Prove Jesus Existed

popinfresh

Having read through this thread I'll accept the argument that Jesus can neither be historically proven or disproven. And so, we must find an alternative means to history to prove or disprove the existance of Jesus (or Jeshua as his name was pronounced back then).
Personally I choose to beleive in Jesus. I have made this decision based the assumptions and probability. Take the following scenario for example.
In the first century, people would have been able to determine whether or not Jesus existed. The epic tale that was the story of jesus would have been word of mouth for up to 200 years after it was proposed to have taken place. Therefore, the people of the time would have had a very credible view-point as to whether or not jesus actually existed. And to be honest, I could not see people at that time, given the religious control the Jews had over their population, just blindly following some myth.
When you consider the opression the pioneering christians came under, people would have questioned the authenticity of the christian message. And history does tell us that christians kept on growing in number. The fact that the number of christians grew suggests to me that the christians around the the first century era beleived in Jesus. And hence, I'm assuming they trusted their faith in a descent idea, that jesus did exist.
Another thing that would make me beleive that Jesus was a real person. The idea that several people would just make up an elaborate lifestory of a fictional man seems logic defying. I'll agree that the story of jesus may have been exagerated at the time it was written, but I refuse to beleive that the gospels were just picked out of thin air, by a bunch of men that wished glory for themselves.
Which brings me onto my next point. It tends to be the case that when people cough up a new religion, they do it so as to gain praise for themselves. (eg: Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholisism, Mormans) So why would the apostils, or whoever one decides to accuse of lyeing, give all the credit to a man that did not exist...
Historically Jesus cannot be proven, but it is my opinion that common sense would seem to lean towards the idea that jesus did exist. (By the way, if you can see that I am wrong, in that I am ooverlooking facts or ironically lacking common sense, please tell me. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just expressing opinions. If I'm wrong I'd like to see why)

keu

I'm going to quote capt'n picard, because I was watching him today..." you see beverly, the prime directive is not just a set of rules...it's a philosophy..and a very correct one at that.."

All the figures mentioned in the original post are all symbolic representations of the most basic philosophy, whether they all actually lived or not is almost irrelevant. Each tale/myth tells the same story, because man, in all his ages has always questioned his origins.
Those who became "enlightened"/"christed" through whatever procedures, (mostly derived from shamnic cultures) have always taught the same principles of a pure liberated spirit/essence at the heart of all men.

The dying and rising after three days, is an ancient shamanic initiation procedure.
A tribe elder, would nominate a promising spiritual student to follow and carry on the shamanic tradition, while being subjected to riduicule (crucifixtion) by the entire village (being beaten/ urinated on and so forth) he would then be buried alive, or imprisoned in a cave for three days, where upon his spirit would leave his body and travel into spiritual realms. Those who survived (and passed the initation)were considered spiritual masters (unfortunately many died.)
Revelations is supposedly written from a cave in patmos. If you consider in greece at that time, these shamnic rituals were the basis of most schools of philosophy and much classical knowledge is derived from the participants of such schools of "knowledge", who by undergoing near death experiences would hope to reveal and unlock the secrets of life and death (infinte life).

I didn't read all posts on this thread, so I'm hoping this is relevant.

watty

David Kossoff's "Book of Witnesses" puts it well.

From his (Jewish) point of view Jesus was a real historic person. But the last "fictional witness" of the book recounts what he thinks happened(1), what the Priests paid them to say what happened(2) and what the "fellowship" or "followers" say happened(3)

1) Lots of noise and bright light and body was gone

2) It was a plot. They were drugged and the body stolen

3) He rose from the dead and was seen alive by many


That he was crucified is not historically doubtful. But no direct evidence as to what actually really happened later, or indeed if he was really dead.

It would seem very unlikely he was still alive after being taken down from the cross, but it can't be proved.

It can't be proved if he was merely human or divine or both.

That he is Human and Divine and rose from the dead is an article of Faith. It can't be proven.

But it goes way too far to suggest his existance at all for 33 years approx is a myth. If you can't take that for a fact, you can't assert that Julius Caeser lived or that Ramases II lived either.

watty

The earliest writings about Jesus may actually date to within 90AD. This is close enough for people to write refutations of the "facts" outlined, rather than events than must be more taken in Faith, or even the Gospel writers admit others beleive a different version of events (see post above).



C.S. Lewis of course argued that the other "resurrection myths" and everyone having very similar codes of law to the basic law of Noah or Moses or teachings of Jesus, indicates that these are universal "truths" and many pagen beliefs are fiant revelation from God, shadows of the One Truth, that God started to reveal to with Noah, Abraham and Moses and prophets and finally manifest in the person of Jesus (Yeshua or Joshua).

