Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

Don't we, or at least shouldn't rational people feel obligated to cut that slippery slope at some point though?

For instance, if someone is convinced the internet was invented by Magical Unicorns or even something less absurd like Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, how is it productive to let such people maintain these beliefs?

 

How can you stop people entertaining such beliefs if they are determined they are correct? There are people who say they believe the British royal family are 10 foot lizards in disguise. They won't easily yield to rational explanations as to why this is very unlikely to be true.

But I really meant more on the level of trying to convince people of the existence or non existence of the 'supernatural'. I thin people have to reach their own conclusions. They shouldn't be forced to believe or not believe.

 

@ the giant lizards in disguise

Well the beautiful thing about most science is you can provide repeatable tests and evidence. Maybe we should require the British royal family to take X-Ray's, fMRI's and other measures to see if we can expose their lizardness.

But in the unlikely event they happen to pass the humanity tests, it's reasonable to not hold all beliefs on the same pedestal in regards to their lizardness and it would be an unreasonable compromise to consider all these beliefs on equal footing.

 

But is there something special about faith that enhances knowledge gained through faith? Why would Jesus intentionally make his existence a matter of faith rather than fact, especially since this creates a distraction from the words he (supposedly) spoke. It seems to me that saying faith is a fail safe way of garnering knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I can have faith that my friend doesn't need surgery for his brain tumor. Is that good faith? Why is it productive to set the standard that faith is good? Or are we supposed to have the prescience to know that only faith in the certain things that are actually true or useful is good?

I don't see why instances like this really point to a specific authority, though. It could be that a higher power smiled upon him appealing to a higher authority than himself in general. And that higher authority could just be an aspect of his own subconscious, his god self, that suspended his disbelief and caused the car to steer to safety. Or it could have been luck (but that's kind of a boring explanation.)

Nobody knows a scientific reason why anything appears, really.

I do hope you will share. These are interesting anecdotes.

 

I tend to discount supernatural explanations of things and go by scientific explanations where those are available. This is because science provides a coherent body of tested knowledge, and the supernatural provides unconfirmable notions that could have multiple explanations. There are certain things that I won't readily believe, because if I did, I might as well believe anything. I have friends who seem normal and rational and who tell me about remarkable experiences they've had--healings in pyramids, ghosts, the ability to see auras, etc. I store these in my X-files for future reference, but I won't believe them without further confirmation. I must say that, while folks are entitled to their opinions, there are some opinions that I think are important to challenge: like the alien visitations featured so often on the History Channel, the ghost ghost hunting reported on the Discovery Channel, etc. How do I "know" these things aren't true? Judgment, based on critical analysis, reason, experience, intuition and "book larnin' "-- the same way I "know" that Donald Trump is an asshole and Ben Carson is a crank. I fact check the information, consider the support for alternative explanations, and assess the credentials and demeanor of the witnesses--just as I would as a juror in a courtroom trial. And I could be wrong, but I'm willing to act on my personal assessments.

That being said, I don't limit myself to scientifically provable conclusions, but am willing to act on the basis of substantial available evidence. This is because there are plenty of areas in which scientific evidence isn't available, and is unlikely to be available in the forseeable future. On those matters, I think it's reasonable to proceed on the basis of rational judgments based on available substantial evidence. Did prehistoric humans have religion? We make inferences from burials and grave goods, cave paintings, and the behavior of hunter gatherer societies in our own time--none of which is indisputable. The alternative is to say there's just not enough evidence, in which case, we'd have to conclude that the origin of religion is a mystery. Did Moses write the Torah? There the case is more complicated, but the weight of evidence and scholarship suggests there were several authors. Did Socrates exist? Since he never wrote anything himself, and other evidence on him is limited, it's possible to say no. The most prominent eyewitness is Plato, who is also our principal ancient source for the Lost Continent of Atlantis. But the existence, if not the message, of Socrates, is further corroborated by Xenophon and (to me more convincingly) by Aristophanes (because Aristophanes provides a critical satirical account). I've given the evidence for the existence of Jesus, none of which requires belief in the supernatural.

 

Ultimately, the truth behind the matter at hand is that there will be no real evidence to prove this age old controversy. The anwser to this question will always rely on a leap of faith. Like any good documentary your life experience will make you tip your own fulcrum. Clear your mind and thirst only truth. More so then your next breath. Then take that leap or remain on the fence.

 

Yes.
But imo,

He was just some regular dude that wanted to control people in a cult like nature.
Maybe a vagrant con artist who talked about how the world will end, scaring the shit out of people and getting "free" > food n drink, clothing, women and room n board.

He pissed off Pilate and was crucified.

End of story.

 

I remember some years ago, we had a right dopey sod at work, one day we were sat in the canteen at work discussing all kinds of stuff as you do, you know how it goes, you start of discussing the weather and end up talking about the war, well we end up talking about religion. All of a sudden this dopey sod piped up, 'tell you what that was luck wasn't it ! ", we waited for the next bit, 'well go on then, out with it, what was lucky?' asked one of the lads, 'well, Jesus, him being born on Christmas day and all that'. Cue lots of howls of laughter and much spraying of mouthfuls of drinks.

 

Or Jesus was his pseodonym, so he could get away with his conning and tax evaison when he moonlighted as a carpenter

 

I hate to say it but you’re right.

There were so many people in Judea at the time who were proclaiming themselves the next messiah Michael Crichton could have written Jesus Park instead of Jurassic Park.

People having waited for centuries for the coming messiah, it was inevitable they would embrace a charismatic leader with a bag of tricks

 

Or a golfer.....

 

I was going to reference Vernon Wayne Howell in my original post, but that've been a stretch.

But then again you never know

 

The Temple Mount vs Mount Carmel not too much of a stretch….lol..

 

Holy shit

I never even thought of that....

 

"THE MESSIAH, THE MESSIAH"
"THERE'S NO MESSIAH IN HERE, THERE'S A MESS ALRIGHT BUT NO MESSIAH"
she yelled at the chanting crowd, Monty Python, Life of Brian.

 

Not a chance...

 

the unknown being unknown, all things are possible.
the unknown being unknown, none of them owe anything to what we tell each other to pretend we know about it.

it is certainly possible for someone to have been chosen by a god to channel that god.
it is possible for this to have happened multiple times, at intervals of around a thousand years, and for christ, like moses, mohammid, buddha, krshna, lao tsu, to have been one of them.

what i don't believe is the need or excuse to narrow the diverse wonders of the unknown, nor to throw out with the bath water our own imaginations.

 

Probably but Mary weren't a virgin.