Was Jesus real?

[docyabut2]

Hidden in a cave: First ever portrait of Jesus found in 1 of 70 ancient books? | Daily Mail Online

 

Ancient Image of Jesus Found in Egypt Tomb (newser.com)

[+joc]

I read the article and it is very interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

[zep73]

The article is from 2011. They were later declared fakes.

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

[docyabut2]

Ancient Image of Jesus Found in Egypt Tomb (newser.com)

[docyabut2]

Jesus' Crucifixion Nails Found, Says Israeli Filmmaker - TIME

[docyabut2]

Talpiot Tomb - Wikipedia

 I believe this was the tomb of Jesus:) and his family.

Edited September 7, 2021 by docyabut2

[Jon the frog]

23 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Hidden in a cave: First ever portrait of Jesus found in 1 of 70 ancient books? | Daily Mail Online

 

Ancient Image of Jesus Found in Egypt Tomb (newser.com)

It make me think of:

 

[zep73]

@docyabut2

There is no direct evidence, or contemporary written testimonies, that Jesus ever existed.

Besides, there are two Jesus figures. The gnostic, that was not a living man, but a deity, and the gospel version we know today.

Some evidence suggests that the gospels could be forgeries. They are certainly written later, than the persons supposed to have written them, lived.

[docyabut2]

Talpiot Tomb - Wikipedia

 

they are of all of Jesus `s  names in his  family but Simon  

[docyabut2]

• Jose was the nickname used for Jesus' little brother

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Talpiot Tomb - Wikipedia

 

they are of all of Jesus `s  names in his  family but Simon  

The link says it's a hoax.

Quote

It was during this symposium that Ruth Gat, while accepting a posthumous award for Yosef Gat, announced: "My husband, the lead archaeologist of the East Talpiot tomb in southern Jerusalem, believed that the tomb he excavated in 1980 was, indeed, the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."^[19] However, scholars in the seminary underlined that Yosef Gath had died well before the inscriptions in the tomb were deciphered and translated and, therefore, could not have known of any alleged connection of the tomb with Jesus of Nazareth. Amos Kloner, who had worked with Gath in the tomb, also denied that had ever said anything like that, and accused Jacobovici of influencing Mrs Gath's opinion.^[20]

 

Following the media's portrayal scholars present at the symposium accused Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron of misleading the media in claiming the symposium reopened their theory as viable. Several scholars, including significantly all of the archaeologists and epigraphers, who had delivered papers at the symposium issued an open letter of complaint claiming misrepresentation, saying that Jacobovici and Cameron's claims of support from the symposium are "nothing further from the truth" and also "that the majority of scholars in attendance—including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb—either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative" and that "the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesus’ family is virtually nil".^[21]

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

46 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Talpiot Tomb - Wikipedia

 I believe this was the tomb of Jesus:) and his family.

Jesus wouldn’t have a tomb, would he?

[docyabut2]

I want to improve that Jesus was a real person

Edited September 8, 2021 by docyabut2

[quiXilver]

[Dejarma]

22 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

I want to improve that Jesus was a real person

what Jesus are you referring to? in 2 thousand years time will people be saying= 'Kevin was a real person' ?

Jesus was a popular name at the time- like Kevin is now.....

a 'Red Dwarf" episode depicts this perfectly

[+Sherapy]

49 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

I want to improve that Jesus was a real person

Why?

[GlitterRose]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

@docyabut2

There is no direct evidence, or contemporary written testimonies, that Jesus ever existed.

Besides, there are two Jesus figures. The gnostic, that was not a living man, but a deity, and the gospel version we know today.

Some evidence suggests that the gospels could be forgeries. They are certainly written later, than the persons supposed to have written them, lived.

There are varying gnostic beliefs, but there exists a belief that the Christ figure's true sacrifice is/was coming into Earthly existence to make itself known. 

It doesn't mean that the stories of Jesus need to be taken literally. It can be taken as a mythos, but myth doesn't mean lie. Myths can relate truths.

The message is that we can connect to the Christ consciousness/Higher Self/however you phrase it...within us, and these stories of Jesus, Buddha, etc., are supposed to show us that this is possible.

