Was Jesus a real person?

[Strange]

...

 

Independent records, I should have said.

 

You received two Rep points for Your statement above Strange

 

Sorry. Not my fault.

 

and it appears You have not really studied the subject!!! !

 

True.

[Ant Sinclair]

If Jesus had discovered the Original Torah and in that Torah ie The Commandments of how Man should live life, if one of those Commandments in The Original Torah was "NO URSARY" and Jesus started preaching that Torah, it would be enough for Him to lose favour with the establishment of the time ie Herod Phillip Tetrach (son of Herod The "Great", Father of Mary Magdalene) and get them to seek His death! And to keep the secret of No Ursary remove records of Him and His Original Teachings!

Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the Murder of Jesus and hence He Washed His Hands of the Affair!

[Ten oz]

If Jesus had discovered the Original Torah and in that Torah ie The Commandments of how Man should live life, if one of those Commandments in The Original Torah was "NO URSARY" and Jesus started preaching that Torah, it would be enough for Him to lose favour with the establishment of the time ie Herod Phillip Tetrach (son of Herod The "Great", Father of Mary Magdalene) and get them to seek His death! And to keep the secret of No Ursary remove records of Him and His Original Teachings!

Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the Murder of Jesus and hence He Washed His Hands of the Affair!

How does this theory lend itself to this threads purpose? How does Jesus reading the Torah prove Jesus was a real historical figure?

[Ant Sinclair]

Iam pointing out a possible reason why there is so little evidence of Jesus and His original teachings.

[Acme]

Iam pointing out a possible reason why there is so little evidence of Jesus and His original teachings.

Which leaves you et al with your faith, which is not evidence, and therefore does not belong in this thread.

[imatfaal]

If Jesus had discovered the Original Torah and in that Torah ie The Commandments of how Man should live life, if one of those Commandments in The Original Torah was "NO URSARY" and Jesus started preaching that Torah, it would be enough for Him to lose favour with the establishment of the time ie Herod Phillip Tetrach (son of Herod The "Great", ) and get them to seek His death! And to keep the secret of No Ursary remove records of Him and His Original Teachings!

Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the Murder of Jesus and hence He Washed His Hands of the Affair!

 

If one of those commandments had been "NO URSARY" the jews would have sent Moses back up the mountain to ask what Ursary was and did it involve bears? Usury

 

Mary Magdelene's father was not Herod the Great - the bible does not mention her father although the Golden Legend has her fathers as Cyrus. Some later scholars have her as composite with Mary sister of Martha and Lazarus - in which case her father would be unknown.

 

You might be thinking of Salome - who was also a player in the bible story (although not a goodie like M of M); she was the daughter of Herod the Second (aka Herod Phillip I) and his wife Herodias and she did indeed marry Phillip Tetrarch - aka Herod Phillip Tetrach aka Herod Phillip II.

 

 

Simple, not. To summarise her father, her grandfather, her uncle, her husband, and even her mother were all called variants of the name Herod

[mp][/mp]

 

And it is really mean to edit mistakes out of your posts once people have replied to them

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Posts hidden. This is a discussion of history, not personal testimony/preaching.

[Ricky12]

Think Jesus was just a preacher and man embellished that.Reading this book at the moment which sums it up nicely by a historian

 

A history of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch

 

 

 

 

 

[Pymander]

If I may deflect a little disinformation here, concerning usury, please consider the following in the light of current world problems, and the current status of those who have adhered to such teaching, and now control 'democracies'. (KJV best - history National Geographic very recently). Exodus 22:25 - 22:27. Leviticus 25:35 - 25:38. Deuteronomy 23:19 - 23:22. Psalms 4:1. Psalms 15:1 - 15:5. As for the consequences of accumulated wealth, power and oppression, the year of 'jubile' (sic) was assigned for a cure, Leviticus 25:8. The alternative is many times over written history of past civilisations, and serves only as a warning yet to be headed by other races, back to Plato. Truth, justice and liberty is the code of the super race. Disinformation sets up roadblocks in our minds.

