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

Habitat
3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no, i don't get that

Matey, my point was that if Jesus was the 'intergalactic emissary', then he wasn't very well briefed, because he expresses amazement at how, as I interpret it, the human constitution contains a portal to access the "beyond" and its mysteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, Crikey said:

Apart from the 27 separate books of the New T, there's also a truckload of historical accounts that never made it into the bible, how many more do you need?..:rolleyes:

Check 'em-

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Marcion

Gospel of Basilides

Gospel of Truth (Valentinian)

Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms

Gospel of Mary

Gospel of Judas

Greek Gospel of the Egyptians

Gospel of Philip

Pseudo-Gospel of the Twelve

Gospel of Perfection

Jewish-Christian gospels

Gospel of the Hebrews

Gospel of the Nazarenes

Gospel of the Ebionites

Gospel of the Twelve

Infancy gospels[edit]

Armenian Infancy Gospel[citation needed]

Protoevangelium of James

Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (Gospel of the Nativity of Mary)

Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

History of Joseph the Carpenter

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Latin Infancy Gospel

Syriac Infancy Gospel

Gospel of the Lots of Mary (Coptic collection of 37 oracles; ca. A.D. 500)

Partially preserved gospels

Gospel of Peter

Gospel of Eve

Gospel of Mani

Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel)

Coptic Gospel of the Twelve

Reconstructed gospels

Secret Gospel of Mark

Gospel of Matthias

Gospel of Cerinthus

Gospel of Apelles

Gospel of Valentinus

Gospel of the Encratites

Gospel of Andrew

Gospel of Barnabas – not to be confused with the 16th century pro-Moslem work of the same name

Gospel of Bartholomew

Gospel of Hesychius

Gospel of Lucius

Gospel of Merinthus

Gospel of the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets

Memoirs of the Apostles

Papyrus Egerton 2

Fayyum Fragment

Oxyrhynchus Papyri

Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Papyrus Berolinensis 11710

Papyrus Cairensis 10735

Papyrus Merton 51

Strasbourg Fragment

Gospel of the Seventy

Gospel of Nicodemus

Gospel of Barnabas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

Unfortunately, these do nothing more than attest to the fictionalized invented character of the NT. 

I don’t find anything malicious about fictionalizing a character to have to “ love” though for some Jesus seems to be an exalted attachment figure, the protective caring parental figure ( archetype) there are studies that for some these relationships are more than analogies they reflect a genuine attachment. 

Religious devotion, bible reading, prayer keeps one in close proximity to their beloved Jesus, it in a sense nurtures the relationship for some this meets a lot of needs. 
 

While it doesn’t serve me, I see where for some it fulfills a lot of needs and this is where I see the value in religion for those that need it, Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts.


I see no issue with this it seems like a coping system. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
43 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts.

In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ?

I can’t answer that, you have to ask Will, or Walker they think their attachment figures are real, and routinely defend their existence. 
 


 

I don’t get the same sense with Crikey, but I don’t know him that well.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, eight bits said:

In which case, it is off-topic in this thread.

Did Jesus Exist?

Focus.

Christopher Hitchens famously argued in favor of a historical Jesus, despite his many and vigorous commitments against Christian pretensions to "truth." This story was his lynchpin in favor of HJ. Because the story was historically unlikely to be true, it would be reasonable to ask why somebody would fabricate it. That in turn supported his thesis that "Luke" wished to salvage "Matthew's" claim that Jesus' birth in and of itself fulfilled a vague prophecy in Jewish scripture, but had to square that with common knowledge of a real Galilean Jesus.

I am not persuaded, but there it is: on-topic discussion of the story.

In contrast, if Joseph had property in the area, for which there is no evidence, and if he couldn't have registered it without dragging his at-term pregnant wife along, for which there is no evidence, and the couple couldn't have stayed with Mary's cousins, which would need an explanation, then "Luke" would merely have misstated the reasons for Joseph's trip. Everything else would be fine. Well, except that Herod the Great isn't king anymore, contrary to Matthew, but hey, if we can make up property for Joseph then we can make up another census for Quirinius, too.

No, that's simply BS. If what's on the page doesn't constrain our inquiry, then it's irrelevant to the topic.

And that's why I am not going to discuss your version of the story. You, or anybody, can rewrite any story. If you want to discuss what "Luke" wrote, then sweet. If you want to discuss yet another one of your fantasies, then you're not doing it with me.

It does indeed, if jesus was born in Bethlehem because his father was required to go there to fulfil the requirements of roman law and he was born sometime in , or close to, the years that census was conducted over 

The idea that the birth in Bethlehem was constructed to validate a prophecy has no evidential basis, although a birth there may have contributed to the later  mythology of christ   It  is quite likely luke got some of it wrong. The most likely error is the year of christs birth, which may be out by many years.

