Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

I believe he did, but he was just a human. I think the original bible (old testament) was made to bury paganism. Its all man written, it even says so itself. The jews disagree with jesus being the son of god and jesus himself never said he was he said he was "the son of man". The new testament i think was made to correct how brutal and esoteric the old one was. Its all still a load of bs propoganda used to remove ritual practice from our culture

 

"the son of man" was a Hebrew messianic term, so it actually caries more significance to the culture of the time than simply being the son of God. That is why it caused a ruckus when he referred to himself as such, because he was claiming to be the Messiah. Daniel chapter 7 and Jewish apocryphal writings are the source for the term "son of man" as Jesus used/referenced it.
so that kinda lets the air out of your idea.

the term "son of man" also presents an intrinsic validity to the honesty and integrity of the author. I think the term is found most often in the Gospel of Mark, a letter written to Roman Christians to whom the term "son of man" would mean pretty much someone's son instead of a messianic personage. so why wouldn't Mark label Jesus as the Son of God or some title that would hold meaning to the Romans of the time and tailor the story to the audience?
Historians often view that type of thing as indicative of the truth and honesty of the author concerning the events being reported about.

that is not to say that the events happened as reported, but that at least the author of that text was honestly reporting what they believed to be true and not fabricating a story.

 

I don't see why that should lend credibility to the author. It's just as plausible that the story was so contrived at that point already that he didn't even realize the mistake, not knowing if Jesus was supposed to be the son of God or of man or whoever he was.

 

weak explanation and you are actually not saying anything other than what I said, the author was reporting what they believed to be true or hey most likely would have altered the story more to fit the intended audience.

logic is absent from your reply

 

According to the New Testament, Jesus said He was the Son of Man over 80 times, and He is the only figure who uses this expression in the NT. It appears only in the Gospels, not in the letters. When Christians say He was Son of God and Son of Man, they are affirming His dual nature as both divine and fully human. But the term Son of Man preceded Jesus. It was used over 90 times in the Book of Ezekiel. In the Book of Daniel, God gives dominion over the earth to "one like a Son of Man., and the Similitudes of Enoch links the Son of Man to the Messiah (1 Enoch 37-71). While some of these were apocryphal writings, they were very influential at the time of Jesus, when people were expecting deliverance from oppression by Rome and its Jewish collaborators. Whether Jesus actually used those terms or they were put in His mouth by the authors of the Gospels is debatable, but the purpose is clear: to link Him to messianic prophecy.

BTW, there was and is still plenty of "ritual practice" in both Judaism and Christianity. But it's true, they got rid of child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5); Deuteronomy 12:31) and temple prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:18–19). The cads!

 

yup....

 

There is one thing I can be sure of--my own consciousness. Descartes was right about that. That, however, doesn't get me far. For all I know, I could be a brain in a jar in some laboratory, and you could be a figment of my imagination (you'd be able to tell whether or not that's true, but I can't for sure. There's a professor at Oxford University, Nick Bostrom, who is convinced that what we think is physical reality is actually a virtual reality produced by a computer simulation. To get past those uncertainties, I'm willing to exercise what Santayana calls animal faith: that there is an external reality that I'm more or less in touch with, that you're real, etc. I'm also willing to stick my neck out farther and say, on the basis of substantial credible evidence, that Donald Trump is a jackass, Ben Carson is a wingnut, and Jesus was a real historical figure. I regard these as educated bets, which of course could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet on.

 

The way you state this doesn't make much sense to me. I agree that: "In the end, it's the people who want you to believe in him upon which rests the burden of proof." Obviously, if Jesus didn't exist, he wouldn't have to prove it. If he did exist, it's unlikely he'd feel a need to prove it. If he existed, but his followers were mistaken about his true character or identity, he might have an obligation to set them straight, if he was aware of it. If not, the burden is on us. And I accept it. I've given you seven reasons why I think he existed. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think I'm right. If you read Bart Ehrman (2012), R.L.Houlden (2003), R.E. Van Voors (2000), M.A. Powell (1998), J.D.Crossan (1992) and R.W. Funk, R.W. Hoover the Jesus Seminar (1993), you'll see that some well-respected scholars have come to the same conclusion and present what I think are sound arguments in support of their case. If you're not convinced, I could add lots of others to the list. Their position represents the majority view on the subject, and in my opinion constitutes a prima facie case. They might be wrong, but it would be a bit rash to say they're unreasonable. Since I don't necessarily think he was "a miracle worker who you have to believe in in order to be saved from hell", but was instead a sage along the lines of Chinacat's Buddhist philosopher, I guess we're on the same page that he didn't have to prove anything--agreed?