Edited September 8, 2021 by GlitterRose

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

There are varying gnostic beliefs, but there exists a belief that the Christ figure's true sacrifice is/was coming into Earthly existence to make itself known. 

It doesn't mean that the stories of Jesus need to be taken literally. It can be taken as a mythos, but myth doesn't mean lie. Myths can relate truths.

The message is that we can connect to the Christ consciousness/Higher Self/however you phrase it...within us, and these stories of Jesus, Buddha, etc., are supposed to show us that this is possible.

The core of the Jesus myth is about suspending prejudice and accepting each other despite flaws. Letting love rule.

I fully accept that ideology!

 

[+joc]

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

I want to improve that Jesus was a real person

He is as real as your beliefs will allow him to be.   The proof of your belief is how you live your life.

[Wepwawet]

At 28 minutes this video easily digestable and is just about the best exploration into whether he was real or not I have come across, in video format that is. The presenter, "Metatron", knows the subject inside out, knows the Roman world inside out. He dissects all the written accounts and discusses how valid or not they might be, and acknowledges his own bias as a religious Italian. My own position is of non believer, though I'm not anti religious, and while I discard all the supernatural aspects, find it difficult to think that Christianity was founded by a committee who invented a founder from nothing in historical times when records were kept.

 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

He dissects all the written accounts and discusses how valid or not they might be, and acknowledges his own bias as a religious Italian.

The unacknowledged difficulty of all the sources mentioned is that even if the documents were not altered in copying, they are late enough that they may be reports about what Christians taught about their own origins around 100 CE, as opposed to the fruits of independent investigations by ancient authors into what really happened. And as the video does acknolwedge, some of the documents were altered.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

difficult to think that Christianity was founded by a committee ...

That's not the only, or even the leading alternative. "Committees" (synods of bishops?) do occur in the second century CE, but our problem is what happened a century or more earlier than that.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

...who invented a founder from nothing....

It doesn't have to be an "invention" and it doesn't have to be "from nothing" to be an alternative hypothesis to an identifiable single individual whose surviving students started a single religious sect within Second Temple Judaism that spread outward from Judah, attracting Gentiles along the way.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

...in historical times when records were kept.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. Any records there may ever have been about routine executions of local troublemakers a generation earlier would likely have been lost.

Edited September 8, 2021 by eight bits

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

The unacknowledged difficulty of all the sources mentioned is that even if the documents were not altered in copying, they are late enough that they may be reports about what Christians taught about their own origins around 100 CE, as opposed to the fruits of independent investigations by ancient authors into what really happened. And as the video does acknolwedge, some of the documents were altered.

That's not the only, or even the leading alternative. "Committees" (synods of bishops?) do occur in the second century CE, but our problem is what happened a century or more earlier than that.

It doesn't have to be an "invention" and it doesn't have to be "from nothing" to be an alternative hypothesis to an identifiable single individual whose surviving students started a single religious sect within Second Temple Judaism that spread outward from Judah, attracting Gentiles along the way.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. Any records there may ever have been about routine executions of local troublemakers a generation earlier would likely have been lost.

What though is the more probable scenario, a religion based on the activities of a man, or the concoction of a committee. The big problem for everybody is a lack of cast iron evidence of the existance of this man, and indeed the early years of the religion formed after his death. Into this void anybody can pour whatever concoction that suits them. So, at the beginning of the 1st Century AD there is no Christianity, and by the end of the century there is. What caused this religion to be created, what is the more likely way it could be created. An analogy is to be found in politics. If we had no records existing from the 19th Century AD, but did from the early 20th, we might conclude that while Communism was a thing, and Communists had a "mesiah" in the form of Marx, as there is no record of this Marx, he did not exist and Communism was therefore founded by a committee, let's say, a Central Committee, why not. We will have other names, such as Engels, who would also be mythical, like John the Baptist, and the likes of Lenin and Stalin would take the place of, for the sake of argument, saints Peter and Paul. But, the reality is that one real man did originate this political idea.