 

Consider Greece today. There are 365 churches on the island of Kythera alone, frustrating the usurping of real democracy by investors. The Greeks have not headed the fifth ecumenical council, 553AD Constantinople (remember Troy - long thought but legendary - never reconciled - consider Cypress!). Effect - no disinformation - no inconsistency between their scripture & their orthodoxy - no "it is an insult to the intelligence to expect people to believe 'scripture'" as elsewhere, even from Archbishops! To quote Isaac Newton once more, 'because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not' (concerning Asrology no less - Job 38:31).

 

If you care nothing for truth, why are you really here arguing? To troll them that "express opinions which are not a part of their social environment"? Children in the schoolyard? Oops, I preach.

[wucko]

 

 

christianity survived just because it had luck and government on it's side, imagine what religions could've been in it's place; worship of honi the circledrawer perhaps? haha

christianity was the only 'religio illicita' in the Roman Empire. Early church was thrown to the lions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/lucian-of-samosata.html

 

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-4.htm

Edited October 7, 2015 by wucko

[Ten oz]

christianity was the only 'religio illicita' in the Roman Empire. Early church was thrown to the lions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/lucian-of-samosata.html

 

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-4.htm

All religions have there movements of persecution. Judaism's for example has a history of persecution longer and more extensive than Christianity but that doesn't mean Judaism has never had meaningful support.

 

 

I also think an argument could be that early Roman Christians were very different than modern Christians. There movement was political much as it was religious. Just as Martin Luther King's (Baptist Rev) message was political more than it was religious. MLK was assassinated for his politics and not because he was Christian.

[wucko]

the roman Pantheon consisted of liberal approach to religious freedom, with a twist- as long as any religion would recognise Caesar as supreme Deity (Pontidicus Maximus), the religion was legitimate (Religio Legitimata), jews had a compromise: instead of sacrificing to the Caesar they sacrificed for him, Christians however did not recognise deity to Caesar, that is why Christianity was the only 'Religio Illicita' in the roman Pantheon. Christians were thrown to the lions for 350 years, entire families, for amusement of roman masses in Colloseums.

 

Point being, ' survived just because it had luck and government on it's side' It had no government on their side.

 

But as for pollitical reason: rome adopted christianity as official religon arround 350 AD, precisely because of pollitical reasons - christianity became too powerful despite intense perecution. The move to creat a roman christianity was a political move.

Edited October 7, 2015 by wucko

[Ten oz]

the roman Pantheon consisted of liberal approach to religious freedom, with a twist- as long as any religion would recognise Caesar as supreme Deity (Pontidicus Maximus), the religion was legitimate (Religio Legitimata), jews had a compromise: instead of sacrificing to the Caesar they sacrificed for him, Christians however did not recognise deity to Caesar, that is why Christianity was the only 'Religio Illicita' in the roman Pantheon. Christians were thrown to the lions for 350 years, entire families, for amusement of roman masses in Colloseums.

 

Point being, ' survived just because it had luck and government on it's side' It had no government on their side.

 

But as for pollitical reason: rome adopted christianity as official religon arround 350 AD, precisely because of pollitical reasons - christianity became too powerful despite intense perecution. The move to creat a roman christianity was a political move.

How does this tie into the historicity of Jesus? I am willing to entertain a conversation about the various political impacts of Christianity in Rome but only if it adds this threads purpose. So before we dive into a rabbit hole please state the connection.

[Cuba]

Religious archaeology is both the worst and most lucrative form of archaeological research in my opinion. There is so much disinformation in religious history that it becomes a maze to research. The popularity of the subject matter however means any claim will be sensationalized. Which makes for bad archaeology. Until remains are identified or documents dating from the period specifically mention a man named Jesus who follows loosely with events detailed in the bible I am inclined to beleive that it is a very fictionalized account of a period rabbi that accumulated a substantial following which developed into religious theory over centuries. Which would follow with how a lot of other religions developed.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Cuba

[John Cuthber]

If I may deflect a little disinformation here

 

Oops, I preach.

No, you may not. If it was even close to the topic...

 

 

Well don't.

[AtlasoftheHumanJourney]

It is possible that Jesus really did exist and his miracles were just exaggerations of stories handed down orally or placebos by people who claimed to have been "cured".

 

On the other hand it is certainly possible that the writers of the New Testament made up the character completely.

