Was Jesus a real person?

[Pymander]

I am at a serious disadvantage here, as having been disallowed pasting material. Would any of you be game to overturn this imposition. Especially if I am to play Jesus against the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Herodians all at once. I am not Him.

 

Here, then, if we are playing chess, are three mystics I do not find myself at variance with. Edgar Cayce you already know of, whose works reside with the Association of Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E) in Virginia.. Patience Worth (or the works attributed to this ghost writer through a St. Louis housewife Pearl Lenora Curran) and kept by the Missouri Historical Society. The most surprising will be Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin, a healer who died in the lead up to the fall of the Tzars of Russia. To be fair we perhaps should ignore the political revisions of history, as Cayce often exposed, and read the biography left by his daughter. I am sure that the diligent researchers among you will rise to the occasion.

 

These were not 2000 years ago. They all happened about the time of the atheistic paradigm shift of the scientific fraternity. They fulfil a prophecy by the prophet Daniel 500 BC Chapters 11 & 12, of the help offered by the Archangel Michael to the living (symbolic as believers in God, as opposed to the dead). What you will read will easily fit computers and the internet (a god of forces, and a god his fathers knew not), and the atomic bomb (abomination of desolation, quoted by Jesus Matthew 24:15).

 

The hecklers are welcome to research them as more recent supernatural occurrences, again for purposes of directing mankind, and rescuing him from joining the 'dead', a thoroughly dismal state of mind, and misdirection of purposes, in my opinion. Or they can go on enjoying their 'freedom'. I do thank you for the opportunity to address the 'living' on this forum.

[John Cuthber]

Do you understand that every proper tests of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work?

[MigL]

What does any of this have to do with whether Jesus was a real person or not ?

 

I would think we should be discussing historical documents in our search for proof.

Certainly NOT Atlantis ( risen or not ), psychic powers nor mysticism.

 

Can we get back on topic.

[Ten oz]

What does any of this have to do with whether Jesus was a real person or not ?

 

I would think we should be discussing historical documents in our search for proof.

Certainly NOT Atlantis ( risen or not ), psychic powers nor mysticism.

 

Can we get back on topic.

You are right but I think Pymander believes he is on topic.

[John Cuthber]

In fairness, there simply isn't any real evidence (because, if there were, surely someone would have cited it by now).

So, Pymander's made up stuff is just about as good as anyone else's.

 

Of course, that doesn't excuse the use of fallacies to seek to make a (tangentially relevant) point.

[Pymander]

Psychic information must be checked out for validity. There are many frauds. You are skirting this requirement entirely on the basis of prejudice. (Deuteronomy 18:19 - 22) I am sure some will check out the sources given, but do you think they will be willing to discuss it here, after such inane responses?

 

Please return to the discussion I have derailed. That had value, from the more palatable material angle, at least. Know this; those who do not accept truth as a friend, must face it as a conqueror. That is personified by the goddess (angel, nether, spirit, power) Kali by some who are not blindly proud.

[John Cuthber]

Psychic information must be checked out for validity. There are many frauds.

 

Do you understand that every proper tests of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work?

[Pymander]

"If I am not a witness, it may be a lie, if I am, my serotonin levels may have become unbalanced, or someone has slipped lysergic acid diethylamide into my coffee."

 

Is that the basis of your "proper test"? Then "I think, therefore I am" becomes "The observer is the only reality", fairly profound. Was Woodrow Wilson's "No man is that good a liar" disqualified thus? Are we in the matrix, or at "Recall". Did the past somehow become disqualified, upon the above criteria, so that none of our previous discussion transpired? Escaping such Aristotelian constraints, the assertion you have repeated, without further consideration (or should I say, comprehension):

 

"...every proper test of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work."

