Did Jesus really exist?

[JoeB131]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

 

[PratchettFan]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

1. The existence of the early church is established and it was close enough that the members and leaders would have been contemporaries.
2.

 

[PratchettFan]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

1. The existence of the early church is established and it was close enough that the members and leaders would have been contemporaries.
2.

2. He was an itinerant teacher in a back water part of the world. Why should any of the writers of the time have noticed him?
3. So?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Presumedly, if he did he turned to dust a long time ago so good luck proving it.

I'd say he existed in as much as Santa exists. We know who someone's talking about when they bring Jesus (or Santa) up, we have an idea what he looked like, and why he's famous. Whether such people were ever flesh and blood would seem to matter less since we speak of them as though they once were.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Could make the same convincing arguement Jesus didn't exist with any figure from antiquity. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Ghengis Khan?

Like Jesus, these figures are said to have once existed as flesh and blood. We all know their names. But can we prove they actually existed if they're just bones now and their bones look like everybody else's?

What does it matter?

 

[JoeB131]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

1. The existence of the early church is established and it was close enough that the members and leaders would have been contemporaries.
2.

Well, that depends on when you think the "early church" was established. "Christians" aren't mentioned by pagan sources until well into the second century, and even then, there was confusion as to whom they were talking about. The Emperor Hadrian for instance, wrote that followers of Serapis called themselves "Christians".

In fact, it wasn't until the fourth century that the Church started to nail down which Gospels and Epistles were the officials ones.

 

[Disir]

There were NO contemporary witnesses. There were NO eye witnesses period.

 

[JoeB131]

Could make the same convincing arguement Jesus didn't exist with any figure from antiquity. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Ghengis Khan?

Like Jesus, these figures are said to have once existed as flesh and blood. We all know their names. But can we prove they actually existed if they're just bones now and their bones look like everybody else's?

What does it matter?

Well, you can attest to their existence because there are contemporary accounts as well as historical results of their existence that were immediate.

I think the question of Jesus' existence is important if you have a large portion of the population trying to make laws based on what Jesus would do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

Wrong and stupid with stupid holding a large edge.

He's mentioned by at least 2 contemporaneous Roman writers

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Well, you can attest to their existence because there are contemporary accounts as well as historical results of their existence that were immediate.

I think the question of Jesus' existence is important if you have a large portion of the population trying to make laws based on what Jesus would do.

With respect I disagree.

Whether someone existed ornot wont change how people think of him. We can probably make an empirical case Santa doesn't exist, but I don't think anyone's going to then propose we cancel Christmas plans this year.

 

[Peach]

Yes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Jesus was the most successful venture capitalist of all time.

He made his sales pitch and still has people contributing money to his enterprise 2000 years later.

 

[Indeependent]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

Wrong and stupid with stupid holding a large edge.

He's mentioned by at least 2 contemporaneous Roman writers

Who?

 

[Indeependent]

Jesus was the most successful venture capitalist of all time.

He made his sales pitch and still has people contributing money to his enterprise 2000 years later.

Actually, that was Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

I've done extensive research on this. The Jesus that Paul popularized appears to be a composite of 12 figures. One of them was the High Priest of the Sanhedrin, a Jesus ben David, who was crucified by the Romans. This was some 300 years prior to the events of the New Testament, but it appears the basis of the crucifixion story, though the Sanhedrin were the "good guys" standing up to the invading Romans in the historical account, where Paul made them the villains.

Probably the most telling thing is that the Romans have VOLUMES of data on Paul - they REALLY didn't like him, but not a single word about Jesus. Think about this, the most litigious society up to that point, that recorded and cataloged EVERYTHING, somehow failed to mention a rabble rouser in Judea? The reality is simply, the Jesus of the New Testament is a creation of Paul, the first of the great cult masters. Paul created a formula that EVERY successful cult since has followed, it is not I that is god, I am but his chosen messenger. Note that Muhammad, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Ti and Do ALL used the same formula - because it works.

