Existence of Jesus

[Giff]

People named Jesus have existed. It was a pretty common name back then. So a Jesus have exicted for sure, but not the one in the bible. Maybe one Jesus was, let say a leader of rebel group or something. Which later on became a symbol for the rebellion against the roman empire, for some people atleast, which later on for some reason became a religion.

I dont think Jesus from the bible have exicted, no way. I can think that name Jesus perhaps came from someone that some people like and became some sort of superhero for some that made up a bunch of stories about him. There were perhaps maybe just was some guy named Jesus or somehting that people like that got killed eventually for trying to stand up against the roman empire.

One thing I want to know is where the name Jesus of Nazareth came from? As you said it is for sure a character totally made up, but is he based on someone with the same name? His maybe is created the same way as Santa Claus did?

[chatpilot]

Giff go read some of the information on that web link I posted you will find alot of the answers regarding the historical Christ there.It's too much info to volley back and forth with on a thread it's best if you research it for yourself and then come to your own conclusions.There are many reasons why I dont believe he ever existed but it gets old and repetitive when you have to keep saying the same thing over and over on the same subject on internet threads.

Check out the info and become more acquainted with the subject matter then if you would like we can discuss this topic even further and in more detail.

[downbeatplumb]

I tend to think that Jesus was a David Koresh/Hitler type.
Charismatic enough to convince others of his power.
I think that the magic man element can be ascribed to.
A: Being ficticious and.
B: exageration-raised from the dead indeed. how good was the diagnsising of death in those days, what was the qualifications/experience of the diagnoser. personaly I'd like to see the paperwork.

[chatpilot]

Here are two more reasons not to believe that Jesus never existed and that his whole story as narrated in the gospels is pure fiction.

1.Outside of the gospels there are no records of his trial or crucifixion.
2.To date they have not found the so called tomb of Jesus.

[Giff]

Here are two more reasons not to believe that Jesus never existed and that his whole story as narrated in the gospels is pure fiction.

1.Outside of the gospels there are no records of his trial or crucifixion.
2.To date they have not found the so called tomb of Jesus.

You are right chatpilor, absolutely. AS you say there is no indication that he have exicted.

However, I wonder how the character in beginning was created? For some reason I think that must be someone that have been the model for the potrait for Jesus in the bible. Yes, it is a metaphore! You understand me? The potrait is not looking like the model, not even close. Maybe when the potrait was first painted did it look like the model. But then over time have it been change and modified so it became a potrait of superhero, wich was influenced by other paintings that was totally fictinal but that people thought suited the painting of Jesus.

Hope it didnt confuse you, but do you understand me?

Otherwise I can put it like this
Jesus in the bible is made of:
0,5% of the orginal guy
99,5% of myths and stories written down by christian followers that modified it to sound better.

[chatpilot]

Lol I get you Giff.Well in general I am of the opinion that all religious beliefs are derived from myths and have never been influenced by actual persons in the historical record.As all things religious beliefs must evolve and I beleive that Jesus was a product of the progression of religious beliefs.Since Jehova, man has been trying to humanize their concept of God.Make him more or less approachable.If you read the O.T. Jehova is given many traits of man such as Jealousy,anger,love,hate,etc.In Jesus God is brought down from heaven to our level of being a human bieng and having the opportunity to experience what it's like to be human.Religionist slowly but surely have been humanizing God for ages and those attempts have culminated in the character of Jesus.

[Edwardo Piet]

The burden of proof is not restricted to science: it extends to any claim that is not the null-hypothesis (e.g., if I claim there are no fairies, and you claim there are fairies, the burden does not fall on me, since mine is the null).

The Bible is a collection of documents which make a vast number of direct and indirect claims. The Book of Exodus mentions Egypt a fair number of times, which is an indirect claim that Egypt exists (or, at least, existed). Now, it just so happens that Egypt does exist, which adds credence to the associated parts of the Bible.

This is why I don't say "I don't believe in the Bible" or "The Bible is false", because it isn't: there are parts which we know to be true, parts which we know to be false, parts which are plausible, parts which are fantastical, etc. It's also worth pointing out that verifying one claim tells us nothing about the plethora of other claims.

Good post. I know that the burden of proof is not just science. I temporarily forgot - in other words I made an accidental mistake.

Of course its in law, history and many other subjects too.

But the claim of whether Jesus DID or DID not exist or not in the real world - that's a scientific one right?

I dunno I guess that for some reason I thought that since I think its likely that at least ONE thing in there is true (not the supernatural stuff obviously), or a few, lol - that perhaps the whole message of the new testament - Jesus - being an important issue, if any of it is right - its that Jesus existed PERHAPS.

Although - if he DID exist. He obviously had no special powers and isn't a God - rather it would be he has been worshipped as one 'The Jesus' of the bible is just based on a real man who had NO powers and was NOT the son of God (Well I mean duh. That's just silly).

