Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

To be a Buddhist is not the same as to be a Buddha, also.

No, I didn't say "and that he was the son of God". I simply said what if he did exist?

Hermeticism also is similar to Buddhism in the sense that the writings are attributed to Hermes Trismigestus, who is supposedly older than Moses. But then it later got proven that the writings dated from the Hellenistic period, actually perfectly in line with the origins of Christianity as far as date is concerned. Coincidence or not, I'm not sure. The papers may have been from the Hellenistic period, but the teachings themselves it's impossible to trace the date of origin.

 

So we know you can't prove the existence of Buddha. The same is with Jesus. So until you can prove that Jesus actually didn't exist FOR SURE, you don't really have much of an argument.

It doesn't matter to me either whether Christ existed or not. The teachings still arose from this Christ figure or archetype.

 

Original sin !! Once upon a time somebody reasoned that it happened and made for a terrible situation .
Likely there have been numerous reasoned solutions to this reasoned problem . Jesus was not unreasonable .
Unreasonable people may not exist .

 

off topic but what do you guys think this is? https://www.************/innerstand/videos/1114811791863136/?pnref=story

 

Here's what I think. Jesus did exist as an historical figure. I've given nine reasons why I think that's so, and no one has interacted with them to show they're wrong or right. Bart Ehrman makes a similar case in Did Jesus Exist? They're not the kinds of reasons that any scientist would accept as "proof", but they're comparable to that supporting the existence of other figures of ancient history other than royalty. I think they're enough to make his existence plausible and supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence", as the term is used in the law, is less than courtroom proof but enough evidence that a reasonable decision maker could act on it, even though other decision makers aren't convinced. It's the standard used by government administrators in deciding how much risk to expose us to in building highways and bridges and accepting "safe" exposure levels for hazardous substances. This argument is best evaluated in light of the alternative case that Jesus did not exist, and that his followers simply made him up out of whole cloth. There are plenty of writers who take this position, the most scholarly of which is probably Richard Carrier. I've read his book, which is long and complex, purportedly using Bayesian math to prove Jesus non- existence. I've read the book and find his analysis to be flawed, for reasons I'd gladly discuss.

I think ChinaCatSunflower02 is correct that we have to distinguish the existence of Jesus of Nazareth from the legends that developed around and after him. The original group of followers, under the leadership of Peter and James the Just, called the brother of Jesus, had a religion that was more like a kind of reformed Judaism than the version we follow today, with heavy emphasis on keeping kosher, circumcision, and keeping apart from Gentiles. They didn't even call themselves Christians, but instead Nazerenes and Essenes (sects differing from each other mainly over the issue of vegetarianism). It was Paul, who knew Jesus only though a vision who gave us a the core of Christianity we know today, with its emphasis on original sin, Christ's sacrifice for our sins,His resurrection and our redemption. He was often at odds with the Jerusalem Church under James for relaxing the Law of Moses to accommodate Gentiles, especially on the matter of circumcision. Peter tended to occupy a mediating position between them. It was this accommodation that enabled Christianity to move beyond its Jewish roots to become a universal religion attractive to Gentiles. Christianity offers a unique union of the two most important religious cultures that make up western civilization: Judaic and Greek. The Gospels, by anonymous authors writing decades after the death of Jesus fleshed out this idea, with stories about his life and teachings, as well as miracle stories to support his divinity. They drew heavily from Old Testament prophecy, and there's reason to suspect other influences from the Greco-Roman mystery religions that were flourishing at the time. In the Fourth Century, Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity and helped to transform the Prince of Peace into General Jesus who helped him win a decisive battle. Under Constantine, the Council of Nicaea provided a creed setting forth what true Christians must believe, including the Trinity, the virgin birth, Christ's sacrifice for our sins, and His resurrection. This is orthodox Christian doctrine, and most Christians purport to believe in it. They may be right, but it would be a matter of faith and reasonable suspicion, not proof or, I'd say, even substantial evidence. So I agree that we need to separate the question of who Jesus was and what He taught from what subsequent Christians did with the religion.

 

Anyone ever play the game "Telephone" before? Now try doing it over the course of 2000+ years...obviously our understanding of Jesus today isn't quite a full representation...