If you don't think it's important, why are we arguing so strenuously about it? Your killer bee analogy doesn't quite fit. ISIS and Christian fundamentalism are good examples of why it's important to have a clear understanding of the historical context in which ideas develop, and not to go simply on the basis of what the words say. Thoughts can become like killer bees when taken out of historical context and misused for political purposes. To prevent this, it's important to understand how the ideas of Mohammad and Jesus originated--e.g., whether Jesus really was a miracle working godman or Mohammad's recitation of Allah's instructions to kill infidel was really meant to be a universal mandate for all time, rewarded by 70 virgins in paradise, or a defensive measure by Muslims under attack in the seventh century.

 

And in the Gospel of Thomas, he is showing how every man is also the Son of Man, and that all things and all beings are equally of this world and also fully Divine simultaneously.

 

Wait, "weak explanation" and "logic is absent from my reply", yet...I'm saying the exact same thing you said?! How does that add up?

Anyway, it's totally plausible that the author didn't alter the story because the author didn't know what the story was supposed to be. Maybe it made just as much sense to him to think Jesus said he was the son of man, as in the son of a man and not the messiah, as the son of God. I don't know why you'd assume otherwise, that the author disregarded the Roman's point of view in order to stay true to the story. Also, what does it matter if the author is reporting what they believe to be true? Obviously that doesn't prove that their beliefs are true.

I think, to be reasonable, you can be certain of many things. At least to a higher degree than you can be certain Jesus existed. For instance, I am more certain that George Washington existed than you are that Jesus existed. Though I admit a degree of faith is ingrained in us.

I'm not convinced! I don't think I can be convinced without proof. As I have said, a historical Jesus is of little importance to me, so I will just wait until it is proven before I start believing it. It's like a lot of things with science there is evidence for, but I still don't believe until there is proof. Since we have no idea what he said or did, even if you told me there were good reasons to believe a man inspired the New Testament, I wouldn't have any idea in what way he inspired it. So how can I truly believe that a historical Jesus existed? How can you convince me that there was really some messianic figure, and that the whole thing wasn't mostly just the work of the human imagination? We're talking about a virtual non-entity here.

I'm trying to impress girls.

j/k Seriously, I guess there are just a select number of topics to discuss, and since I like discussing things, this one fits the bill. Doesn't make it important. Whoever even said that humanity was important? Everything we do might be completely ridiculous, born out of the pompous assumption that we're significant, for all we know.

The sad thing about the things you're speaking of, whether Jesus was a miracle worker or if Mohammad said to kill infidels, is that there is virtually no way of knowing. There is no understanding the historical context of these men, because, strictly speaking, they're not historical.

Nowadays we know that its a good idea to have a clear historical record of events. Evidently back then they didn't. All I think you're really guilty of is wishing with all your heart that they had. But I'm afraid it will never be so. These things simply are not historical.

So in short, no proof Jesus existed = I don't believe Jesus existed. I see no reason why I should believe he existed. I think the words in the story would be much more significant as a collection of wise old sayings. They should just make a book entitled "Wise Old Sayings" and put some of Jesus's words in it. I think that would be much more accessible to people instead of trying to prop it up like it's the be-all end-all of existence. Christianity is total lunacy as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree that the evidence for George Washington's existence is impressive--beyond a reasonable doubt (which is not the same as certainty). He has the advantage of being a famous general and head of government, and being active after the printing press was invented. I'd put Caesar Augustus and Cleopatra in the same category, because we have biographies, multiple attestations from respectable sources, and coins with their pictures on them. Alas, poor Jesus, Socrates, and Buddha don't have the same level of evidence to support their existence. So it becomes a matter of judgment based on the evidence available. I share the judgment of most historians that these figures existed. You deep talking about convincing you, and "proof". The OP adked for our beliefs, which I provided, bcke up with what I consider good reasons (different from proof). I don't give a rats ass whether you or anybody else is convinced.

