Did Jesus really exist?

[Charles]

Despite his popularity and unquestioned existence, there is not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus - no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

In addition, there is not a single contemporary (ie secular) piece of documentation that mentions Jesus. All documents regarding Jesus were written well after the alleged life of Jesus by either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

All reliable evidence for the historical actuality of Jesus Christ are purely hearsay.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. Hearsay is just not reliable evidence - there is no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

As for the question of whether or not the Gospels are a reliable source of Jesus' existence, hearsay again, presents itself. The problem with the Gospels is that we don't even know who wrote them, and furthermore, they were all written well after Jesus' alleged life. Even more problematic is that none of the original Gospels exist, just copies of copies.

Furthermore, many of Jesus' sayings, miracles, and his virgin birth, rising, and symbolic "son" identity, can all be traced back to earlier religions - namely Mithraism, paganism, Hinduism, and a host of other extremely old religious belief systems. It's as though the authors of the bible stole earlier religions' god figure, incorporating all of his qualities into Jesus.

There really is zero supporting evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ ever lived, died, and rose again. Quite possibly the early writers of what would become the bible were using symbolism and did not actually believe what they wrote to be true.



What do you think?

[enola]

Faith.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

What do you think?

I think you're probably just another homo with a mental problem, and hate anything that interferes with your infantile materialism and sociopathic urges.

[trgfbv]

Despite his popularity and unquestioned existence, there is not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus - no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

In addition, there is not a single contemporary (ie secular) piece of documentation that mentions Jesus. All documents regarding Jesus were written well after the alleged life of Jesus by either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

All reliable evidence for the historical actuality of Jesus Christ are purely hearsay.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. Hearsay is just not reliable evidence - there is no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

As for the question of whether or not the Gospels are a reliable source of Jesus' existence, hearsay again, presents itself. The problem with the Gospels is that we don't even know who wrote them, and furthermore, they were all written well after Jesus' alleged life. Even more problematic is that none of the original Gospels exist, just copies of copies.

Furthermore, many of Jesus' sayings, miracles, and his virgin birth, rising, and symbolic "son" identity, can all be traced back to earlier religions - namely Mithraism, paganism, Hinduism, and a host of other extremely old religious belief systems. It's as though the authors of the bible stole earlier religions' god figure, incorporating all of his qualities into Jesus.

There really is zero supporting evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ ever lived, died, and rose again. Quite possibly the early writers of what would become the bible were using symbolism and did not actually believe what they wrote to be true.



What do you think?

Getting insulted by a conservative is a good clue that you are on the right track.

[Šñøü†ê®]

What do you think?

I think we must examine the Bible of Yahweh in the context of the time. Clearly it is the most controversial book of mythology in history!

[Claire Evans]

Despite his popularity and unquestioned existence, there is not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus - no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

First of all, what sort of work of carpentry by Jesus would survive? Would you believe a piece of woodwork of Jesus that was signed "Made by Jesus Christ"? Nobody would believe it. Since Jesus was a traveler, any self written manuscript would fall to pieces as it would have been written on papyrus. Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 AD. Who knows what evidence was lost then? Those Roman records would have been lost.

In addition, there is not a single contemporary (ie secular) piece of documentation that mentions Jesus. All documents regarding Jesus were written well after the alleged life of Jesus by either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.


All reliable evidence for the historical actuality of Jesus Christ are purely hearsay.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. Hearsay is just not reliable evidence - there is no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

Jesus was just another Messiah, as others claimed they were, too. There were other miracle workers. Jesus was only worth mentioning when Christianity gained ground. You can't assume no eye witnesses weren't still around by the time the gospels were written. Oral tradition was taken very serious and no significant deviation was allowed. We have extra-biblical people writing about Jesus like, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Tacitus, for example, the two latter being historians who don't write about rumours.

As for the question of whether or not the Gospels are a reliable source of Jesus' existence, hearsay again, presents itself. The problem with the Gospels is that we don't even know who wrote them, and furthermore, they were all written well after Jesus' alleged life. Even more problematic is that none of the original Gospels exist, just copies of copies.

How could the original copies survive in its entirety? That's asking a lot. A fragment from the gospel of Mark has been found, though. It still needs to be confirmed.

Gospel of Mark Fragments Reportedly Found; Possibly Oldest NT Artifacts


Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel B. Wallace has said that newly discovered fragments from the Gospel of Mark could be the oldest New Testament artifacts ever found and date from the first century A.D., or during the time of eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.

Furthermore, many of Jesus' sayings, miracles, and his virgin birth, rising, and symbolic "son" identity, can all be traced back to earlier religions - namely Mithraism, paganism, Hinduism, and a host of other extremely old religious belief systems. It's as though the authors of the bible stole earlier religions' god figure, incorporating all of his qualities into Jesus.