It could though be the case that a small group of men worked out some ideas, and one of them became their leader. This is a form of committee, but if the personality of this leader was so strong as too swamp the others, I think it possible that he would be the only name known, or as The Man, with others relegated to the role of supporters, let's call them disciples, groupies or whatever. A modern example, not perfect but I think will serve the purpose for illustration, is the NSDAP. Hitler did not create this party, but, of course became it's leader and dominant figure. Who did form it though, can anybody say without going to wiki. So while the party was formed by a small group, it was soon hijacked by a very dominant individual who re-created it in his own image, and had he and his ideology survived, in future times he would be seen as the only man responsible.

Committees of bishops certainly appeared later, and they certainly did play a role in the creation of Christianity as we now know it, but there is no sign of any committee in the early years. These radical movements tend to be the creation of one man, or one man soon becomes the only voice of a small initial group, and we see this in all the many cults that form around one man, and Christianity started as a cult.

At the end of the day I could be right or wrong, it just seems to me based on other movements that have sprung up, and always will, that they are the creation of one man, not a committee creating a foundation myth post factum. Adding layers of myth can certainly occur, but this is layers wrapped around a something, no matter now intangible, not a nothing.

Just to be clear, as it may sound as if I am defending Christianity, I have no belief in the supernatural, and that if Jesus did exist, then he was a mortal man, and nothing more.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Wepwawet

[+joc]

6 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What though is the more probable scenario, a religion based on the activities of a man, or the concoction of a committee. The big problem for everybody is a lack of cast iron evidence of the existance of this man, and indeed the early years of the religion formed after his death. Into this void anybody can pour whatever concoction that suits them. So, at the beginning of the 1st Century AD there is no Christianity, and by the end of the century there is. What caused this religion to be created, what is the more likely way it could be created. An analogy is to be found in politics. If we had no records existing from the 19th Century AD, but did from the early 20th, we might conclude that while Communism was a thing, and Communists had a "mesiah" in the form of Marx, as there is no record of this Marx, he did not exist and Communism was therefore founded by a committee, let's say, a Central Committee, why not. We will have other names, such as Engels, who would also be mythical, like John the Baptist, and the likes of Lenin and Stalin would take the place of, for the sake of argument, saints Peter and Paul. But, the reality is that one real man did originate this political idea.

It could though be the case that a small group of men worked out some ideas, and one of them became their leader. This is a form of committee, but if the personality of this leader was so strong as too swamp the others, I think it possible that he would be the only name known, or as The Man, with others relegated to the role of supporters, let's call them disciples, groupies or whatever. A modern example, not perfect but I think will serve the purpose foor illustration, is the NSDAP. Hitler did not create this party, but, of course became it's leader and dominant figure. Who did form it though, can anybody say without going to wiki. So while the party was formed by a small group, it was soon hijacked by a very dominant individual who re-created it in his own image, and had he and his ideology survived, in future times he would be seen as the only man responsible.

Committees of bishops certainly appeared later, and they certainly did play a role in the creation of Christianity as we now know it, but there is no sign of any committee in the early years. These radical movements tend to be the creation of one man, or one man soon becomes the only voice of a small initial group, and we see this in all the many cults that form around one man, and Christianity started as a cult.

At the end of the day I could be right or wrong, it just seems to me based on other movements that have sprung up, and always will, that they are the creation of one man, not a committee creating a foundation myth post factum. Adding layers of myth can certainly occur, but this is layers wrapped around a something, no matter now intangible, not a nothing.

I think you make a very good case for the existence of 'the man'.    We have several different recounts of stories of Jesus from several different authors.  The stories are similar and compelling.  And...believable.  The story of Jesus birth and life and death are all quite believable accounts.   Where are all of the other Novels written in this time about other figures such as he? I tend to go with Jesus was a real person.   The birth stories are real.  The life stories are real.  And the death stories are real.  But stories...are not real in that they are retold versions.   So you get the guy that picked up a small car two inches which allowed someone to save the person underneath, extrapolated into the guy that picked the car up and held it over his head for 15 minutes and after they removed the victim pinned under the car...someone changed the oil and did a lube job while he held the car up with one hand and ate a sandwich with the other.

Virgin birth...not true...but what is true is that the virgin birth tale wasn't the only virgin birth tale swirling around.  There was one in Korea very similar. 