 

Ancient alien artifacts.......lots of them

1. Puma Punku is so unique in the way that it was constructed, shaped and positioned, that it is the most intriguing ancient site on the planet.
2. If you look at the stones carefully, you can see some intricate stonework, as though they used machine tools or even lasers. Evidence of ancient civilizations using modern technology?
3. At Puma Punku you will find incredible stones with perfect right angles, almost smooth as glass, this makes Puma Punku unique. Only few places on earth display this type of stone work.
4. The massive stones were hewn at quarries over 60 miles away according to archaeologists.
5. Puma Punku is located at an altitude of 12,800 feet, which means it is located above the natural tree line, this means NO trees grew in that area which means that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers, the question is how did they transport the stones?
6. Tiahuanaco is located near Puma Punku, less than a quarter mile northeast of Puma Punku. Scientists believe Tiahuanaco was once the center of a civilization with more than 40,000 inhabitants.
7. Tiahuanaco is probably the greatest Native American civilization that many people haven’t heard of.
8. It’s said that Tiahuanaco displays all the races of mankind, even elongated skulls, people wearing turbans, people with broad noses, people with thin noses, people with thick lips, people with thin lips, and some of the statues are particularly unusual and are unlike the ones found in the nearby area.
9. One of the most important archaeological artifacts ever discovered in Tiahuanaco or Puma Punkuis the famous Fuente Magna Bowl.
10. The Ceramic bowl has Sumerian cuneiform and Proto-Sumerian hieroglyphic written on it.
11. The megalithic stones found at Puma Punku are among the largest on the planet.
12. There are stones at Puma Punku that weigh over 100 tons.

Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku) is a mystery because of its date of construction (estimated by A. Posnansky to be 15,000 B.C.) and the peculiar stone technology.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/ancient-ruins-of-tiwanacu-and-pumapunku/

The Nazca lines can only be seen from airplanes....
https://www.google.com/search?q=nazca+lines&es_sm=122&biw=1007&bih=623&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QsARqFQoTCISskI655cgCFYo_PgodlKMEew

200,000 year old ruins of the Anunnaki....
https://www.google.com/search?q=anunnaki+ruins&es_sm=122&biw=1007&bih=623&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCKCds-i55cgCFUpWPgodb_YJCg

 

^Are you saying these are alien artefacts?

Can't see how it relates to the existence or non existence of Jesus.

 

I don't see any reason why I should believe Jesus existed any more than I should believe Gregory existed. At least Gregory probably had kids who may still be directly effecting the world to this day. I certainly don't believe a guy existed who had magical powers. There's just no evidence that any guy ever had magical powers. I think if you're talking about Jesus, you're talking about that guy. And if you're not talking about that guy, then you're probably talking about someone infinitely more interesting, but unfortunately nobody ever wrote the truth about him. So what are we really saying? That there used to be this guy who thought people should be nice to each other? I'm sure there were a lot of people who have thought that, even in the darkest of times. So no, a particularly significant person named Jesus never existed.

What I really dislike about Jesus is the fact that there were Gregories out there, too. Decent men who weren't born of God, who really had to struggle because they did have good souls but unfortunately couldn't do anything about it. And they are utterly forgotten, the real people who really did try to make things better in whatever small way they could. Their real struggle is completely overshadowed by an obviously mythical one. Or even if it's not mythical, it's no more significant than their struggle.

What is it about having faith in the existence of a magical man that makes one a decent person? It's like you're suggesting that Jesus was so good, any righteous person ought to just instinctively recognize that the story is good and true. Why is it that the majority of Christians come from Christian upbringing, if this is the case? Shouldn't it be that more people from non-religious backgrounds should recognize the divinity of the story? You would think so, if Jesus was really sent to help everyone. If salvation is really something anybody can attain.

But no, evidently there's just a lucky few who come to have faith in the very special man.

 

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.” -Albert Einstein

 

Personally, I'm open-minded to the various "miracles" of Jesus, and also to his existence. He made a point out of telling people to not talk about his so-called miracles and to not put a lot of emphasis into it, as they weren't really the end-all be-all of anything.

It's all very similar to the Eastern talks about reaching Enlightenment and that on the path there you can attain certain various Psychic Powers, known as Siddhis. There's also an emphasis here, that even if these are attained, it's not really the end result.

 

Just even imagine for yourself for two seconds that the actual Jesus had not very much to do with what Christianity created him to be. It's not that hard to understand.

 

then take the next tiny step and imagine that part of what has nothing to do with him are the miracles and the emphasis on him being somehow superior or even a role model.

 

Not to put you on the spot, Chinacat, but what exactly do you think Jesus' message was, then? Was he trying to show us all how we could have magical powers? Or was his real point to try and get everyone just to be nice to each other?