Actually, not. Here's the true story of Mithra:

According to myth, Mithra was born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife, beside a sacred stream and under a sacred tree, a child of the earth itself. He soon rode, and later killed, the life-giving cosmic bull, whose blood fertilizes all vegetation. Mithra’s slaying of the bull was a popular subject of Hellenic art and became the prototype for a bull-slaying ritual of fertility in the Mithraic cult.

As god of light, Mithra was associated with the Greek sun god, Helios, and the Roman Sol Invictus. He is often paired with Anahita, goddess of the fertilizing waters.
Take note of this:
*
“His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th centuries ad, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of Christianity.”
*
Considering the cult of Mithra was introduced into the Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th century AD, when it became known as Mithraism, is it not surprising it would take on Christian characteristics to rival Christianity?
*
Here’s something else:
*
“Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas. However, although our literary sources for Mithraism are extremely sparse, an abundance of material evidence for the cult exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman empire, from England in the north and west to Palestine in the south and east. The temples, called mithraea by scholars, were usually built underground in imitation of caves. These subterranean temples were filled with an extremely elaborate iconography: carved reliefs, statues, and paintings, depicting a variety of enigmatic figures and scenes. This iconography is our primary source of knowledge about Mithraic beliefs, but because we do not have any written accounts of its meaning the ideas that it expresses have proven extraordinarily difficult to decipher.”
*
So it’s interesting that before Christianity, there was barely any literary evidence of Mithraic beliefs


There was no rising from the dead, title of Son of God, or a virgin birth. Mithraism took on Christian characteristics way after Jesus' time.

There really is zero supporting evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ ever lived, died, and rose again. Quite possibly the early writers of what would become the bible were using symbolism and did not actually believe what they wrote to be true.

See authors above. One can question His divinity but historians and scholars assert He existed.

[Šñøü†ê®]

So it’s interesting that before Christianity, there was barely any literary evidence of Mithraic beliefs.

Incorrect.

There was [in prior mythology] no rising from the dead, title of Son of God, or a virgin birth.

Incorrect.

...historians and scholars assert He existed.

Incorrect.

[Claire Evans]

You can't just say incorrect. You need to back up what you say.

[Claire Evans]

Incorrect.



Incorrect.



Incorrect.

You can't just say incorrect. You have to back up what you say.

[the incredible b]

virgin births were common in mythology.

click here for a few, and if you search, you'll find more.

sons of gods were common in mythology. e.g.: hercules, perseus and many many more in roman and greek mythology.

A dying god, also known as a dying-and-rising or resurrection deity, is a god who dies and is resurrected or reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include the ancient Near Eastern and Greek deities Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Attis Tammuz, Asclepius, Orpheus, as well as Ra, Osiris, Jesus, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, and Odin.

source

[the incredible b]

scholars seem undecided about the mithraic thing. have to admit this was the first time i'd ever heard of it.

i think historians and scholars are equally undecided about jesus' existence.

Paul Barnett pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognized the 'subjectivity' factor in their available sources" and "have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand." This makes historians of the period very reluctant to dismiss a source such as Acts as useless. He noted that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.

source

[Claire Evans]

virgin births were common in mythology.

click here for a few, and if you search, you'll find more.

sons of gods were common in mythology. e.g.: hercules, perseus and many many more in roman and greek mythology.

source

I'm not going to address them all because I'd be here all day. I will point out a few:

KRISHNA:


“LORD SHREE KRISHNA was the eighth child of Devki and Vasudeva. What were the names of his earlier seven siblings.

http://www.krishnasmercy.org/dotnetn...0/Default.aspx

Vasudeva and Devaki had 7 (Seven) children earlier before Krishna. Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki’s seventh child who transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva’s first wife). According to Bhagavat Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings”

Krishna was born in a prison.


“On the day Kamsa's sister Devaki was married off to Vasudeva, an akashvani or voice from the sky was heard prophesying that Devaki's 8th son would be the destroyer of Kamsa. The frightened Kamsa immediately unsheathed his sword to kill his sister but Vasudeva intervened and implored Kamsa to spare his bride, and promised to hand over every new born child to him. Kamsa relented but imprisoned both Devaki and her husband Vasudeva.”

http://hinduism.about.com/od/lordkri...shna_birth.htm



Dionysus:

Zeus slept with Semele, Dionysus’ mother:

Semele was the daughter of Cadmus and Harmonia, and the mother, by Zeus, of the god Dionysus. Because Zeus slept with Semele secretly, Hera only found out about the affair after the girl was pregnant.


Zeus destroys the pregnant mother with a lightening bolt:

However, Zeus rescued the unborn child from the mother's ashes and sewed it in his thigh until it was ready to be born. Thus Dionysus is sometimes called "the twice-born."


http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Attis




BUDDHA:

His parents consumated their union and thus Buddha was not of a virgin birth.