Paul gathered the myths and tales, from Gnostic, mystical, and traditional sources, and created a god that he could point to as he built his empire.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

LOL!!! You need do a lot more research and stop believing satan's lies. Your eternity is at stake!

Oh, new sock GISMYS? It has a lot of holes in it....

 

[PratchettFan]

On another thread, I made the statement that Jesus was a made up character.

Here's why I think he was.

1) The Gospels were written years after his supposed life, and they contradict each other on key points.

2) He is not mentioned by a lot of contemporary writers who should have noticed him.

3) He shares a lot of traits with other mythological figures.

1. The existence of the early church is established and it was close enough that the members and leaders would have been contemporaries.
2.

Well, that depends on when you think the "early church" was established. "Christians" aren't mentioned by pagan sources until well into the second century, and even then, there was confusion as to whom they were talking about. The Emperor Hadrian for instance, wrote that followers of Serapis called themselves "Christians".

In fact, it wasn't until the fourth century that the Church started to nail down which Gospels and Epistles were the officials ones.

The early church would have been the Jerusalem church. The initial members would certainly have been contemporaries. Then the religion began to spread. I will concede there is very little about it written by contemporary historians. Why should there be?. A tiny cult in a backwater of the empire of no importance at all would be of no particular interest to a historian whose primary audience were Romans. But the religion did spread and it had a beginning. A personality cult does not begin without a personality.

I consider that more than adequate evidence for the existence of Jesus.

 

[MaxGrit]

 

[MaxGrit]

watch?v=WnqinKf8s0E#t=2515

~45 min in

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

There were NO contemporary witnesses. There were NO eye witnesses period.

I, and many billions more would disagree with that statement.

Eleven different appearances of our risen Lord are recorded in the New Testament…
To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre alone. This is recorded at length only by John (20:11-18), and alluded to by Mark (16:9-11).
To certain women, "the other Mary," Salome, Joanna, and others, as they returned from the sepulchre. Matthew (28:1-10) alone gives an account of this. (Compare Mark 16:1-8, and Luke 24:1-11.)
To Simon Peter alone on the day of the resurrection. (See Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5.)
To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection, recorded fully only by Luke (24:13-35. Compare Mark 16:12,13).
To the ten disciples (Thomas being absent) and others "with them," at Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection day. One of the evangelists gives an account of this appearance, John (20:19-24).
To the disciples again (Thomas being present) at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:33-40; John 20:26-28. See also 1 Cor. 15:5).
To the disciples when fishing at the Sea of Galilee. Of this appearance also John (21:1-23) alone gives an account.
To the eleven, and above 500 brethren at once, at an appointed place in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; compare Matt. 28:16-20).
To James, but under what circumstances we are not informed (1 Cor. 15:7).
To the apostles immediately before the ascension. They accompanied him from Jerusalem to Mount Olivet, and there they saw him ascend "till a cloud received him out of their sight" (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-10).
It is worthy of note that it is distinctly related that on most of these occasions our Lord afforded his disciples the amplest opportunity of testing the fact of his resurrection. He conversed with them face to face. They touched him (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and he ate bread with them (Luke 24:42,43; John 21:12,13).
In addition to the above, mention might be made of Christ's manifestation of himself to Paul at Damascus, who speaks of it as an appearance of the risen Savior (Acts 9:3-9, 17; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1).
It is implied in the words of Luke (Acts 1:3) that there may have been other appearances of which we have no record

Most of those listed above, were murdered/martyred proclaiming Jesus is the Risen Lord.

If you could find just 1 person who was willing to die for you(no kin folks), then you have a truly blessed life.But, to have more than a dozen people, go their separate ways, preach the Gospel, and then, basically at knife point, be forced to recant, or die, and they all choose to die, as opposed to betraying the Person, they consider to be the Lord.

Yeah, there were plenty of eye witnesses, and since the Gospels have survived more than 2 millennia now, i'll take that, as the Word of God.