Was Jesus a real person?

[petrushka.googol]

cogito ergo sum : I think therefore I am

 

If the sayings ascribed to Jesus indeed did emanate from him, then it is incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed exist.

[Strange]

cogito ergo sum : I think therefore I am

 

If the sayings ascribed to Jesus indeed did emanate from him, then it is incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed exist.

 

Nice example of "begging the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[GeneralDadmission]

These mentioned have already been dicussed at length in this thread. Many believe the Josephus writes are forgeries while Tacitus only mentions Jesus as a description of who Christians are. Neither mentions Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary to Jesus' supposed life.

 

Sorry I got a few posts in and got bored. I didn't have much information on opinions regarding Roman records so I posted. Thanks for your references.

[KenBrace]

Of course Jesus was a real person. The only thing that is false information are the miracles he was said to have performed. He wasn't the sun of God and he didn't raise people from the dead. I am confident however that, like Muhammad, Jesus was a real man that walked the Earth 2,000 years ago.

[John Cuthber]

Of course Jesus was a real person. The only thing that is false information are the miracles he was said to have performed. He wasn't the sun of God and he didn't raise people from the dead. I am confident however that, like Muhammad, Jesus was a real man that walked the Earth 2,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

[overtone]

The words attributed to Jesus himself do seem to have a consistency and coherence to them that makes the presumption of one original author or speaker very reasonable.

 

As with the Dao Te Ching, The Bhagavad Gita, Gawain and the Green Knight, and so forth, a single author composing within a long and deep tradition seems the way to bet.

[John Cuthber]

Really?

• If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
• Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)​​

No doubt I could find others

[Ten oz]

^^^^ Add to that we don't even know who wrote the gospels attributed to John:

" The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[20][21] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[22][23] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

[KenBrace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

 

Which side of the fence are you on?

[Ten oz]

Which side of the fence are you on?

I know the question wasn't directed at me but it is one I would like to respond to all the same. I am on the top of your proverbial fence. I do not believe there is compelling evidence to either definitively say Jesus (a human man) existed or to say Jesus did not.

[John Cuthber]

I'm on the side of not writing off a 20 page debate with a glib logical fallacy.

[Pymander]

Quotes like John 5:31, taken out of context, are like E=mc^2 quite meaningless to someone who has not studied Einstein's work, and much that predates it. At least completing the thought presented to John 5:47 does it some justice, like understanding the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy. Unfortunately again, references are made to the Moses from back in Exodus, so that without having studied the whole subject (in this case the Bible), such references are again meaningless, as to someone who never studied mathematics. The comparison with another such quote, then, becomes ludicrous. I use science here as an illustration because its simplicity makes an easily understandable analogy. Let me remind you that, when Isaac Newton was questioned by Halley "Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you, believe such foolishness as astrology?" he was given "Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not." It would be safe to say that Woodrow Wilson was an unusually well educated politician, not relying on rhetoric with no idea what he was talking about, to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". He said "Anyone who has read the Bible will know that it is God's word." The 200AD and 400AD "sayings of Jesus", found in canopic jars and put in print as "The Gospel of Thomas" puts paid to any rhetoric concerning the fabrication of a Jesus myth, and without His presence, "An Outline of History", by, believe it or not, H. G. Wells, would have left a great deal unexplained otherwise. I could go on, but that's a start.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Pymander

[Ten oz]

Quotes like John 5:31, taken out of context, are like E=mc^2 quite meaningless to someone who has not studied Einstein's work, and much that predates it. At least completing the thought presented to John 5:47 does it some justice, like understanding the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy. Unfortunately again, references are made to the Moses from back in Exodus, so that without having studied the whole subject (in this case the Bible), such references are again meaningless, as to someone who never studied mathematics. The comparison with another such quote, then, becomes ludicrous. I use science here as an illustration because its simplicity makes an easily understandable analogy. Let me remind you that, when Isaac Newton was questioned by Halley "Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you, believe such foolishness as astrology?" he was given "Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not." It would be safe to say that Woodrow Wilson was an unusually well educated politician, not relying on rhetoric with no idea what he was talking about, to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". He said "Anyone who has read the Bible will know that it is God's word." The 200AD and 400AD "sayings of Jesus", found in canopic jars and put in print as "The Gospel of Thomas" puts paid to any rhetoric concerning the fabrication of a Jesus myth, and without His presence, "An Outline of History", by, believe it or not, H. G. Wells, would have left a great deal unexplained otherwise. I could go on, but that's a start.

We know who is responsible for Einstein and Newton's work. Who wrote the gospels attributed to John?

[Hans de Vries]

John Cuthber:

 

Old Covenant laws WERE indeed abolished by Jesus, at least judicial pronouncements were. If you want to learn why, read Treatise on Law by Thomas Aquinas, or more precisely it's chapter Of the Old Law

[Pymander]

The best source for this kind of information is the Edgar Cayce Readings, about 20 times the amount of text comprising the King James Bible plus Apocrypha. Woodrow Wilson consulted Edgar Cayce to produce the Fourteen Points that settled the First World War, and prevent further global conflict. World War II and the Cuban Missile Crisis were a direct result of ignoring this "idealism", which is all history. Asked whether Edgar Cayce was for real, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." From those readings we have this:

 

"MARK was first dictated, greatly by Peter; and this in those periods just before Peter was carried to Rome.

 

"The next was MATTHEW, written by the one whose name it bears - AS for SPECIFIC reasons - to those who were scattered into the upper portions of Palestine and through Laodicea. This was written something like thirty three to four years later than MARK; and while this body - that wrote same - was in exile.

