Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

There are so many interpretations of these writings that we are now essentially in a position of debating a form of christianity that basically one person on earth, chinacat, believes in. This is not the christianity that 2 billion people believe in. Since the writings are so ambiguous and cryptic, this to me counts against the claimed wisdom of christ and his followers. Telephone for 2000 years indeed! Who has need for such a poor teacher and lineage? We can't even agree on whether he walked this earth. When one christian says "i love jesus because x" and another says "I follow jesus because y" they aren't even pointing at the same man or teachings. Now china is smuggling in his alchemical concepts like True Will (which he cannot define) in order to further complicate the issue and add another layer of profundity (confusion). So it goes. I cannot respect teachings that hide themselves from common man, that smells of delusions of secret power and it's ugly.

 

Dude, Buddhism is no fucking different with its disagreements and what have you. Actually, many Metaphysicians, Philosophers, and Jung also are very interested in Gnosticism.

You're blaming Jesus for 2,000 years later that we can't agree on this and that but somehow Buddha's existence and different branches of teachings are any different? Quit being so fucking biased, brah.

True Will is your highest potential of manifestation in this world. Whatever that means for you only you can discover.

And you're the only "sophisticated Buddhist" I've ever come across. You're the religion of 1. Gnosticism may be not as common as Christianity, but there's a REASON for that. It's because it teaches Liberation and not enslaving yourself to some authoritative power.

 

You might misunderstand the context. I would hardly deny that if I asserted that Jesus existed, I'd have the burden of proving that. But I was adding a qualifier to your reply (post #155) to neonspectraltoast: "Pretty good except that you don't have to prove someone didn't exist as there are an infinite number of people who never existed, and it would take a while to prove that none of them ever existed." I added:"Unless you assert that he didn't (or probably) didn't exist. Then the burden of proof shifts to you." Because then you'd be the asserter. Actually, if you were replying to someone who was asserting that Jesus existed and you replied No, he didn't", you'd both have the burden of proving your assertions. Why wouldn't you? if you say: "There is no God", you'd have the burden of proving that. What's the difference? (If you said :I don't believe in God", no problem. Same with "I don't believe in Jesus. The problem that there are "an infinite number of people who never existed" wouldn't apply because we'd have identified the one we're talking about. BTW, I've never asserted that Jesus existed. I've just asserted that I think he did, and have given my reasons--all nine of them. I think I've made a prima facie case for my position. If you say, I don't think so, that would be legitimate. But if you say: Jesus didn't exist, I think we're entitled to some reasons.The Latin maxim that you cite applies to a courtroom or debater situation in which the Affirmative makes a claim and his opponent challenges it. The original asserter would have the overall burden of carrying the argument. But if someone wrote a book:Jesus Did Not Exist, and gave no reasons, claiming he didn't have to because someone else wrote a book that he did, that would be pretty lame, don't you think? Neonspectoraltoast said: "we all pretty much agree that the record of his existence is so shoddy that even if he did exist, we wouldn't be able to agree upon who he was". And I do pretty much agree with that, although I prefer the word "limited" to shoddy. When somebody asserts that Jesus was entirely a fabrication stolen from pagan religions, as Acharya and others have, they definitely have the burden of proving that!

 

Isn't "his" impact the same whether he existed or not? I can see how his existence might lend some credence to Christianity, but then again we have dozens of different sects saying dozens of different things about him. So is it important that his existence is confirmed so that people can reaffirm their beliefs in falsehoods about him, since nobody knows what is true about him? Why is it important to know that someone existed who then we furthermore don't really know anything about? It doesn't make it any more or less possible that he performed miracles. It doesn't make it any more or less possible that half or more of the things said about him were untrue.

The thing is, his teachings ought to stand alone, whether he existed or not. You can't just assert that you believe he existed without evidence and then expect people to take his teachings seriously. Just face the facts. There isn't good enough evidence that he existed. So analyze his teachings for their merit, and if they stand up, then it doesn't really matter if he existed or not, but we will know whether or not the teachings themselves are wise.

I don't think it is important. It's important if there's proof that he (or Jesus) existed, because then it becomes a matter of distinguishing reality from non-reality. I'm not saying that no one should be interested in trying to find out whether these men existed. I am saying that it detracts from their teachings to make an issue of it. No one's belief in Christ's teachings should have to be engendered by a belief that Christ actually existed. What we're talking about is a belief in Christ, not in his teachings, as much as people here want to pretend it's an issue of knowing historical facts.

It's not that I don't want to. It's that the seriousness given to his teachings does not sync with the impact of his life. He's pretty much regarded as the most important person who ever (supposedly) lived. Yet who takes his teachings seriously? And by seriously I mean seen in a Buddhist light as you see them. If he was telling people about enlightenment, it doesn't suffice to practice as the Christians do.

Well maybe the pain is there, but if knowing Jesus existed is important because of his impact on history, then he has to be held to a higher standard than others. He ought to have known better than to think he had been forsaken by God, right? Or at least he should have been so obedient to God that he wouldn't complain about being forsaken? In other words, his principles seem to have failed, and if he's so important, should they have? When St. Andrew was crucified he supposedly thanked God. But again, we don't even know if Jesus said this. Even if we know he existed, we don't know what he actually said and what was added by later writers. He is virtually a non-entity, whatever the case may be. And maybe he wanted it that way, so that the focus would be on the teachings and not him. He could easily have left some record of his existence if he wanted to.

If it's proved tomorrow that he existed, which seems unlikely, we still won't suddenly be like, "Oh gosh, he really said this?! I better pay attention to what he said!" Instead we'll just be at each other's throats about whether or not he performed miracles or whether or not he said this or that, and we still won't know whether or not "he" existed because we have no clue who "he" is.

