flame
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

All sorts of silly things have been said about the Jesus person, many of them completely contradictory. I think the starting point should be, and perhaps the departure point also, what was he supposed to have said ?

He is from bethleem he must have spooken that language the holy mary was in her language mariam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Eternal Flame

In africa mary is african in japan she is represented in japanese but in reallity she was from bethleem her name was mariam.

Edited by The Eternal Flame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Suppose that the "miracles" were really initiation ceremonies at Qumran?

That's what the "Lazarus incident" was. A Essene initiation.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Yes, Jesus existed. His loving father sent him as mentioned in the old testament.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

The miracles business is what draws the throng. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender

Did Jesus exist, for Christians he did if they truly beleive what they are taught. For the rest of the world I am not certain it really matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
15 hours ago, Habitat said:

We immediately know that no proof exists of anything supernatural happening , and it seems to be the supernatural that reels people into being interested in it. So it becomes a matter of looking at the material apart from that, as to what may indeed be testable, for its usefulness.

Assume that nothing supernatural happened.  Then, explain the stories.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
14 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

The burden of evidence lies with those who make extraordinary claims. Like the claim that a god walked the Earth 2000 years ago.
The next logic step is to investigate if there is any truth to that. But there isn't. None of the Biblical writers met Jesus. Neither did any contemporary historians. And there is zero physical evidence.

Therefore the claim fails.

This is not a trial.  There is no burden of proof. 

But it is an exercise in rational thinking.  We must do our best to avoid a mistake.

How do we do that?  We establish the lack of the supernatural as our null hypothesis.  Then we look for evidence to disprove it.  If we find that evidence, we have proven the supernatural.  If we do not, we limit our conclusion to our findings being consistent with the lack of the supernatural.  That's the best we can do.  AND we have not made a reasoning mistake.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djedi

The majority of bible scholars agree that Jesus existed but when it comes to historical facts only his baptism and crucifixtion make the list of things they agree upon. I suspect that the majority of these bible scholars are Christians themselves, which has consequenses regarding their objectivity imo.

The Christ myth theory makes far more sense imho.

I think Jesus Christ was most likely a mythical construct, probably invented by hellenised Egyptian Jews from Alexandria.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog

There was a kid named Jesus at my elementary school, yeah Jesus exist and he suffered a lot because of his name!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Assume that nothing supernatural happened.  Then, explain the stories.

Doug

Don't assume anything, would be a better starting point. The Jesus story has to resonate deeply, or it simply dies out long ago. It is still around because it is accords with either a deep intuition about a wider reality, or it offers a promised escape from the prison of mortality, or some mix of the two. But I see nothing in the story, that says that any middlemen are needed, between God and man, and the entire structure of the church is founded on just such a need. The irony of that, perhaps, is that without the middlemen, the story fades, but they act to prevent the true realisation of the goal, by insisting rituals can substitute for the lonely path of the true devotee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Don't assume anything, would be a better starting point. The Jesus story has to resonate deeply, or it simply dies out long ago. It is still around because it is accords with either a deep intuition about a wider reality, or it offers a promised escape from the prison of mortality, or some mix of the two. But I see nothing in the story, that says that any middlemen are needed, between God and man, and the entire structure of the church is founded on just such a need. The irony of that, perhaps, is that without the middlemen, the story fades, but they act to prevent the true realisation of the goal, by insisting rituals can substitute for the lonely path of the true devotee.

I like your explanation.

If you don't assume anything, you are in fact making two assumptions, or null hypotheses:  1.  The supernatural exists.  2.  The supernatural does not exist.  The only way to prove either of them is to find an example of the supernatural.  What if you don't?  That might mean that 1 is true, or it might mean that you have not looked in the right place.  And that leaves you with no way to resolve the issue.

 

I have been conducting an on-going study of Moses and the Exodus.  I have found rational explanations of every one of Moses' miracles except one:  the burning bush.  While there are explanations of how a bush could burn without being consumed, there is no explanation of how it could be ignited without the observer being aware of it.  So that one's half-proven.

The best guess for Moses is that he was a priest of On named Osar-Seph who later became the leader of a slave revolt against Seti I in the years before he became Pharaoh.  There are several other good candidates, too.  They all probably contributed something to the story.