Surely he knew the temptation would be there to be nice to each other if it meant magical powers. But is that what he said? If he told us how to have magical powers, could you paraphrase? Because when I read the New Testament, it seems like I have to make up my own mind a lot of the time about what he was saying. It doesn't really read like an instruction manual on how to attain magical powers, unless you can attain them by loving other people.

In which case, I don't think the temptation to be magical is a strong enough one. People would sooner hate each other than have magical powers, it would seem. It seems to me that if people truly believe in Jesus, they sure don't want magical powers that badly.

 

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head with everything. There are writings about Jesus visiting Egypt and learning Secret Knowledge from Wise Men. If he really did perform miracles to save people from dying, he tried to emphasize that it wasn't his main point. I don't think that Magick is the very end goal, but is a certain path towards Self Knowledge, no different than that LSD can lead to self-knowledge, but isn't literally the equivalent to Enlightenment. I think Jesus conveys this well but you need to read the Gospel of Thomas which isn't even in the Bible to get that vibe.

I think that Jesus' message was no different than The Buddha, or Zoroaster, but they all take on their own unique forms.



Not to put you on the spot, Chinacat, but what exactly do you think Jesus' message was, then? Was he trying to show us all how we could have magical powers? Or was his real point to try and get everyone just to be nice to each other?

Surely he knew the temptation would be there to be nice to each other if it meant magical powers. But is that what he said? If he told us how to have magical powers, could you paraphrase? Because when I read the New Testament, it seems like I have to make up my own mind a lot of the time about what he was saying. It doesn't really read like an instruction manual on how to attain magical powers, unless you can attain them by loving other people.

In which case, I don't think the temptation to be magical is a strong enough one. People would sooner hate each other than have magical powers, it would seem. It seems to me that if people truly believe in Jesus, they sure don't want magical powers that badly.

 

Obviously he's not superior. Exactly what he talks about in the Gospel of Thomas. Doesn't mean he didn't exist, as you suggested. And he's still a role model just as The Buddha was. You're letting your hatred of Christianity cloud your opinion of Jesus.

 

You're letting your fixation on a single rejected gospel that almost no christians believe in override what's written in the bible.

So we find ourselves saying this: IF Jesus existed (questionable), then he was just a man without anything supernatural going on, then what he preached was "be nice to people and take care of them", a message that is neither revolutionary nor unique, even for its time. Although for its place it may have been unique, a particularly barbaric corner of the middle east, already rife with war.

We find ourselves decidedly underwhelmed by the life and story of jesus, and not understand what it means to worship him, or even follow him. I don't need to follow jesus to know that i should be good to my parents; likewise, not being a christian does not mean i am bad to my parents, nor does being a christian mean that someone will be good to theirs.

It seems to me to be idolatry and lack of imagination; "I follow christ because he taught love" . . . well, what does your own heart teach you? Can you not follow that? It sounds like that's what christ was doing, so instead of worshipping the finger pointing at the moon, just gaze upon the moon itself and derive your wisdom therein.

 

It's more than just the Gospel of Thomas that got left out. The aspects of his teachings that taught about personal liberation were left out of the Bible because you can't control a liberated person.

Once again, your disagreement with both Christianity and/or Jesus don't have anything to do with whether he did or didn't exist.

 

You're so fucking vague and generalized with your opinion of what Jesus did. Jesus' main message wasn't to "be nice and take care of them"...that's the CHRISTIAN WATERED DOWN IDEA OF JESUS, and even then it's your watered down version of Christianity's idea of Jesus.

Jesus taught essentially the same things as The Buddha. Go within. Find the Kingdom of Heaven within. It's neither "here nor there", it's "within and all around you". "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you don't bring forth what is within you, what you don't bring forth will destroy you". He also threw over money changers in a "holy temple" and inspired various people to break away from the oppression of the Judaic Church which is now what the Catholic Church has become. He also hung out with and treated poor people and criminals as equals to everyone else, which is revolutionary to do even today.

You go on and on about "sloppy thinking"...well if you really think that all there is to Jesus is "be nice to people" then you're just being EXTREMELY superficial and sloppy about it, and you don't seem to actually know very much about the story even.

 

Another important point is that The Gospel of Thomas was one of the last Gospels to be dug up (found in Egypt in 1959 I believe) but it is known to be the oldest Gospel ever found in regards to Christ.

Gnosticism is important because it is Christianity in its most raw and original form. I know it doesn't seem important to you to look into the root and foundation of what has come after it but there's importance to that for me for a variety of obvious reasons.

And why are you suddenly all about promoting following your heart and intuition? Why do that when you have your version of God, the Scientific Method?