 

If so, it's gotta be the lamest pickup strategy since Clarence Tomas' comment to Anita Hill about pubic hair in his coke!

 

From an existentialist standpoint, we humans decide whether or not we're important.

 

It's less a matter of "proof" than of judgment.There's enough evidence about Jesus and Muhammad for objective scholars to be reasonably confident about their existence, although I agree the content of the teachings is more important than their existence. You're entitled to your opinion about Christianity, but the verdict of "total lunacy" doesn't seem to be a tenable one.

 

What is not lunatic about believing that a jewish manual laborour from bronze age palestine was the creator of the universe and will return one day to destroy the earth and claim its souls for himself?

 

Sounds equally as "lunatic" as The Buddha sitting under the Bodhi Tree, warding off evil spirits, fears, and temptations, only after a period of time for him to proclaim not that he was Enlightened, but that "I and all other beings have Awakened simultaneously"...if you look at these stories on surface reality then of course it's going to sound cartoon-like, made up, etc.

Or how about Lao Tzu and how he supposedly sat in a cave for years and wrote the Tao Te Ching? There is also debate here about whether he ever existed at all, or whether the Tao Te Ching just emerged as a handful of sayings and just became attributed to this legendary figure of Lao Tzu.

These are LITERALLY no different than Christianity. The only difference is that you are especially biased against Christianity and therefore Jesus. You're mistaking the religion of Christianity for being equivalent to Jesus, which is a mistake. Do you mistake Buddha for Buddhism?

 

There's absolutely a claim to divinity. Buddha wouldn't be claimed to be an Enlightened Being if there was no claim to divinity.

 

And Lao Tzu literally translates as "Old Master" and he was/is also worshipped and known as the "Supreme Old Lord"

And since Writer is always bashing on Alchemy, and being all "sophisticated" and referencing the Tao in past posts, he's meanwhile not aware whatsoever of how linked Alchemy and Taoism actually are:

Lao Tzu is considered 1 of the Three Pure Ones in Taoism, and..

"Each of the Three Pure Ones represents both a deity and a heaven. Yuanshi tianzun rules the first heaven, Yu-Qing, which is found in the Jade Mountain. The entrance to this heaven is named the Golden Door. "He is the source of all truth, as the sun is the source of all light". Lingbao Tianzun rules over the heaven of Shang-Qing. Daode Tianzun (also known as Lao Tzu or Laozi) rules over the heaven of Tai-Qing. The Three Pure Ones are often depicted as throned elders.

...Schools of Taoist thought developed around each of these deities. Taoist Alchemy was a large part of these schools, as each of the Three Pure Ones represented one of the three essential fields of the body: jing, qi and shen. The congregation of all three Pure Ones resulted in the return to Tao."

Daode Tianzun (道德天尊, "Lord of the Way and its Virtue" or "Honoured Lord of the Tao and the Virtue"), also known as the "Grand Pure One" (Chinese: 太清; pinyin: Tàiqīng) or the "Highest Elder Lord" (太上老君, Taishang Laojun).
It is believed that Daode Tianzun manifested himself in the form of Laozi (Yes, this is the same Laozi that wrote the Tao Te Ching). Daode Tianzun is also the treasurer of spirits, known as the Lord of Man who is the founder of Taoism. He is the most eminent, aged ruler, which is why he is the only Pure One depicted with a pure white beard.

"There seem to have been a number of stages in the process of Laozi's eventual deification. First, the legendary figure began as a teacher and writer whose image eventually blended with that of the Yellow Emperor when Laozi came to be identified as a confidant of royalty. Traditional accounts, such as the life-story summarized earlier, transformed him into a cultural hero whose mother conceived him virginally. By the mid-second century C.E., Laozi had become the deity who delivered to Zhang Daoling the revelation of a new religious faith, giving rise to the Celestial Master's school. His image was still not complete. Next, perhaps also around the second or third century CE, Laozi seems to have been identified as a creator god who also enters the world to rescue humanity from tribulation. Laozi was now capable of incarnating himself, almost like Buddhist bodhisattvas. Not long thereafter he joined the triad of the Three Pure Ones, and finally Laozi emerged as the chief divine person. We have here one of the more interesting examples of apotheosis, or deification, in the history of religion."




So explain again how this is ANY different than Christianity?

 

Exactly. A great teacher and a great philosopher, but still human.