At any rate, I started this as a Christian and the process of studying about Moses turned me into an agnostic.  Be careful what you start investigating.  You never know where it's going to take you.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4 hours ago, Djedi said:

The majority of bible scholars agree that Jesus existed but when it comes to historical facts only his baptism and crucifixtion make the list of things they agree upon. I suspect that the majority of these bible scholars are Christians themselves, which has consequenses regarding their objectivity imo.

The Christ myth theory makes far more sense imho.

I think Jesus Christ was most likely a mythical construct, probably invented by hellenised Egyptian Jews from Alexandria.

Suppose that a man named Jesus did something extraordinary.  The word got around and people admired him for it.  Then another person named Jesus did something else extraordinary.  Work got around that Jesus had done this other thing, too.  Then it happened again, and again.  Before long, Jesus was a miracle man.  And nobody remembered that there were really four people named Jesus.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

If you don't assume anything, you are in fact making two assumptions, or null hypotheses:  1.  The supernatural exists.  2.  The supernatural does not exist.  The only way to prove either of them is to find an example of the supernatural.  What if you don't?  That might mean that 1 is true, or it might mean that you have not looked in the right place.  And that leaves you with no way to resolve the issue.

Without the supernatural element, the Jesus story is long dead. Despite what some here like to say. It seems a forlorn hope that the supernatural stories of the bible are ever "proved", or even any such stories, anywhere. Which tempts people to draw a conclusion of nullity. But  strictly technically, that is not justified, and neither is it in actuality, in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 12/5/2019 at 2:50 PM, sci-nerd said:

The burden of evidence lies with those who make extraordinary claims. Like the claim that a god walked the Earth 2000 years ago.
The next logic step is to investigate if there is any truth to that. But there isn't. None of the Biblical writers met Jesus. Neither did any contemporary historians. And there is zero physical evidence.

Therefore the claim fails.

Greetings.

I think you’re right that the claim fails....but for different reasons.  Did you forget about the Apostle John?  He’s a bible author, or is believed to be, and he wrote a gospel, several epistles, and The Revelation.

i think it fails because if the Bible were true we’d all be dead now.  The Bible called for the end of the world in the generation following the Apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Did you forget about the Apostle John?  He’s a bible author, or is believed to be, and he wrote a gospel, several epistles, and The Revelation.

Bible scholars have been able to prove that the gospels weren't written by the apostles. They were written sometime after once the stories had spread around.

"Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple."

- Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman (a bible scholar)

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, jypsijemini said:

Bible scholars have been able to prove that the gospels weren't written by the apostles. They were written sometime after once the stories had spread around.

"Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple."

- Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman (a bible scholar)

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

Not really proof by the definition of the word. As much as I love Bart his opinion isn't proof. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Not really proof by the definition of the word. As much as I love Bart his opinion isn't proof.

Read what was said. Does it make sense? Do you read the Bible? I haven't read mine in almost a decade but I know what he's saying proves his point.

Paul refers to himself in the first person when writing the letters. So why should we assume that the apostles penned the Gospels with the intention that they become references for the Christian church so they just wrote them all down in the third person? It'd be much more believable if they claimed them as their own eyewitness accounts, telling us what they saw Jesus do and what they heard him say first hand.

King David wrote the Psalms in the first person, yet someone else wrote the accounts about his life.

Revelation is written in the first person but the Gospel of John is not.

Edited by jypsijemini
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, jypsijemini said:

Read what was said. Does it make sense? Do you read the Bible? I haven't read mine in almost a decade but I know what he's saying proves his point.

Paul refers to himself in the first person when writing the letters. So why should we assume that the apostles penned the Gospels with the intention that they become references for the Christian church so they just wrote them all down in the third person? It'd be much more believable if they claimed them as their own eyewitness accounts, telling us what they saw Jesus do and what they heard him say first hand.

King David wrote the Psalms in the first person, yet someone else wrote the accounts about his life.

Revelation is written in the first person but the Gospel of John is not.

No. It backs up his point. It doesn't prove it. 

I know Bart's arguments, I agree with him. Yet it doesn't prove anything.

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.