 

is a BLATANT LIE to usurp authority, which King James did NOT, following advice from "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Every proper test that has worked has been disavowed, and short of the absurd definition of "proper" above, there are records of this in "There Is A River", and more in the post-requisite non 'Textbook', again by design, "Memoires Of A Seer". As for a scientific experiment to determine such using arbitrary individuals as subjects, this will also prove that no-one can ride a one-wheeled bike on a tight-rope". The clairvoyance your like disaffirm is a gift of The Most High to the worthy who will not abuse such powers. To use them to force unbelievers against their desire is disallowed. Acquire some relevant knowledge before you shoot your mouth off, and please do not claim that such does not exist. That again is BS, the mire that (ignorant) pigs wallow in, and the vomit that (greedy) dogs consume a over and over and over again (The Sermon on The Mount, Matthew 5, 6 & 7, specifically, 7:6). Her you will find contradictions - with some orthodoxies, NOT internally nor with the rest of scripture, properly interpreted.

 

Read carefully, try to understand, examine your beliefs more critically, follow the leads, and decide for YOURSELF. You best president did, and ended, instead of started, a World War.

[Ten oz]

@ Pymander, when I started this thread I made it clear that I was referencing Jesus as a person. A living breathing human. Not Jesus as a supernatural entity. Your ongoing discussions about mystics and bibical prophecy might be better suited for its own thread. Archeological information and historical works (art, oral tradition, text) from antiquity as it relates to a historical Jesus what this thread is about.

Edgar Cacye, Atlantis, and etc are fuel enough for there own debates. Feel free to start your own thread.

[Pymander]

Please excuse me, and also, please continue along those lines. Do consider the material evidence compiled as "The Gospel of Thomas", and its implications concerning the fabrication of a Jesus myth by Rome. The Wiki article has pictures of the scripts, discusses relevant dating, and so forth. Consider also the Burning of Rome by Nero, successor to Caligula, successor to Tiberius, contemporary with Jesus. Who did Nero throw to the lions as his scape goat? This may reinitiate your derailed discussion along more congenial lines. Have fun.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

"...every proper test of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work."

 

is a BLATANT LIE to usurp authority, .

OK, show me a test that was scientifically valid and showed that it worked.

While you are at it, you might as well claim the million dollars here.

http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

[Endy0816]

I think the episode of Jesus and the money changers has some historical validity at least. Archaeological and written evidence of money exchanging at least occurring there.

 

I can't help but wish that ancient people would have left us better records. Our own descendents are probably going to be deluged in contrast.

[petrushka.googol]

There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that a person called Jesus Christ did exist in the flesh and blood. (Christ is derived from greek Christos -> anointed and is just a title.) Most likely he was known by some other name. If the question implies "did Jesus exist ?", I would be tempted to say Yes. If the question is more soul-searching like was Jesus "real" (as in authentic), I would leave that open to debate.....

[Ten oz]

There is enough empirical evidence to suggest that a person called Jesus Christ did exist in the flesh and blood. (Christ is derived from greek Christos -> anointed and is just a title.) Most likely he was known by some other name. If the question implies "did Jesus exist ?", I would be tempted to say Yes. If the question is more soul-searching like was Jesus "real" (as in authentic), I would leave that open to debate.....

Is there "enough empirical" evidence? There is nothing contemporary, only two nonchristian references of which one is widely considered a fake, and the Gospels which were write later have unknown authorship and do not distinguish between Jesus & god.

 

The best evidence presented thus far IMO has been presented by poster Eise. However I feel the argument relies too heavily on theology. That true history can be discerned with a reasonable level of accuracy from comparative analysis of the Gospels. If you are real interested in this discussion please read back through the thread some. Josephus and Tacitus' references, origin of various gospels, and the manner in which history is commonly proved have already been discussed at length.

[petrushka.googol]

Is there "enough empirical" evidence? There is nothing contemporary, only two nonchristian references of which one is widely considered a fake, and the Gospels which were write later have unknown authorship and do not distinguish between Jesus & god.

 

The best evidence presented thus far IMO has been presented by poster Eise. However I feel the argument relies too heavily on theology. That true history can be discerned with a reasonable level of accuracy from comparative analysis of the Gospels. If you are real interested in this discussion please read back through the thread some. Josephus and Tacitus' references, origin of various gospels, and the manner in which history is commonly proved have already been discussed at length.

 

Jesus could theoretically exist based on the following assumptions :

 

a) We are not certain that he didn't exist

b) He was male

c) His father and mother were real

d) He was born around 3 BC (as per research)

e) He was Semitic and lived in the Middle East

f) He was stated to have existed in Islamic texts as well.

g) His personality profile was well documented. (Slender body with long arms and legs, Possibly pectus excavatum.)

h) His travelogue was documented in the Bible. (transition from place of birth to later domains.)

