Was Jesus a real person?

[Ten oz]

He was a real boy!

Maybe. I think the issue is a toss up. Eise, who has made the best arguments on this topic in my opinion leans towards he was probably real. Plenty of pages of discussion here to get caught up on if you are interested in contributing to this thread.

[Itoero]

I'm sorry it wasn't clear, it was something Pinoccio said:

[Dr.Science]

Many accept as a matter of fact that Jesus, as described by Christianity, was a real person and it is only his divinity that is up for debate. I grew up believing as much. As an adult I realized that I have never read credible information that proved a historical Jesus. In discussions with people through the years I have found that challanging a real life historical Jesus quickly becomes battles where I am asked to prove he wasn't real person. Ultimately there seems to be a general lack of proof either way. So I ask the forum for thoughts. Is the Christian story of Jesus based on an actual living man named Jesus who live around 2,000 years ago?

 

 

Here is what I find to be a compelling explanation for why a historical Jesus most likely did not exist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Jesus did exist but wasnt called jesus. He was called Isa or Eesa this is because where he was born and where his parents originated from in their alphabet there wasnt the letter J. Also he cant have been born during winter. this is because in the bible it states that the shepards where tending there flocks when he was born but they traditionally only do this during spring and summer.

[Bender]

Jesus did exist but wasnt called jesus. He was called Isa or Eesa this is because where he was born and where his parents originated from in their alphabet there wasnt the letter J. Also he cant have been born during winter. this is because in the bible it states that the shepards where tending there flocks when he was born but they traditionally only do this during spring and summer.

He might have been called something else entirely. More likely, he is an assembly of the many messiases that roamed the region during that time period. One of them might have been called the contemporary equivalent of Jesus.

The fact that his birthday is celebrated in winter is simple: they needed to replaced pagan celebrations. Neither is it a coincidence that Easter is so close to the pagan celebration of spring.

[Strange]

Jesus did exist but wasnt called jesus.

 

 

What evidence do you have that he existed?

[Velocity_Boy]

 

 

What evidence do you have that he existed?

 

 

I am assuming that yoj of course are requesting secular evidence for the existence of Jesus? Since you most likely do not believe the New Testament of the Bible is a credible source?

 

Fine. ALthough secular writings for Jesus are admittedly scanty, there of course are several. In my opinion, there is little doubt that a man named Yehsua--whom we hace come to know as Jesus of Nazareth--existed and conducted a brief ministry in the Roman-occupied Palestine area around the times of 28-32 AD. Of course, anything more is pure speculation, and claims of his divinity are dubious at best. I have come across NO secular claims of his divinity.

 

Here are, however, some mentions of confirmed secular sources which alluded to Jesus being a true historical figure.

 

Hope this helps.....................

 

http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

[Ten oz]

Everything mentioned in your link has been brought up and thoroughly discussed multiple times. This thread is 40 pages long. Please browse the thread some to avoid merely repeating early discussions. If you have new or additional information please, by all means, post it.

[Velocity_Boy]

Everything mentioned in your link has been brought up and thoroughly discussed multiple times. This thread is 40 pages long. Please browse the thread some to avoid merely repeating early discussions. If you have new or additional information please, by all means, post it.

I simply replied to Strange's request. Obviously she had not perused the previous info you mention. I am not gonna thumb back forty pages before responding. Thanks all the same.

[Strange]

I simply replied to Strange's request. Obviously she had not perused the previous info you mention. I am not gonna thumb back forty pages before responding. Thanks all the same.

 

 

I have followed much of this thread. I was wondering why someone would join now to post an empty assertion. I was hoping that they might have something new to bring to the discussion.

[Velocity_Boy]

I have followed much of this thread. I was wondering why someone would join now to post an empty assertion. I was hoping that they might have something new to bring to the discussion.

Empty? Did you not read the link I provided?

 

Those sources are real. Secular writers have mentioned Jesus. He existed. This is not a difficult concept. Research it yourself. The elephant in the room is whether or not he was of a divine nature. I too am an atheist, but am not going to deny something that had been documented and never refuted, such as the fact that the man we know as Yeshua of Nazareth lived in and conducted a brief ministry around 30-32 AD in Roman occupied Palestine. No reputable biblical scholars nowadays refute that. You would do well not to either. In my opinion folks doing that on a religious forum ae simply, at heart, though loath to admit, are simply seeking to get a rise out of the Christians here.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/galleries/4-compelling-historical-documents-that-prove-jesus-existed.aspx

Edited March 31, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Strange]

Empty? Did you not read the link I provided?

 

 

I was asking "Dr Science" not you.

 

As Ten Oz says, that has been discussed before and is not completely convincing. (Feel free to go back and address the arguments made but I am not going to start rehashing them now.)

[Bender]

Empty? Did you not read the link I provided?

 

Those sources are real. Secular writers have mentioned Jesus. He existed. This is not a difficult concept. Research it yourself. The elephant in the room is whether or not he was of a divine nature. I too am an atheist, but am not going to deny something that had been documented and never refuted, such as the fact that the man we know as Yeshua of Nazareth lived in and conducted a brief ministry around 30-32 AD in Roman occupied Palestine. No reputable biblical scholars nowadays refute that. You would do well not to either. In my opinion folks doing that on a religious forum ae simply, at heart, though loath to admit, are simply seeking to get a rise out of the Christians here.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/galleries/4-compelling-historical-documents-that-prove-jesus-existed.aspx

Never refuted? You should read your own link. On the first page it says: "While some scholars question the authenticity".

[Velocity_Boy]

Never refuted? You should read your own link. On the first page it says: "While some scholars question the authenticity".