1. The birth of the Bodhisattva*
There lived once upon a time a king of the Shakyas, a scion of the solar race, whose name was Shuddhodana. He was pure in conduct, and beloved.of the Shakyas like the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream. A white king elephant seemed to enter her body, but without causing her any pain. So Maya, queen of that god-like king, bore in her womb the glory of his dynasty. But she remained free from the fatigues, depressions, and fancies which usually accompany pregnancies.*

Visit:


http://www.lojajinarajadasa.com/7.3....criptures.html



Keep in mind there are a lot of Buddhas. It is a title.


ATTIS:

He wasn't born of a virgin; he was born of an almond:

In the earliest known version of the myth, the androgynous Cybele, possessing male and female characteristics, was castrated by the gods. From the severed male organs grew an almond tree by whose fruit Nana, daughter of the river god Sangarius, conceived and gave birth to Attis.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Attis




If there is a virgin version of these stories, it MUST have come after Jesus.

[Ratbag]

only thing I have to say on it is what I've always thought, cause no one is gonna change anyones ideas on religion and personally I don't think we should try, but "Mom of COURSE I have never had sex in my entire life, I'm not pregnant by Joseph I'm pregnant cause god loves me, and Joseph backs me up. " is MIGHTY conveinient..... I beleive Jesus did exist, but the story went more like that at the begining, people will beleive anythign they want to hard enough.

Today it would be comparible with the rediculous claim "I got pregnant watching a 3d movie"

[the incredible b]

I'm not going to address them all because I'd be here all day. I will point out a few:

thats ok, the others will probably get their turn

LORD SHREE KRISHNA was the eighth child of Devki and Vasudeva. What were the names of his earlier seven siblings.

dont know. does it matter for the question at hand?

Vasudeva and Devaki had 7 (Seven) children earlier before Krishna. Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki's seventh child who transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife). According to Bhagavat Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings.

the bold text. without a sexual union. this text says krishna was born from a virgin.

Krishna was born in a prison.

and, according to hindus, from a virgin.

Dionysus:

Zeus slept with Semele, Dionysus' mother.

agreed then, not a virgin birth.

BUDDHA:

His parents consumated their union and thus Buddha was not of a virgin birth.

well, lets have a look.

The birth of the Bodhisattva
There lived once upon a time a king of the Shakyas, a scion of the solar race, whose name was Shuddhodana. He was pure in conduct, and beloved.of the Shakyas like the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream. A white king elephant seemed to enter her body, but without causing her any pain. So Maya, queen of that god-like king, bore in her womb the glory of his dynasty. But she remained free from the fatigues, depressions, and fancies which usually accompany pregnancies.

again: the bold text. without any defilement. this text says he was born from a virgin.

Keep in mind there are a lot of Buddhas. It is a title.

i know. like messiah or merlin . theres buddhist who consider jesus to have been a buddha. when people speak of 'the' buddha they usually mean Siddhartha.

ATTIS:

He wasn't born of a virgin; he was born of an almond:

In the earliest known version of the myth, the androgynous Cybele, possessing male and female characteristics, was castrated by the gods. From the severed male organs grew an almond tree by whose fruit Nana, daughter of the river god Sangarius, conceived and gave birth to Attis.

the way i understand it: nana eat the almond and got pregnant. eating an almond has no effect on your virginity.

If there is a virgin version of these stories, it MUST have come after Jesus.

why MUST it?

[the incredible b]

only thing I have to say on it is what I've always thought, cause no one is gonna change anyones ideas on religion and personally I don't think we should try, but "Mom of COURSE I have never had sex in my entire life, I'm not pregnant by Joseph I'm pregnant cause god loves me, and Joseph backs me up. " is MIGHTY conveinient..... I beleive Jesus did exist, but the story went more like that at the begining, people will beleive anythign they want to hard enough.

Today it would be comparible with the rediculous claim "I got pregnant watching a 3d movie"

totally agree. i also think that jesus becomes a much more impressive figure if it went like this:

joseph and mary were very much in love. they secretely had sex causing mary to be pregnant with the human child jesus.

thats beautiful. uncomplicatedly two people loving each other and their child.
if jesus was a human he becomes much more inspiring. i cant follow in the footsteps of The Son Of God. but if a guy said all those cool things despite the obvious dangers and who was not afraid of the government, the religious organizations or anyone else...then so can i. that is inspiring. for A Son Of God, its not impressive to do those things, it just makes sense; "sure because...he's the son of god!".

the literary figure 'jesus' does not need divinity (or any miracles) to be impressive.