 

I haven't just "asserted" that I believe he existed without evidence. I presented seven reasons, which I think are good reasons, why I think he existed--not good enough for courtroom proof but enough to pass the "substantial evidence" or "probable cause" test. the reasons are1)The notion of a crucified god went counter to Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, and therefore they would not make such a Messiah up; (2) The notion of a Jewish Messiah who was baptized by John the Baptist was inconsistent with the notions that (a) Jesus was superior to John and (b) Jesus was born without sin; the fact that this is reported in the gospels and strenuously explained away suggests that it was real. (3) Paul refers to his meetings with Peter and James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Both men were thought to have been close to Jesus, and affirmed his existence first hand; (4) Josephus confirms the role of James the Just as brother of Jesus;(5) The existence of Jesus is corroborated in a sizeable number of independent first century sources, including Paul’s letters, the canonical gospels, the Q-gospel, the L and M sources, the Gospel of Thomas, and the non-Pauline epistles; (6) Most scholars in the field, those with doctorates and publications in peer reviewed journals in their disciplines, are convinced that Jesus was real; (7) The alleged parallels to Jesus in pagan sources don’t hold up under close scrutiny, and the mythicists have shown no evidence that they were in fact the models for the Jewish followers of Jesus. I agree with you that his teachings are the important thing, but in understanding the development of Christianity as a historical phenomenon, it's useful to have an idea whether or not the founding figure was a real person, especially since (1) orthodox Christian doctrine holds that his existence was a necessary precondition for the sacrifice that saved the world; (2) his existence has been strenuously challenged by a minority of writers and bloggers; and (3) the status of his existence is useful in judging the reliability of claims made about him; e.g., that he was invented by the Roman imperial court, was a fictional character by early playwrights and novelists, was "stolen" frm pagan mystery religions, etc. In these respects, the issue is probably more important than the question of "Who wrote Shakespeare's plays?" or "Did King Arthur exist?", although for the curious historian, those questions are also interesting in evaluating how legends develop. The existence of Jesus is an important issue because mythicists have made an issue of it. I agree with Ehrman that they've done so not in pursuit of historical truth but pursuant to an anti-religious agenda. So it becomes important to set the record straight.

I certainly don't claim that proof of his mere existence is proof of the validity of teachings attributed to him. And I do agree that his teachings stand alone on their merits. I didn't start this thread. The OP asked:"Do you, based on what you know about history,etc, think that Jesus (Yes the "Jesus") ever really existed." I relied: "I think Jesus existed. Note, this doesn't mean that I can prove that He existed, nor does it mean all the things people said about Him (Son of God, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. ) are true. I think he existed because the weight of the admittedly sparse evidence seems to point in that direction." I stand by that assessment.

 

Do you believe that humans had diamond cutting tools 15,000 years ago? That's what it takes to cut Diorite stone.

I was responding to a tikoo post....didn't you see that?

As far as Jesus existence....they have his tomb in Kashmir...that tomb is as good as any other graveyard for the proof of dead people....they didn't have birth certificates back then.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaVCA0VN7d4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz8v5hS-jYE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqOz25iD9L8

 

The question is who is in the tomb? Sunni Muslims and Christians deny that it's Jesus. The notion that he visited India and Kashmir before his death rests largely on the slender shoulders of a nineteenth century Russian who admitted it was a hoax, and The Aquarian Gospel, supposedly based on channeled testimony. The idea that he was never crucified or survived crucifixion is not accepted by mainstream scholars. Much of the hype is from the tourist industry, and of course the New Age community, who tend to accept these tales uncritically.

 

But I gave you seven reasons. Apparently you weren't impressed.

 

Sounds like...."Who's buried in Grant's tomb?"

The "Truer story of Jesus" video explains it better.....

 

For another view see: http://unorthodoxthoughts.com/2012/07/04/ancient-technology-vs-ancient-aliens-round-1/; http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/puma-punku/see also http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/970/

 

At least we know it's Grant's.

 

I saw, but thought I'd comment. This isn't a one-to-one forum we have here, you're free to post on whatever comments others make even if they are addressed to a specific individual.

I have no idea if they had diamond cutting tools 15.000 years ago. I don't know how they built the pyramids or Gobekli Teppe. It seems rather unlikely to me though that extra-terrestrials played a role.

 

You don't know how it was built, don't know if stone age people had diamond cutting technology, but discount the possibility of aliens. To me, that's tunnel vision. It's impossible to put a puzzle together with most of the pieces missing. There are billions of solar systems in our galaxy. The odds that none of them have life smart enough to come here is greater than winning the lottery every day.

 

Nov 10, 2011 - Sticklers for accuracy have noted that the bodies of Ulysses S. Grantand his wife, Julia Dent Grant, are not actually below ground in the mausoleum. Hence, strictly speaking, no one is buried in Grant's tomb.

Of course the trick answer to this old joke is no one is buried there but U.S. Grant and his wife Julia are "entombed" there. U.S. Grant was the most famous Union General during the American Civil War and the 18th President of the US serving from 1869 to 1877.

 

Elves are just as likely as aliens. In either case there's no evidence other than stuff that we can't easily explain according to our present ideas about the past. But actually, I think humans made all the artefacts present on this planet.
If convincing evidence for extraterrestrial interventions were to emerge, I'd be prepared to reconsider.

 

You can't be convinced if you continue discount the evidence.

I have a friend that thought aliens were about as real as elves. The next day we saw a UFO right above our heads...three times. That doesn't mean you will get the privilege.

 

People have seen (or claim to have seen ) the Virgin Mary, leprechauns, giant white rabbits and many other things.

To me it seems quite feasible that one way or another, humans made all of those ancient artefacts. The fact that in some cases we don't know how they did it is just another example of our lack of knowledge of human history in general before about 6,000 years or so ago.