But one again - good post.

Very good post.

I sometimes wonder when there's ever a time when probability can sneak in without evidence and only based on something like intuition. Something FOR SOME REASON seems about a certain probability and you find the evidence later....

Well I have no evidence for that so I have no reason to believe that.

But I keep my options open.

I don't believe without evidence (well, as you can see - I TRY). But I am open to evidence that I don't yet know about! (well at least most of it I hope! Once again - I try.).

Evf

[chatpilot]

DD_8630 I have said before that the bible is a mish mash of fact with fiction and it obviously is.But I still stand by my opinion that the fantastical aspects of scripture are simply false and fabricated by the active imagination of man.Just because certain places and names of people that did exist throughout history are included in the bible does not make that document totally reliable.The question in this forum is did Jesus exist and basing myself on the evidence that is available I have come to the logical conclusion that he did not exist at any point in time.

During the alleged time of his existence there were historians writing about many things and events occurring in those days.I just think it odd that considering all the fantastical claims about Jesus that not one historian of his day wrote anything about him or his exploits outside of the gospels.Not to mention the many times that his story contradicts itself over and over.There is no way to prove he existed forensically since he conveniently ascended to heaven,no way to prove what he said since all of the accounts in the gospels are second and third hand accounts.He cannot be found in any Roman tribunal records and his story has been told so many other times before in mythology prior to the Jesus myth.

He has been mentioned briefly in Herodotus and other known writers but those have been found to have been later insertions into the text.Chrisians have spent two thousand plus years trying to authenticate the story of Jesus and in my opinion have come up short in every attempt.

[DD_8630]

DD_8630 I have said before that the bible is a mish mash of fact with fiction and it obviously is.But I still stand by my opinion that the fantastical aspects of scripture are simply false and fabricated by the active imagination of man.Just because certain places and names of people that did exist throughout history are included in the bible does not make that document totally reliable.

Which was the point of my post: just as the theist can't use one part of the Bible to verify the rest, neither can we use the absurdity of one to refute the rest. As you say, it is a mish-mash of fact and fiction.

The question in this forum is did Jesus exist and basing myself on the evidence that is available I have come to the logical conclusion that he did not exist at any point in time.

Agreed.

[Edwardo Piet]

Which was the point of my post: just as the theist can't use one part of the Bible to verify the rest, neither can we use the absurdity of one to refute the rest. As you say, it is a mish-mash of fact and fiction.

Of course I'm not using the absurdity as any support for slightly less absurd absurdity or anything like that lol!

All I'm thinking is that perhaps its more probable that the 'miraculous' absurd Supernatural Lord Jesus Christ of the bible is BASED on a real person than the whole thing was made up out of nothing.

Of course THE Jesus didn't exist. Because there was no virgin birth or son or God or miracles and whatnot!

But I think maybe 'THE Jesus' was based on someone who really existed - aka the 'real' Jesus. Perhaps that's more likely than the whole thing being made up out of nothing?

Also a question: There is tons of evidence for evolution - but if someone believed in it and didn't know a thing about it - they just took someones word for it when they were told it was true without knowing if there's any evidence of it - now is that belief based on evidence or faith?

The belief in evolution in this case is based on evidence because there IS evidence - even though the hypothetical person doesn't know about it.

But then also the hypothetical person is just taking the word for it without knowing OF any evidence - just like belief in faith. Even though of course there IS evidence. He/she just doesn't know about it and believes anyway.

So is that belief in evidence or faith? I'd still say its evidence even if its just being 'trusted' rather than actually knowing about the evidence.

Because the evidence is still there.

Trusting in the unknown is not the same as faith - because IF there is evidence - then its belief in evidence.

Believing in God when there's no evidence is totally different - the chances of there being any is ridiculously small - and rather at least, the amount of evidence and the strength of the evidence required would be absurdly large.

Especially when you consider the fact that God is more improbable than the universe itself.

And for example - there is no current evidence of God OR aliens - but aliens are far far far more likely than God.

In fact because of course the universe is so utterly massive - some scientists think that its much more likely that aliens exist somewhere than not - than us being the only life.

DESPITE the fact there's no (known) evidence of aliens at all.

If there are aliens then there's of course evidence of them! Lol.

And if statistically its more likely they exist than not - then believing in them is most likely based on evidence not faith - because if they exist then there's evidence to be found somewhere (even if we never do find it).

So there may be no known evidence that THE Jesus was based on someone - yet I think its perhaps more likely than not.

If the evidence is in fact out there somewhere - even if its never to be found - then that belief on mine is based on evidence, right?

Scientists often believe in a hypothesis and then go and find the evidence and 'prove' their point, right?

Its confusing, but I think very interesting. I don't think the two are always mutually exclusive. In fact; in my experience they're often inclusive

EvF