It’s one of my all-time favorite things to discuss, so I’m hoping some of you will want to join in... Did Jesus actually exist— I mean, was he a flesh-and-blood person (even if you don’t buy the miracles and divinity stuff)? Vote in the poll and give me the single most convincing argument for your side in the comments below!
Well, I've been out voted on this one. I have not read the bible....raise in a liberal faith, not recognizing the trinity. To me Jesus can be lumped in with The Buddha, MLK, Confucius, Muhammed, Ghandi, the Dali Lama and other wise prophets... A charismatic and teacher. Unfortunately all of these teaching have been bastardized for greed and power.
I was told that for hundreds of years the bible was not written down but was an oral tradition until an emperor who was in charge of a very disparate society needed some way of bringing them together and had the bible written down and that is why it is so 'throughother' (Irish term for being all over the place) So I doubt very much that there was one person behind all of that -
@Silverwhisper thank you !
Jesus of Nazareth lived as testified to by the Jewish Roman historian Josephus, though some scholars think it was really Jesus the Nazarene (an ascetic Jewish religious sect). (Note that only the Gospel of Luke claims that the hometown of Jesus, Mary and Joseph was Nazareth.) BTW, his name couldn't have been Jesus. That's a Greek name that is the equivalent of Joshua in Aramaic and pronounced more like 'Yoshava'. Being the son of Joseph, he was probably referred to as Joshua ben (son of) Joseph. Isn't it interesting that after 2000 years of deifying him, we still can't get the guy's name right?
The passage referring to Christ is a complete forgery, Josephus never wrote it. Stylistically wrong and far to brief for Josephus who always elaborates more on different sects, messiahs and what not. He doesn't even tell his readers what a Christ is and why it is significant. It would appear that a later Christian was disturbed by there not being any mention Jesus and just inserted a story in the available space.
Some other texts show that Jesus was known as The Nazorian (meaning has been lost), but later Christians mistook or made it fit to the town of Nazereth.
@Humanity4all It is the Testimonium Flavianum passage that is generally considered to be a later Christian insertion due to both stylistic and contextual oddities. I agree. The James Passage, however, is widely considered to be an authentic Josephus writing.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Even Bart Ehrman, a highly reputable non-believer bible scholar and author of the Historical Jesus, concedes this passage is most probably an authentic passage and testifies to the existence of Jesus.
@Silverwhisper You are making two totally separate arguments. One concerning the existence of Jesus the man and one concerning the existence of Jesus the Christ.
First of all, of course a story isn't true just because it says it is. The bible isn't true because it says it is, either. That goes without saying. And you could make that same agrument for thousands of historical figures and claim they never existed either.
Secondly, historiography does not deal in scientific proof but in historical evidence. These are two completely different things. Josephus, and Tacitus for that matter, are important simply because they are disinterested parties that testify to the existence of Jesus the man, not the so-called Jesus the Christ. But there are dozens of documents and testimonies to the existence of Jesus the man. Yes, you could claim that all these dozens of witnesses and testimonies and documents were all liars and forgerers who made up everything, even the mere existence of a man, as you could about thousands of other such historical documents.
Thirdly, why do you feel so threatened by the mere existence of a mere mortal named Jesus? So what? BTW, his name wasn't Jesus which is a Greek name. It was most probably Joshua ben Joseph. He was a rebel who was crucified as a criminal as were many others. This has absolutely nothing to do with stories of miracles and resurrection.
Fourthly, if you have no respect for historical evidence and the historical scholars of the world, then there is nothing more to be said.
@Silverwhisper Sorry that I misunderstood your position. Now that I read your clarification it appears that we more or less agree on everything.
A few clarifications on my position:
I appreciate your contribution to this discussion and respect your Apatheism, though not everyone on this site does and will insist you are a closet Atheist. As you can see, I happen to think that distinctions are important.
I don't like the wording of your poll, however having looked at the academic evidence, it is clear to me that there was once a political agitator, charismatic orator and all-round reasonable guy called Jesus. Not a magic baby, son or god or super hippy but he definitely existed.
@filthyMONKEYmen maybe just did he exist yes or no and why?
I have been pondering this question for a long time
I think of it as a similar comparison to Socrates who's teachings are only known through second hand accounts but whose influence on subsequent thought is enormous.
As a non-christian I can look at it objectively or I would argue more objectively than a Christian or more specifically a Christian who accepts the bible as truth.
There are only two generally accepted facts about Jesus's life.