There is of course significance that Moses sister and Jesus Mother have same name
(Mirriam = Mary) and that Moses successor that led the people into the physical "promised land" is same name as Jesus (led followers into the "Kingdom of Heaven", which is NOT just a place you go when dead).

(Joshua = Jesus).

The lack of transparancy with name is
OT Hebrew /Aramaic --> Latin & Old Greek --> English
NT "Koine" Greek(sp?) --> English

James isn't even in the Greek really (several of them). But a transliteration to "butter up" King James who was funding the translation.

You can get a "Messianic Living Bible" Translation/paraphrase that uses "proper" English transliterations of all the names
i.e. Joshua and Jesus are both written as Yeshua

Don't forget Hebrew does not have the vowels written and often in English over the years Y and J and also V and W have been interchanged.

popinfresh

Yeah, I'm actually really interested to see what a proper translation of the bible would be like. I mean, the vast majority of christian religions base their beleifs on the after-life on a small number of scriptures usually from revalation. But when you actually read them scriptures carefully, and read them in their context you'll find that they are completely irrelevent. For example I get no impression what so ever from Revelations that you die and go to heaven, or alternativly hell if you are bad. And, that's having analysed the scriptures that the catholic church use to back up their beleifs. The general impression I got from Revelations is something along the lines of the world will deteriorate, become more evil, to a point where god will have to step in.

Watty is this version of the bible (Messianic Living Bible) compiled by a religious organisation? If not i'd consider getting it.

neuro-praxis

Popinfresh. All translations of the bible are compiled by theologians. Obviously some of them will be believers and some of them won't.

Your above two posts are just full of hearsay and opinion.

Do your research.

Verdammt

They forgot to put this page in when they finished the translation:

"The characters and incidents portrayed and the names herein are fictitous, and any similarity to the name, character or history of any person living or dead is entirely coincidental and unintentional."

Might have saved alot of hassle over the past 2000 odd years.

mmcgaley

Originally posted by popinfresh
Yeah, I'm actually really interested to see what a proper translation of the bible would be like. I mean, the vast majority of christian religions base their beleifs on the after-life on a small number of scriptures usually from revalation. But when you actually read them scriptures carefully, and read them in their context you'll find that they are completely irrelevent. For example I get no impression what so ever from Revelations that you die and go to heaven, or alternativly hell if you are bad. And, that's having analysed the scriptures that the catholic church use to back up their beleifs. The general impression I got from Revelations is something along the lines of the world will deteriorate, become more evil, to a point where god will have to step in.

Watty is this version of the bible (Messianic Living Bible) compiled by a religious organisation? If not i'd consider getting it.

In order to understand Revelation properly, you need to be very familiar with old-testament imagery. For instance, when Jesus is described as having feet of bronze, that refers to a statue that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed he built of himself. It had feet of clay, and so was destroyed. Jesus' feet are made of bronze to symbolise how permanent and invulnerable He is.

My point is, it's unlikely that your or I will ever properly "get" revelation.

As for dying and going to heaven, check out:
Mark 12:18-27
and
Revelation 21:1-8

to name but two.

Margaret

Paddy20

This could go on forever. Just try and prove Jesus 'did not' exist ?... :eek:

popinfresh

When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven

Perfect example. This scripture by no means says that people will go to heaven. It says that when people "rise", they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. JUST LIKE the angels. We know that the angels are not allowed to marry due to the nephilm story from Genesis. So this is an appropriate comparison to make. If the scripture said "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be angels in heaven" then I'd shut up and be stung. The words "like the" discredit that particular scripture as being proof that we go to heaven. However, this scripture does suggest that there is some form of life after death. But people automatically assume that the afterlife means going to heaven due to what they've been told.

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God

FFS m8. Ok so there's going to be a new heaven and new earth. Where does god reside now?? (cough*) heaven... Note the image that the new jurusalem came down from heaven. This means coming down to earth. Well it doesn't say them words exactly but there's two places being mentioned here, heaven and earth. It's coming from heaven. Therefore it's coming to earth.

Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them

Where was god's dwelling? HEAVEN. The words "Now the dwelling of God is......" says that god has (or will have) a new dwelling. and "with men", means on earth. If the scripture was saying that men will go to heaven, it would have said "Now the dwelling men is with God, and they will live with him".

watty

I suppose we got told 2000 years ago that God would provide a "new earth" for those saved (all are ressurected, not just the good guys) because He forsaw we would wear out this one :-)

Actually all thranslations are not by Theologons. Just mostly..

