Existence of Jesus

[lukec]

Quote continued: All other women, though, you're still stained all over by that original sin, so you're still subservient. Just obey your husbands, and hopefully god will forgive you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ah, but what if he was? Improbable ≠ impossible

Lol

He almost certainly wasn't supernatural. And he almost certainly doesn't exist in heaven today or whatever. If he existed at all - he died. And end of.

(almost certainly).

Actually, it's both. In Catholicism, both Mary and Jesus were born to virgins. The 'reason' for this is that, if Mary were conceived the normal way, the Original Sin™ would get passed onto Jesus.

It kind of makes sense, if you squint your eyes and look at it sideways.

Interesting. Never heard of that one! lol.

EDIT: Oh, I don't believe Jesus existed because there is no evidence that suggests he did. Burden of proof and all that.

lol I understand the burden of proof. But I think its different to making vague judgements. Or then, - I guess we might as well assume NONE of the people in the bible existed. Even if there's perhaps a good chance that (some of them) existed its just they were exaggerated in the bible?

Or is there historical evidence of at least some, or ONE of the people in the bible? Somewhere? lol. I know nothing of this.

If there isn't any evidence at all. Then shall we just assume that every single character in the bible didn't exist whether they are exaggerated or not?

Isn't the burden of proof with making strong positive claims in science - different to what goes on in a book?

Perhaps we should be skeptical but think that its not very likely (perhaps) that every single person and character and thing that happened in the bible is a lie.

Although I guess its not necessarily THAT unlikely!

I have no reason to believe it. But I don't really have any reason to doubt it either when the statements in there are more reasonable or its easily possible that 'Jesus' or whatever character did exist but was just exaggerated.

I dunno. I don't believe Jesus of the bible existed. But I think its perhaps likely that the 'Jesus of the bible' was just exaggerated.

And perhaps as likely as 'him' not existing at all?

I dunno.

Thoughts?

[WWLD]

After reading all of your opinions, I'm not so certain that Jesus existed. But there is a chance that he did exist at some time, but I certainly don't think he had any supernatural powers

Although I guess it would make more sence for me to believe that he didn't exist at all, since I don't believe anything else that the bible says.

But either way, it's definitely exaggerated...and it makes me laugh

[DD_8630]

EDIT: Oh, I don't believe Jesus existed because there is no evidence that suggests he did. Burden of proof and all that.

lol I understand the burden of proof. But I think its different to making vague judgements. Or then, - I guess we might as well assume NONE of the people in the bible existed. Even if there's perhaps a good chance that (some of them) existed its just they were exaggerated in the bible?

Or is there historical evidence of at least some, or ONE of the people in the bible? Somewhere? lol. I know nothing of this.

If there isn't any evidence at all. Then shall we just assume that every single character in the bible didn't exist whether they are exaggerated or not?

Isn't the burden of proof with making strong positive claims in science - different to what goes on in a book?

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.

Perhaps we should be skeptical but think that its not very likely (perhaps) that every single person and character and thing that happened in the bible is a lie.

See above. It is only through third-party sources that we can ascertain whether a particular passage is reliable: for example, the bits on Egypt are more reliable than those on Eden.

And yes, it is exceedingly logical to doubt any claim presented to you. Why should you believe that Adam, Noah, Moses, David, or Jesus, ever existed? Indeed, why should you believe Socrates, Queen Victoria, or the Scarlet Pimpernel existed?

Although I guess its not necessarily THAT unlikely!

I have no reason to believe it. But I don't really have any reason to doubt it either when the statements in there are more reasonable or its easily possible that 'Jesus' or whatever character did exist but was just exaggerated.

Ah, but doubt is the logical stance to take. Doubt everything, even the words I write :p

I dunno. I don't believe Jesus of the bible existed. But I think its perhaps likely that the 'Jesus of the bible' was just exaggerated.

And perhaps as likely as 'him' not existing at all?

I dunno.

Thoughts?