[John Cuthber]

 

Jesus could theoretically exist based on the following assumptions :

 

a) We are not certain that he didn't exist

b) He was male

c) His father and mother were real

d) He was born around 3 BC (as per research)

e) He was Semitic and lived in the Middle East

f) He was stated to have existed in Islamic texts as well.

g) His personality profile was well documented. (Slender body with long arms and legs, Possibly pectus excavatum.)

h) His travelogue was documented in the Bible. (transition from place of birth to later domains.)

He could exist.

Or he may be a composite of various real people who existed, or he could be made up.

a) is true, but unhelpful

b) is tautology or begging the question,(depending how you look at it) , and thus unhelpful

c) is unsubstantiated so, unless you can show it's true it's unhelpful

d) is also begging the question

e) is fairly nearly redundant- from the point of view of one (rather loose) definition, almost everyone in the Middle East at that time was Semitic.

In any event it doesn't get us any closer to the answer to the question.

f) The Islamic texts are too late to be any use- all they show is that the author of those texts believed in Christ, that's not evidence that He was real.

g) Where is this documented? Is it written by someone independent and contemporary? if not, it's not evidence.

h) the Bible isn't trustworthy as evidence here as it would be begging the question.

Edited March 15, 2015 by John Cuthber

[yahya515]

 

He could exist.

Or he may be a composite of various real people who existed, or he could be made up.

how is he composite of real people who existed ? who are those people ? what is the connection between them? how they met ? if he was made up , who made him up ? why ? what is mentality of that inventor ? was he a writter ? a philosopher? an inventor? why this person who made him up did not refer all this glory to himself? how others accepted this invented stroy? many questions refer to lack of knowledge, in this time you beg the answer!!

[John Cuthber]

There is a suggestion that king Arthur is not a real individual, but a myth based on the sum of stories told about a number of people, some of whom might have been real.

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

 

I can't rule out the idea that Jesus is the same.

It would explain why some of Jesus' miracles also occur in other myths for example

"Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified."

 

from

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

[Willie71]

how is he composite of real people who existed ? who are those people ? what is the connection between them? how they met ? if he was made up , who made him up ? why ? what is mentality of that inventor ? was he a writter ? a philosopher? an inventor? why this person who made him up did not refer all this glory to himself? how others accepted this invented stroy? many questions refer to lack of knowledge, in this time you beg the answer!!

There were numerous messianic figures during that timeframe who borrowed or stole key components from pagan gods, Norse, Greek or roman gods, and the Jesus story is an above average compilation of these stories.

 

Who would do this? Anyone politically savvy enough to realize that uniting multiple pagan territories with a shared belief system would result in less division amongst territories.

 

Why not take the glory for oneself? It's a hard sell, asking people to sacrifice everything for a mortal leader, without repayment in this life. However, if your God pays you back when you are dead, problem solved.

 

People accepted this invented story because the region was shifting away from polytheism to monotheism (even though there are three incarnations of God????) and the claims were well established in culture, just with different names. It's easy enough to look up all the similar myths.

[Ten oz]

The Pauline Epistles are the earlier works espousing the Jesus. 14 of the New Testaments 27 books are attributed to Paul the Apostle. The Pauline Epistles is believed to have directly influence the Gospel of Mark which in turn is said to be the inspiration for the other 4 canonical gospels contained in the New Testament. So if we are looking for a possible culprit for a Christianity creator other than Jesus I think Paul is a reasonable possibility.

Why wouldn't Paul how sought glory from himself? I seeing answering such a question as futile. It applies equally to every religion. Who invented Appollo and why didn't they seek glory? Why didn't Krishna's inventor this that or the other? What about Zeus? It would appear that religions are ever formed around the glory of mortals. When there have been mortals recieving glory it tends to be short lived. Jesus follows a typical trend which has not required any real person/god to have existed.