Yeah, I read it, thanks.

 

Uh, last I checked questioned and refuted we're not synonymous.

 

Ahem.

[Bender]

But where did you get the idea that they are never refuted if even a biased source admits they are questioned. Given the context, questioned can very well be interpreted as refuted.

[Strange]

At the very least, not generally accepted. If a physics theory were not generally accepted I would be reluctant to accept it as fact.

[Eise]

Here are, however, some mentions of confirmed secular sources which alluded to Jesus being a true historical figure.

 

Hope this helps.....................

 

http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

 

These sources were already discussed in this thread.

 

Your link is to a Christian website (the one you give later too). If you want to cite sources, then better do this of a critical, historical source. Where I agree with you that Jesus is mentioned in some secular sources, I would never point to a page that begins with:

 

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

 

'The' New Testament does not exist. It is a collection of writings of different sources, some only about 10 years after Jesus' death (some letters of Paul), until more than 70 years after his death. Critical historical investigation has shown that the gospels are inconsistent, partially wrong, and therefore not accurate at all. If you want to build a case, please use sources that are based on the best of historical science.

[Jim S]

I've read (ok, skimmed) through all these pages and it seems like there are no first person, compemtorary accounts of Jesus - much less any collaborating ones.

I would think if the people back then would have actually thought they were living amoungst a god, or god-like person they would have made a real big deal of it. Wouldn't they have done something similar to what the Egyptians or Maya did - write accounts of it in stone or erect monuments of some sort? If all we have is verbal second hand stories by church people (with a vested interest in keeping the stories going) to use as evidence, I think the whole thing is just a fable.

Not that fables are bad or not to be taken seriously, just not to be taken as any kind of literal truth.

Aesop's fables are useful, but rabbits and turtles don't really talk to each other - and when people die, they are dead. They can't become un-dead.

[Ten oz]

I've read (ok, skimmed) through all these pages and it seems like there are no first person, compemtorary accounts of Jesus - much less any collaborating ones.

I would think if the people back then would have actually thought they were living amoungst a god, or god-like person they would have made a real big deal of it. Wouldn't they have done something similar to what the Egyptians or Maya did - write accounts of it in stone or erect monuments of some sort? If all we have is verbal second hand stories by church people (with a vested interest in keeping the stories going) to use as evidence, I think the whole thing is just a fable.

Not that fables are bad or not to be taken seriously, just not to be taken as any kind of literal truth.

Aesop's fables are useful, but rabbits and turtles don't really talk to each other - and when people die, they are dead. They can't become un-dead.

While I agree to an extend with what you are saying it is subjective. It assumes what behavior would've been. It gets used both ways. Other people argue that the emergence of christians within a few decades of the claimed life of Jesus is proof that there must have been a Jesus because where else would have been the cause. Both make some sense both neither prove much of anything.

 

It also depends on the way one chooses to qualify the question. Some argue that Jesus is based on some preacher that existed during the time, traveled in around the same general region, and was killed. That perhaps the story of Jesus is loosely based on that real person.I personally don't like that argument because it lowers the bar too much. By that standard every fictional character in every story is loosely based on someone to varying degrees.

 

For me the lack of contemporay evidence mixed with a long history of religions being based on fiction leaves me leaning towards Jesus maybe but probably not having of existed.

[Pymander]

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.

.

[Moontanman]

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.

.

 

 

 

I would say you are mistaken, swept up by a cult of personality. I can and have read the gospels and I feel mythology, plagiarized mythology at the very best, made up of whole cloth by people who wanted to believe so strongly they put new flesh on old myths. Quoting Einstein is a meaningless appeal to authority. Jesus is nothing but another religious icon glorified by time and rote repetition...

[Manticore]

2000 years ago, there could not have existed anyone named Jesus (or John, James, Jehova etc.) because the letter 'J' has only existed for four or five hundred years.

[Pymander]

You are arguing with Albert Einstein! I have not read the Talmud myself, but I do realize that it is huge from the description I found. It would also seem to preserve much learning from the Jewish Babylonian captivity. It would explain the IMF from my limited facts. Do you seriously think your 'bon mots' trump Albert Einstein's opinion? I'm not too modest, but certainly prepared to give way to his genius before almost anyone except Jesus Christ Himself, and most certainly my own. I must say, that's what I love about chess. You can not argue with checkmate!

[Strange]

2000 years ago, there could not have existed anyone named Jesus (or John, James, Jehova etc.) because the letter 'J' has only existed for four or five hundred years.

 

 

But then again, they spoke Aramaic which isn't written with our alphabet. (Although it doesn't have the phoneme represented by the J in English. But then most other languages don't pronounce his name that way.)

[Bender]

You are arguing with Albert Einstein! I have not read the Talmud myself, but I do realize that it is huge from the description I found. It would also seem to preserve much learning from the Jewish Babylonian captivity. It would explain the IMF from my limited facts. Do you seriously think your 'bon mots' trump Albert Einstein's opinion? I'm not too modest, but certainly prepared to give way to his genius before almost anyone except Jesus Christ Himself, and most certainly my own. I must say, that's what I love about chess. You can not argue with checkmate!

Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics because "God does not play dice". He was also wrong about that.

 

The quote you give is also easy to disproove, since I don't feel a thing when reading gospels (except boredom because it is poorly written fiction).

[John Cuthber]

...No-one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus...

I did.

So you are wrong.

 

2000 years ago, there could not have existed anyone named Jesus (or John, James, Jehova etc.) because the letter 'J' has only existed for four or five hundred years.

That makes about as much sense as saying that the Chinese president doesn't exists because "习近平" doesn't exist in English.