If you read *MODERN* English translastion of old testament in

Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) (Use version with foot notes)
New International Version (Scholarly ecumenical/ protetestant) Use version with full footnotes, i.e. Study Version)
JB Philips (one english man)
New English Bible (anglican?)
Living Bible (not true translation, American paraphrase)
Art Scroll Tenach Series (Orthodox Jewish)
Good News Bible (Easy English)

Also compare with oldest "popular" version
"Authorised / King James Version" with Matthew Henry Commentary.

You will find amazing little variation, most of which is covered either with explination footnotes or even possible alternate translation in foot notes.

As well as these I have read the RSV and the New American Standard Bible.

I havn't read the "NEW" Jeruslaslem Bible, just the original edition.

They all say the the same things.

On New testament translations because Kione Greek is less tricky and is not missing vowels, there is even more uniformity.

Actually Theologions tend to limit there "twist" to a partisan footnote.. i.e. A Catholic translation present with "Jesus' Mother and his Brothers" will add a footnote explaining they might really be cousins, because they think Mary remained a Virgin for life, other translators don't have a problem with Joseph consummating the marriage after the approved cleansing peroid after the birth of Jesus and thus the "brothers" really are "half" brothers born later.

"Evangelical" theologions in some other translation may add a different footnote elsewhere about something they have similar difficulties with Must think of an example.

Nobody much likes that though the Twelve "original" Apostles where all men, there were other apostles mentioned later, and worse two are women (or at least have greek names normally only given to girls). Juno and I forget who the other was..

Nala

I saw Him in Centra the other day. If anyone wants to know, he was buying Colgate toothpaste, a 2L bottle of Ballygowan (presubably to be blessed for Mass on Sunday) and a packet of Polo's (the halo-like shape must've lured him).

Yoda

Originally posted by JustHalf
Do you believe that Buddha existed?

The "existence" of Siddhartha Gautama has never been questioned by anyone. His life is well-documented, and died at around the age of eighty after many years of public teaching.

Lorddrakul

Interesting thread, hoary old argument.

I would like to point out that there are many contemporary sources that give various levels of detail which can be teased out into a theory, but it is only a theory. The sources inlcude both Islamic and Judaic texts as well as Apocryphal Christian writings.

However for the lazy (like me) the position that results is that the Jesus of New testmanet scripture and later Catholic tradition is most likely a composite of at least three major figures, none of which fully match the figure that tends to be referred to as Jesus today.

So, once the historical inaccuracies are worked out, like the fact the Herod Antipas died before Jesus was supposed to have been born, Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus birth, crucifixion was an execution reserved solely for anti-Roman activity and the sole preserve of the Romans, then what emerges is a single figure likely named Yehoshua [various spellings] who was the younger brother of James the Just, to whom is attributed the recorded deeds of two to three other men within a time span of about 40BCE to 70CE with the period eneded by the sacking of the temple by Vespasian.

I offer one source for this, though it is a well promoted theory, as it is one of the best unified, if biased presentations that encapsulates the whole thing.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Finally, I have to agree with several of the people who hae said that the idea of Jesus is as powerful as any historical instance. It is and the example of Santa CLaus is perhaps one of the best to illustrate it. Look at how innocently we all propagate this complete invention just to give the kids delight on a certain morning each year?

LD

PS, MeatProduct gave an example early on of Horus having been crucified. I can't for the life of me find any reference to this. AFAIK, Horus died of a scorpion sting and was raised to the Duat by Thoth, without even having to be passed by Anubis.
What are your sources for this detail?

JustHalf

"Lorddrakul": MeatProduct's original list is a load of crap. I've mentioned this in the thread.

DapperGent

Originally posted by Lorddrakul
I offer one source for this, though it is a well promoted theory, as it is one of the best unified, if biased presentations that encapsulates the whole thing.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It is a touch biased but utterly fascinating nonetheless. Thanks for the link.

Lorddrakul

That it is. Though to be honest, I do not doubt the scholarship.

The facts of early Christianity are often presneted outside of the historical context in which they occurred, meaning that their interpretation is more difficult. Take for example the Wedding a Cana, tradition at the time stated that the Bridegroom must supply the wine for the feast. Therefore if Mary asked Jesus to do something about the drink situation and he did, then there is one likely interpretation.

Another example is that Rabbis at the time had to be married. And as Jesus is recorded in contemporary sources as a Rabbi, then the implication is inescapabale; were he just a preacher then he would have been referred to in the same way as ]John the Baptist.

So to see a Jeiwsh perspective on time honoured Christian "facts" does cat a whole new light.

LD

DapperGent

Originally posted by Lorddrakul
That it is. Though to be honest, I do not doubt the scholarship.

Nor do I. It actually corresponds quite closely with my own personal beliefs about how the jesus story came about, so it was nice to see a scholarly approach to debunking the story as myth.

I would love to see a scholarly Christian refutation as well out of interest, unlikely as it would be to convince me.