Why would the story have been accepted? This too applies to every religion ever. In this specifc case adherence to the old testament had become untenable. Rules and interpretations can only be bent so far before something gives. In a newer era where Jews were inundated with other cultures, paganism, and greek mythology an evolution makes sense. An evolution is all Jesus was . Jesus is believed to be the messiah already previously prophesied and not something entirely new. Just as many Christians eventually left Catholicism and became Protestant many Jews became Christian. Evolutions are ongoing in religion. They respond to changing political climates, societal trends, and conditions.

 

 

Of course known of the above proves or disproves a human Jesus existed. It is merely a response to the idea that the existence of Christianity in itself is definitive proof that Jesus must have existed.

[yahya515]

not enough !! we know someone his name is Jesus , he had a holy book full of wisdom , called Gospel , he lived in Jerusalem, he was born in Beit Lehem , he was born about 2000 years ago , he did miracles and specific ones, etc ,

specific information like names , places of birth , names of places , dates , names of his followers and disciples , how he did his miracles , his name of his father and mother, etc, specific information like these is not logically be violated by unknown information which was presented above . unknown inventor of Jesus , unknown person who is not seeking for glory, unknown time when the Bible was invented , unknown real story for this person , Jesus, a lot of unknown.

Who invented Appollo and why didn't they seek glory? Why didn't Krishna's inventor this that or the other? What about Zeus? It would appear that religions are ever formed around the glory of mortals. When there have been mortals recieving glory it tends to be short lived. Jesus follows a

those are imaginary figures, they are not humans , I prefer to refer glory for me than another person, for an imaginary I may refer glory to it and I do not care .

It would explain why some of Jesus' miracles also occur in other myths for example

"Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25.

at least we are sure he was a myth.

Edited March 19, 2015 by yahya515

[Moontanman]

not enough !! we know someone his name is Jesus , he had a holy book full of wisdom , called Gospel , he lived in Jerusalem, he was born in Beit Lehem , he was born about 2000 years ago , he did miracles and specific ones, etc ,

specific information like names , places of birth , names of places , dates , names of his followers and disciples , how he did his miracles , his name of his father and mother, etc, specific information like these is not logically be violated by unknown information which was presented above . unknown inventor of Jesus , unknown person who is not seeking for glory, unknown time when the Bible was invented , unknown real story for this person , Jesus, a lot of unknown.

those are imaginary figures, they are not humans , I prefer to refer glory for me than another person, for an imaginary I may refer glory to it and I do not care .

 

 

You do realize that the bible as we see it wasn't put together until the fourth century, it originally was a collection of stories and had been edited several times due to one leader, king or pope disagreeing with what it said and that we have no more evidence for Jesus or the bible than we have for Thor, Zeus or any other "imaginary figure" there is no evidence Jesus was real much less the son of a god....

[yahya515]

 

there is no evidence Jesus was real much less the son of a god....

there is not evidence that he was real ? perhaps , there is an evidence he was not real ? no , this is the point I try to explain above.

[hypervalent_iodine]

there is not evidence that he was real ? perhaps , there is an evidence he was not real ? no , this is the point I try to explain above.

 

Do you think that going through life believing everything you can't disprove a wise thing? You should read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[yahya515]

he says " Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them" was religion invented by the orthodox , Jewish or the Muslims? religion is something since the beginning of history it is not a claim of Moses , Jesus or Mohammed, why he puts blame on the orthodox ? people invented gods like idols , Imagined gods like Greek deities , a person himself may believe in a god without teachings, do you know why ? because people needed a god in their life, if some one told me that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth, I will not believe that , do you know why? because I do not need a teapot orbiting the sun!! people need a god that why they believe. he says " the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." that why I do not need a teapot orbiting the sun because it will not be part of science , because (at that time ) science relating to planets is determined by a telescope .

 

he says " I am an atheist." never believe someone who says he is an atheist, there is nothing called atheism, there is a question , every one is asked or ask himself while he is living, while this question is always asked , and always has an answer, there is nothing called atheism, the question is :

who made the universe ?

your answer is your god

if you do not have an answer then you are not mentally healthy.

if your answer is Jesus , then your God is Jesus , thank you Jesus for creating the universe , I pray for you Jesus you are my God.

if your answer is it came by itself , then your God is the whole universe, perhaps after I die the universe will bring me back to life again , a chance may happen, after an infinite time , you are my God universe , bring me to life again.