 

"LUKE was written by Lucius, rather than Luke; though a companion with Luke during those activities of Paul; and written, of course, unto those of the faith under the Roman INFLUENCE - not to the Roman peoples but to the provinces ruled BY the Romans! and it was from those sources that the very changes were made, as to the differences in that given by MARK and MATTHEW.

 

"JOHN was written by several; not by the John who was the beloved, but the John who REPRESENTED or who was the scribe FOR John the beloved; and - as much of same - was written much later. Portions of it were written at different times and combined some fifty years after the Crucifixion."

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber:

 

Old Covenant laws WERE indeed abolished by Jesus, at least judicial pronouncements were. If you want to learn why, read Treatise on Law by Thomas Aquinas, or more precisely it's chapter Of the Old Law

OK, so on one hand, a bloke with an obvious source of bias says they were abolished by his time- something like 1250.

Yet they were still in use 400 years later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

And they needed to be abolished again 600 years later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

And they are still in force today

(Ask just about anyone who is homosexual)

 

All you did there was point out that Thomas didn't know what he was talking about

Quotes like John 5:31, taken out of context, are like E=mc^2 quite meaningless to someone who has not studied Einstein's work, and much that predates it.

If he said E=MC² some of the time and he said E=MC³ some of the time we would know he was not infallible, or that the record was untrustworthy..

[Hans de Vries]

Ok, here question comes - how many churches consider old covenant law to be still in force? How many say that it's implementation is required, how many say it's implementation is not required but is is not a sin and how many prohibit it's implementation?

 

Thomas Aquinas' stance is that implementation of old covenant laws is not mandatory but a king who decided to implement them would not become a sinner - this was the Roman Catholic doctrine in 13th century. It most probably changed since then.

 

My observations tell me that aside from a few Evangelical Protestant churches in the US, there is no will to implement ANY part of the Mosaic law among Catholics, mainline Protestants or Orthodox - and among US Evangelicals these "calls" are more like ad hoc attempts to justify their personal biases, rather than calls for comprehensive implementation of the entire legal system.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[John Cuthber]

Ok, here question comes - how many churches consider old covenant law to be still in force?

 

 

Wrong question.

How many did so in, say, 300 AD- long after Christ- but before civilisation had persuaded Christianity to stop being unmitigated bastards?

The Church today is not what Christ made it, but what the effect of years of moderation by society has made it.

[Hans de Vries]

I don't know.

 

Notwithstanding that, in his views on law in general Aquinas was much more lenient than contemporary Jewish and Islamic theologians. By 2015 AD Jews still hold Mosaic law to be valid and Muslims say that sharia law (legal precedents established by Muhammad) is still in force and must be obeyed.

 

Jews don't implement 90% of these laws because of extreme procedural limitations - some of them can be implemented only by one type of court and only in a specific, ultra-complicated procedure - something that makes Jewish killing of apostates unlikely.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Pymander]

The history of the church can be downloaded as PDF, "The Great Controversy" by Ellen G White. It is good history, but the appendixed eschatology is at variance with Edgar Cayce's output, particularly with the distinctions, now arbitrarily redrawn since the reformation, and the release of the Bible out of Latin. Alchemaical symbolism is variously taken as literal and vice versa. This creates variations in the faith. Some portions may be both, representing both history and metaphor. As for the questions of a controversial nature:

 

Proverbs 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.

 

Matthew 5:18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil.

Matthew 5:19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

"If the words of the prophets of old, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, were purged of all additions, especially those of the priests, they would represent a philosophy capable of curing all the social ills of humanity." Albert Einstein.

[John Cuthber]

I don't know.

 

Notwithstanding that, in his views on law in general Aquinas was much more lenient than contemporary Jewish and Islamic theologians. By 2015 AD Jews still hold Mosaic law to be valid and Muslims say that sharia law (legal precedents established by Muhammad) is still in force and must be obeyed.

 

Jews don't implement 90% of these laws because of extreme procedural limitations - some of them can be implemented only by one type of court and only in a specific, ultra-complicated procedure - something that makes Jewish killing of apostates unlikely.

Please don't waste time and bandwidth on what other religions do today; it can't possibly make a difference to whether or not someone lived 2000 years ag.. At best you are showing that you don't understand they are irrelevant. It's possible that you come across as not realising that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

Re. the old Christian church, I can't be sure because I wasn't there.

But , the evidence suggests that they were involved in things like witch hunts.

So they were in fact sticking to the old laws no matter what Aquinas thought.

Any changes- like the realisation that slavery was wrong, were brought about a lot later and they are introduced in spite of the church, not because of it.

[Acme]

The history of the church can be downloaded as PDF, "The Great Controversy" by Ellen G White. It is good history, but the appendixed eschatology is at variance with Edgar Cayce's output, ...

Edgar Cayce's 'output' is as valuable as flatulence in determining whether Jesus was real or not.

[Pymander]

So Woodrow Wilson and Albert Einstein were also flatulating butt heads? You are standing firmly on quicksand.

[John Cuthber]

So Woodrow Wilson and Albert Einstein were also flatulating butt heads? You are standing firmly on quicksand.

The quicksand on which you stand has a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I just looked up who this guy was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

Did you expect to be taken seriously?

[Acme]

...

I just looked up who this guy was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

Did you expect to be taken seriously?

I knew who he was and yes, he expects us to take it seriously. Some peoples' kids.