The story of one guy, born into tremendous wealth visa vi a gift given by Kings from the East....who was well educated as a result and lived the life of a carpenter's son learning the trade...who after hearing all the stories of his birth, etc...leaving one day and walking out into the wilderness to find himself.  It's all quite believable.  Having found himself...he is never quite the same again ...believable...spreading by word of mouth his new epiphany on life...believable.   Acquiring a reputation that could not be shut down by his death...believable...a mystery involving the absence of his body after many witnessed it in crucifixion...believable...   Resurrection...never happened.  The man...believable.

The story of Jesus is told in such a way through various pieces that it is more believable than not believable.   The miracles that defy the Laws of Physics are not believable, but the story of one man...Jesus  is.  It is so believable that it doesn't take an ounce of faith to believe the man actually existed.   

Where it gets sketchy and where it becomes a mystery is after the crucifixion.   The body is placed in a guarded tomb and then disappears.  Obviously taken by Peter and his friends, and then obviously well hidden...and so...the mystery of 'the man' becomes Legend...and eventually a Committee does form to preserve the Body of Christ...the one piece of evidence that can never be found...because if it is...the entire premise of Resurrection becomes mute.  Enter...the secrecy and the 'church' hierarchy.  It would not surprise me at all that the bones of Jesus are locked away in a vault somewhere in Vatican City.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Just to be clear, as it may sound as if I am defending Christianity, I have no belief in the supernatural, and that if Jesus did exist, then he was a mortal man, and nothing more.

No, that's fine. And just to be equally clear, I personally rate it as more likely than not, maybe 3:2, or even 2:1 if I feel exuberant on any given day, that Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

But the question the video raises is whether that is an evidence based conclusion, or just "what makes sense" to each of us. For the reasons stated, the evidence reviewed in the video isn't very strong. In one case, the Mara bar Serapion letter, it's even almost self-negating. The author gives three examples to his son (Pythagoras, Socrates and "the wise king of the Jews" who we'll simply assume here meant Jesus).

Like Jesus, there is some question about whether there really was one specific historical Pythagoras, and if there was, what the facts of his life were. Yet the author of the letter tells his son how Pythagoras died, and places it in time and space based on a memorable disaster. How does the author know this? He's read what admirers of Pythagorean philosophy have written about their (legendary?) founder. Socrates is more secure historically than Pythagoras, but how does the author know how, where, and when Socrates died? He's read what admirers of the Socratic tradition (Plato and Xenophon)  have written about their teacher.

Now, at least a generation and maybe more than a century after the supposed death of Jesus (the estimated range of composition dates is 73-200 CE according to http://earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html), how does the author know where, how, and when Jesus died? He's read (or heard preaching about) what admirers of Christianity have written or said about their (legendary?) founder.

Mara bar Serapion rubs our noses in the problem of lack of independent knowledge, but it's the same problem that is shared by all the sources mentioned in the video: somebody told each of the various authors a story about Jesus, and each of the authors seems to relay (a small part of) that story to us. Were there "Christians" of some sort (possibly many sorts) by late in the First Century CE? Yeah, there's pretty good evidence for that. As evidence for a single founder, etc.? Less great.

You and I seem to be in agreement that the "committee" theory doesn't make much sense, so without good evidence either way, it loses to "one teacher who made a lasting impression on his students." IF those really were the only two possibilities, then we'd be done in the sense of doing as much as we possibly could do. But those aren't the only two possibilities. We could do a whole thread on the many ways "Christianity" might have coalesced around a single hero figure, real or imagined, even though it started out ______________________________ (whatever alternative we might be discussing).

I don't think that this is the thread for that; Docy was looking for something else, I'm fairly sure.

Edited September 8, 2021 by eight bits

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

I don't think that this is the thread for that; Docy was looking for something else, I'm fairly sure.

Yes, I think you're right on that, and the rest of your post I would agree with.

And, if a butterfly had flapped it's wings a few extra times back in the days, we might not have Christianity at all, but be worshipping Serapis, or Isis, or Mithras, or even Antinous, and everybody who was a believer will adamantly believe that which ever of these religions held sway, it was the "true religion". I could swing with Serapis or Isis, Mithras is a bit spooky, or at least I thought the Mithraeum at Ostia Antica was spooky. Not sure what sort of world it would be if "god" was a catamite.