You keep assuming  that people lied, constructed false histories etc. all within the lifetime of people living through the events.

  That assumption, and attribution of deceit, comes  from within you and colours yout interpretation of all this. eg given the lack of evidence you believe the whole tale was false More likely  the lack of evidence just means there is no longer any evidence. One writer did claim  that the records of joseph's attendance at the census still existed (some time after the story was told)  and could be checked by those who believed the whole tale was false  

Adding in a fake census as a reason for the journey to Bethlehem is unlikely in such a narrative  (Oh i guess your argument is that  the christ who never existed, was not actually born in bethlehem) :)  

The real point here, is that none of these points disprove the historical existence of jesus, and indeed don't even cast enough  doubt  on it, to convince people far more educated, informed, and expert in the field than you or I.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, Habitat said:

It did run second. 

ah well, i should have had an "win or place " bet  :(   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It does indeed, if jesus was born in Bethlehem because his father was required to go there to fulfil the requirements of roman law and he was born sometime in , or close to, the years that census was conducted over 

The idea that the birth in Bethlehem was constructed to validate a prophecy has no evidential basis, although a birth there may have contributed to the later  mythology of christ   It  is quite likely luke got some of it wrong. The most likely error is the year of christs birth, which may be out by many years.

You keep assuming  that people lied, constructed false histories etc. all within the lifetime of people living through the events.

  That assumption, and attribution of deceit, comes  from within you and colours yout interpretation of all this. eg given the lack of evidence you believe the whole tale was false More likely  the lack of evidence just means there is no longer any evidence. One writer did claim  that the records of joseph's attendance at the census still existed (some time after the story was told)  and could be checked by those who believed the whole tale was false  

Adding in a fake census as a reason for the journey to Bethlehem is unlikely in such a narrative  (Oh i guess your argument is that  the christ who never existed, was not actually born in bethlehem) :)  

The real point here, is that none of these points disprove the historical existence of jesus, and indeed don't even cast enough  doubt  on it, to convince people far more educated, informed, and expert in the field than you or I.  

I think he is pointing out that the fantasy is coming from you. He prefers to stick to the script, explore the actual history not confabulate and speculate about nonsense. 
 

We have bonafide experts on here and the consensus is you are perpetuating bs. 
 

Just my two cents. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think he is pointing out that the fantasy is coming from you. He prefers to stick to the script, explore the actual history not confabulate and speculate about nonsense. 
 

We have bonafide experts on here and the consensus is you are perpetuating bs. 
 

Just my two cents. 

lol I kept my mouth shut about the fantasy comment. I am the one sticking to accepted historical understanding. He is promoting a theory only put forward by fringe academics  (some of whom have only made their reputation from  such unevidenced  radical theories)  and rejected by almost every professional historian 

If he were right, 99% plus of historical experts would not accept christ as a real historical person, and his birth as one verified part of that history.  

Bonafide experts in biblical history ? Where?

8 bits, for one, claims that historians who accept christ as real  (99% plus of all historians) only do so because of professional bias/indoctrination  and social expectations  He believes in a general and persistent bias among historians, even though a majority are not Christian, and not even religious

Now, who is living in a fantasy world? :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Matey, my point was that if Jesus was the 'intergalactic emissary', then he wasn't very well briefed, because he expresses amazement at how, as I interpret it, the human constitution contains a portal to access the "beyond" and its mysteries.

matey, i've no idea what you're talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
43 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ?

To me, any figure you KNOW to exist, must be real and evidenced (to you) 

A person can rightly believe or disbelieve in any figure for whom they have insufficient evidences to know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
34 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I can’t answer that, you have to ask Will, or Walker they think their attachment figures are real, and routinely defend their existence. 
 


 

I don’t get the same sense with Crikey, but I don’t know him that well.

The only thing that needs to be real, is the meaning and content of the words spoken by the "character" in the piece. And blessed it be, that it is experientially confirmable, at least in theory. A marked improvement on atheism, whose central tenet is definitely not demonstrable , even in  theory.

Share this post


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

matey, i've no idea what you're talking about

Well guv, if you got to sleep at night, instead of being up all night doing God knows what, your old noggin would work better !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol I kept my mouth shut

:Dyeah- I feel you need to look up the definitions of <mouth> & <shut>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Unfortunately, these do nothing more than attest to the fictionalized invented character of the NT. 

I don’t find anything malicious about fictionalizing a character to have to “ love” though for some Jesus seems to be an exalted attachment figure, the protective caring parental figure ( archetype) there are studies that for some these relationships are more than analogies they reflect a genuine attachment. 