[Claire Evans]

only thing I have to say on it is what I've always thought, cause no one is gonna change anyones ideas on religion and personally I don't think we should try, but "Mom of COURSE I have never had sex in my entire life, I'm not pregnant by Joseph I'm pregnant cause god loves me, and Joseph backs me up. " is MIGHTY conveinient..... I beleive Jesus did exist, but the story went more like that at the begining, people will beleive anythign they want to hard enough.



Today it would be comparible with the rediculous claim "I got pregnant watching a 3d movie"

Stranger things have happened. Who knows if there are aliens out there that can telepathically impregnate people? We only see things as ridiculous because our minds are conditioned to believe what is normal and what is not.

[Claire Evans]

*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*
Vasudeva and Devaki had 7 (Seven) children earlier before Krishna. Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki's seventh child who transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife). According to Bhagavat Purana it is believed that*Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki.Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings.

the bold text. without a sexual union. this text says krishna*was*born from a virgin.

Devaki had 7 children prior to Krishna so he could not have been born of a virgin.



*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

Krishna was born in a prison.

and, according to hindus, from a virgin.

So show me Hindu texts which don't mention that Devaki had 7 kids before Krishna.




*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

Dionysus:

Zeus slept with Semele, Dionysus' mother.

agreed then, not a virgin birth.

*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

BUDDHA:

His parents consumated their union and thus Buddha was not of a virgin birth.

well, lets have a look.

*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

The birth of the Bodhisattva
There lived once upon a time a king of the Shakyas, a scion of the solar race, whose name was Shuddhodana. He was pure in conduct, and beloved.of the Shakyas like the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights,*and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit.*Just before her conception she had a dream. A white king elephant seemed to enter her body, but without causing her any pain. So Maya, queen of that god-like king, bore in her womb the glory of his dynasty. But she remained free from the fatigues, depressions, and fancies which usually accompany pregnancies.

again: the bold text. without any defilement. this text says he*was*born from a virgin.

Shakyas was married to Maya and thus Maya could not have been a virgin. Note, "These two tasted of love's delights…"

Also note that this scripture is from the Buddhacarita written in the second century AD.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...data/fdd67.htm

There was a different version prior to Christ:

“When the bodhisattva has entered his mother, the bodhisattva’s mother has the regular moral qualities of abstaining from taking life, from theft, from wrongful indulgence in sexual desires, from falsehood, and from the occasions of carelessness in the use of intoxicants.* When the bodhisattva has entered his mother, there arises in the bodhisattva’s mother no thought of men in connection with the senses, and the bodhisattva’s mother is not to be overcome by any man with a passionate heart...* When the bodhisattva has been born seven days, the bodhisattva’s mother dies.* She is reborn in a Tusita (heavenly) body.” – Majjhimanikaya 3:118,

This was written in the 5 century CE

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Majjhima_Nikaya.aspx

How is copying who? The date of composition if very important!!

. theres buddhist who consider jesus to have been a buddha. when people speak of 'the' buddha they usually meanSiddhartha.

It has the same birth story I mentioned. You know, about the elephant.



*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

ATTIS:

He wasn't born of a virgin; he was born of an almond:

In the earliest known version of the myth, the androgynous Cybele, possessing male and female characteristics, was castrated by the gods. From the severed male organs grew an almond tree by whose fruit Nana, daughter of the river god Sangarius, conceived and gave birth to Attis.

the way i understand it: nana eat the almond and got pregnant. eating an almond has no effect on your virginity.

Lol, so who said Nana was a virgin when she ate the almond tree? Be honest, this no way resembles Jesus' story.


*Originally Posted by*Claire Evans*

If there is a virgin version of these stories, it MUST have come after Jesus.

why MUST it?

Because I've proved it.

[Xavier Tremely]

I think you believe you've proved it because you want to believe it. Often, people bend data & provide opinions or hearsay as fact in order to support a personal theory.
My theory is that believing in Jesus, or any god, is not a personal choice, but rather, most often, the choice of one's parents.
Furthermore, in the time of Jesus, bearing a child out of wedlock was a crime punishable by death, a strong motivation to claim divine intervention.
I wish I believed in Jesus, God, & all that, but I do not. It is not an option for me to choose to believe.

[Claire Evans]

I think you believe you've proved it because you want to believe it. Often, people bend data & provide opinions or hearsay as fact in order to support a personal theory.
My theory is that believing in Jesus, or any god, is not a personal choice, but rather, most often, the choice of one's parents.
Furthermore, in the time of Jesus, bearing a child out of wedlock was a crime punishable by death, a strong motivation to claim divine intervention.
I wish I believed in Jesus, God, & all that, but I do not. It is not an option for me to choose to believe.

I don't know if you are talking to me?

Anyway, I was born in a Christian household, yes, but it certainly is not their choice I'm a Christian now. I have criticized the OT heavily, something I was not brought up to do.

[episkopos]

You must believe the Bible is true before you can accept that Jesus really exists.