 

We all now that the supernatural elements of the film Bruce Almighty is fictional. But no one believes that Bruce Nolan really does exist and that he is a reporter for Eyewitness News in Buffalo, New York. We all except that the whole story is fictional, not just the miraculous parts.

 

I'd recommend the book "The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede" by Albert Schweitzer.

[dimreepr]

We will almost certainly never know if the historical figure ‘Jesus’ ever existed but someone did (someone who had the idea’s written in the NT) there are many examples of people who have discovered or realised the same basic understanding (enlightenment) Buddha, Mohamed and Gandhi spring to mind; and in all these teachings the same basic tenants are apparent, not least of which is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ or the value of ‘forgiveness’.

 

Maybe we need to realise the benefit of what these great people are trying to teach rather than debunking them because they introduce a concept.

 

There’s nothing wrong in a model that leads one to understanding, even if that model is false, teaching is reliant on such models or lies, we do it all the time (when educating children); I’m an atheist so for me God is nothing more than a lie (BS) but if that leads to a greater understanding, contentment or happiness in others, evidence is irrelevant.

[Ten oz]

We will almost certainly never know if the historical figure ‘Jesus’ ever existed but someone did (someone who had the idea’s written in the NT) there are many examples of people who have discovered or realised the same basic understanding (enlightenment) Buddha, Mohamed and Gandhi spring to mind; and in all these teachings the same basic tenants are apparent, not least of which is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ or the value of ‘forgiveness’.

 

Maybe we need to realise the benefit of what these great people are trying to teach rather than debunking them because they introduce a concept.

 

There’s nothing wrong in a model that leads one to understanding, even if that model is false, teaching is reliant on such models or lies, we do it all the time (when educating children); I’m an atheist so for me God is nothing more than a lie (BS) but if that leads to a greater understanding, contentment or happiness in others, evidence is irrelevant.

This thread is not a condemnation of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

[dimreepr]

This thread is not a condemnation of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

 

 

I’m not suggesting it is: I’m suggesting his/her existence is irrelevant.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

I’m not suggesting it is: I’m suggesting his/her existence is irrelevant.

This conversation reminds me of the questions posed to Jesus at his trial.

Pilate: Are you a king then?

Jesus: "My kingdom is not of this World"

 

So even Jesus admits to a type of "this world" irrelevance, that is unless you want to be part of his "other world" kingdom.

Honestly I don't know what he means by "not of this World".

[Ten oz]

 

 

I’m not suggesting it is: I’m suggesting his/her existence is irrelevant.

If you review the thread you'll see that the message of Jesus is not part of the dicussion. This thread is purely about the historicity of Jesus. The only meaningful use of the teachings of Jesus to this thread are ones that denote authorship and dates which provide evidence of a real person. You may not feel the point of this thread is relevant but that is the point of it all the same. How benefical the message attributed Jesus may or may not be is not a topic rasied by this thread and is irrelevant to this thread.

[dimreepr]

Fair enough, I’ll consider myself suitably admonished. TBH it’s a pet hate of mine, jumping into a thread of many pages without reading the previous input; my only excuse is a related debate we had in the pub whilst quaffing a few too many ales, so please accept my apologies.

[evobulgarevo]

Jesus is a person who is talked about in religious texts, most notably the Bible. It should be taken into consideration that the Bible itself is not a book (or rather, a compilation of books) to be taken literally. A large part of it is entirely symbolic.

 

So then does it matter if Jesus was a 'real' person? Maybe he was merely a representation of a life pattern that one should follow or would need to go through in order to live a good life?

[ThinkingMind]

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

I would be more willing to believe that than anything else. Also some of the things could have been metaphorical. Like we say we eat Jesus by eating cookies and drinking wine but its not literal.

[Ten oz]

I would be more willing to believe that than anything else. Also some of the things could have been metaphorical. Like we say we eat Jesus by eating cookies and drinking wine but its not literal.

Of course much of it is metaphorical; the man was said to have returned from the dead.

My question is whether are not the works written are about (exaggerated, idealized, or whatever) an actual individual who lived. Not a group of individuals metaphorically molded into a single character. Sort of like asking if there was ever a King Arthor of is his legend just a amalgamation of many kings. Or perhaps Arthor was pure fiction.