Religious devotion, bible reading, prayer keeps one in close proximity to their beloved Jesus, it in a sense nurtures the relationship for some this meets a lot of needs. 
 

While it doesn’t serve me, I see where for some it fulfills a lot of needs and this is where I see the value in religion for those that need it, Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts.


I see no issue with this it seems like a coping system. 

You are factually wrong, Christ was a real person

However, how you perceive him is a matter of belief or faith  He might be seen as only a man, as a god, or as something in between 

You can believe that  some stories about him  are pure fiction Others may believe differently and  some may have good reasons to believe his miracles were real  eg they have experienced similar things in their own lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

:Dyeah- I feel you need to look up the definitions of <mouth> & <shut>

I was going to point out to 8 bits that, officially, it is not me in historical fantasy land but his own opinions. However i decided not to.  He already knows my opinion, and i know his.

The overwhelming historical consensus is that christ was a real historical figure and that those who do'nt accept this  are not applying historical evidences and methodologies, but being influenced by other things, into a belief which is actually a fantasy 

Ps i dont open my mouth while posting. I breathe through my nose   :) 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


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

Well guv, if you got to sleep at night, instead of being up all night doing God knows what, your old noggin would work better !

Why do you go on about why I'm typing at this hour? I'm up at this time (UK time) earning tons of cash mate!!!! I sleep when I feel the need to! Do you have anything else to say? 

Or are you going to carry on boring me? All due respect;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ps i dont open my mouth while posting. 

or your brain.... but that's just my opinion 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol I kept my mouth shut about the fantasy comment. I am the one sticking to accepted historical understanding. He is promoting a theory only put forward by fringe academics  (some of whom have only made their reputation from  such unevidenced  radical theories)  and rejected by almost every professional historian 

If he were right, 99% plus of historical experts would not accept christ as a real historical person, and his birth as one verified part of that history.  

Bonafide experts in biblical history ? Where?

8 bits, for one, claims that historians who accept christ as real  (99% plus of all historians) only do so because of professional bias/indoctrination  and social expectations  He believes in a general and persistent bias among historians, even though a majority are not Christian, and not even religious

Now, who is living in a fantasy world? :) 

You are confused. The historical Jesus was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans and was a Jewish preacher. This is what is meant by most historians accept  a historical Jesus. Eighty does too. In fact, all of us accept a historical Jesus. 

Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. 
 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. 

yep

that is actually a FACT--- logical/ rational thinking individuals love facts= don't we

Edited by Dejarma
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Just now, Sherapy said:

You are confused. The historical Jesus was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans and was a Jewish preacher. This is what is meant by most historians accept  a historical Jesus. Eighty does too. In fact, all of us accept a historical Jesus. 

Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. 
 

 

Not sure that 8bits does, given his  arguments

so you accept that the character, jesus, was not fictional, but you believe that some of the stories about his life are fiction? 

Your words implied strongly that the actual character/  person was a fictional one but i accept your point here  Its a problem with the word character.

it can mean the individual or it can mean the nature of that individual

The character of jesus was real but you argue the character,  or nature, attributed to him was not always real   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep

see my post above 

It depends how you use "character."

Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus   

His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief.

You can believe it  to be fictional, or real .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 hours ago, Piney said:

:blink:

........and half the Church Father's just exploded in their tombs.......

lol The problem is that half the church fathers never read or studied the bible They followed established doctrine  They just wanted to construct a god who was omniscient and all powerful to impressed and scare their followers One thorough read of the bible shows that. despite wht some writers in the bible thought, god was never all knowing or all powerful  He cant be, because the future is not set and thus not knowable, and humans have many options due to free will,  each of which can shape a different future and any of which could be chosen 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not sure that 8bits does, given his  arguments

so you accept that the character, jesus, was not fictional, but you believe that some of the stories about his life are fiction? 

Your words implied strongly that the actual character/  person was a fictional one but i accept your point here  Its a problem with the word character.

it can mean the individual or it can mean the nature of that individual

The character of jesus was real but you argue the character,  or nature, attributed to him was not always real   

No, I accept that there was a guy named Jesus, who was a Jewish preacher and was crucified by the Romans, 

 

The biblical Jesus was a fictional character, I accept this character as a literary creation, a myth. 
 

That is it. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

see my post above 

It depends how you use "character."

Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus   

His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief.

You can believe it  to be fictional, or real .

Christ is a fictional character. 
And you believe this too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

see my post above 

It depends how you use "character."

Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus   

His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief.

You can believe it  to be fictional, or real .

And therein lies your problem. Jesus the man was likely a real person whereas Jesus Christ/the Annointed is unevidenced. Using the title “Christ” unnecessarily conflates the two. 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

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.