Well, I don't believe that Jesus existed for the same reason I don't believe fairies exist. It's not that there's any evidence suggesting they [/i]don't[/i], but rather that there's no evidence that they do. I am an aJesusist, an afairyist, an achocolateteapotist, etc :p

[chatpilot]

WWLD everyone here should know where I stand on this one.My response is an emphatical No!! Jesus did not exist for the following reasons.I agree with LukeC that Jesus is an off shoot of the Gnostic messiah.There is no evidence of his existence anywhere neither physical (since he ascended to heaven) nor historical.Outside of the bible there is no real record of the exploits of this so called god man.Jesus stands in the same line as all the other mythological gods in my mind there is no difference.His story was not set to print till at least 50-70 years after his alleged crucifixion so the entire New Testament is based on oral traditions and hearsay.There is not one eyewitness account of Jesus in the entire NT bible and the fact that his story is so contradictory in the NT gospels specifically Matthew,Mark,Luke,and John gives me the impression that these stories were made up and carried on as tradition by the locals.The words attributed to Christ cant be his since none of the authors were there with him as he spoke them.

Religion in general is and should always in my opinion be given its proper place in lilterature as nothing more than mythology.

[Giff]

Agree with you chatpilot, the Jesus in the Bible have never existed. But, as I said many times before, is it not impossible that Jesus of Nazareth, the person that character in the bible is based on, have existed. The question is when did he live, some say perhaps -100 to -200 bc, maybe he did live during the time the bible said he lived. The other qustion is how importent he was during his time.

Since no writer have written about him during the time about a Jesus that was king of the judean people and was concidered a messiah, does it seem unlily that he was specially importent. John the Baptist on other hand was the most importent figure during that time, which according to many refrences have exicted. But he was just a ordinary man who was a leader of an apocalyptic group.

[chatpilot]

Giff I was once asked if Jesus did not exist how his story acquired so much fame and so many believers?They were basically asking me how an entire religion could be founded on a fictional character.I mentioned that alot of the more primitive religions were based on fictional characters and that that was no proof of the existence of Christ.But if I did have to name a founder to christianity as we know it today it would have to be Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the so called author of the gospel of John.If you took the time to read and analyze all four gospels you will see a very different teaching in the gospel of John than the other three.John made Christ the god man,son of god,etc.His whole gospel focuses on Jesus reign in heaven and his triumphant return.

I think the only reason christianity became so powerful and popular was because it was officially recognized as the official religion by the Roman empire and the Emperor Constantine.Otherwise it would have fizzled out or evolved to another form of religion as all of it's predecessors have done.This mingling of political might and religion turned christianity into the most powerful institution the world has ever known.

But,I do not agree that there ever was a man named Jesus Christ who walked the Earth performing signs and wonders and raising the dead etc.Even some of the stories regarding his death and the events that took place afterward were too fantastical to believe and were not recorded in any secular book of history.I think if the dead were strolling around town and there was a period of darkness in broad daylight at the death of Jesus we would certainly have had a secular record of these amazing occurences.Christian literature is the only source of these events because they needed to promote their religion and nothing can promote a religion better than the claims of miracles.

[Giff]

I dont think Jesus Christ excited. I have not said that. But its possible that they guy that the Jesus in the bible is based on excited. Maybe it was multiple Jesus plus some many other myths that became the caracther in the bible, who knows.

All I say is that its not impossible that they Jesus of Nazareth excited. The question is when he exicted, if he now exicted at all which is a strong possibilty. If he exicted did they clearly exagerated everything he did and made up nearly everything about him, of course. I dont think anyone can make dead live again and walk and water and all that. That are old myths that was credited for Jesus a long time after when they thought that they should write about him.

Muhammed exicted and also Buddha. But none of them made any miracles. Therefore is it not impossible that Jesus excited, but as his collegues did he not make any miracles.

[chatpilot]

Since there is no basis for the existence of Jesus Christ anywhere outside of the bible I dont believe he ever existed whether he perfomed miracles or not.Jesus Christ in itself is not a proper name in fact it is a title.Jesus=Messiah or savior while the Christ simply meant the anointed one.

Outside of scripture there are no credible secular records of the existence of Christ and during the time that the bible states he was in Nazareth cant be right because Nazareth did not exist at that time.

[chatpilot]

If you are really interested in seriously researching the subject of the existence of Jesus you can go to the following link: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/ and if you can buy the book 'The Jesus Puzzle' by Earl Doherty it makes a good argument for the non existence of an historical Christ.There are many other great books that have researched the subject just google did jesus exist or search for a historical Christ etc.I have been researching this subject for the past few years and just cant find any evidence or reason to believe that he did exist in any way shape or form on this Earth.