Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even the vast majority of agnostics and athiests acknowledge that historically, a person named Jesus existed, served as a spiritual preacher and teacher, and was put to death by Roman authorities in Roman occupied Judea during the first century. Their is really no doubt on that.
What he did during his life - the events depicted in the new testemant (besides his crucifition), and of course his divine origin, are subject to debate.
Even the vast majority of agnostics and athiests acknowledge that historically, a person named Jesus existed, served as a spiritual preacher and teacher, and was put to death by Roman authorities in Roman occupied Judea during the first century. Their is really no doubt on that.
What he did during his life - the events depicted in the new testemant (besides his crucifition), and of course his divine origin, are subject to debate.
But how strong is the evidence really? I mean, the only real evidence we have are the Gospels themselves, which were written decades after he died, and the epistles.
The memory of legends or mythical characters do not last for 2000 years in such a powerful form. Of course Jesus existed but historical accuracy is wanting in regards to who and what the man was. I believe this man possessed by God - through the flesh was much more down to earth than portrayed- His humanity has been almost avoided...Older Christian doctrine has it that he had actual siblings - That he had a father and a mother....That he was a brilliant student of the law...and that he probably was in love with a few woman in his life time...None of these practical things remove any of his divinity.
At one time I was severely reprimanded by a Christian moderator here at CD - because I suggested that Joesph was the father..that he did not stick his head out the window and proclaim - "I did not have sex with that woman" - and I am sure no one looked in the bedroom window to give a report on whether Mary and Joe functioned like a normal husband and wife - or were celibate.
CHRIST in my estimation was conceived and through the Holy Spirit- that resided in Joesph and within Mary- It was the perfect conception done in true divine love. Joe was shameful that he had gotten Mary pregnant before a traditional wedding. He wanted to "put her away" - an attempt to protect his own reputation .....until through divine messaging he understood that the child to be was a wonderful thing.
There is almost no mention of Joesph during Christ's adult life..as if he had been written out of scripture...Yet Jesus had brothers and sisters...I would suggest that the man who came to claim the body - who is mentioned as Joesph of Aramathea ...may have been the father of Jesus...It may have been the same man who is mentioned during the traveling to Egypt...From what I have gathered Joesph did a lot of traveling on business and was a way years at a time...
The divinity of Jesus the Christ was not dependent on romantic Roman notions of - virgin birth- nor rising from the dead...I believe his divinity came from his own mouth- from what he taught and what he did- He was truly a man fulling in touch with God to the point that the Holy Spirit possessed him and he was the willing host....and GOD is the lord of hosts...Please do not be offended my Christian friends- but that is what I see....the so-called magical smoke and mirrors stuff was to gain converts from the ranks of the superstitious. Purely a romantic Roman invention...Did he rise from the dead and walk- Yes- very possible- with GOD all is possible.
But how strong is the evidence really? I mean, the only real evidence we have are the Gospels themselves, which were written decades after he died, and the epistles.
That's not true. We have the works of several Roman historians and other scholars, not influenced by Christianity that speak of the existence of a man named Jesus who was "called Christ" or "king of the Jews". These writers also mark the crucifixion of a man named Jesus. These works and references primarily come from Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion and Suetonius.
It is generally accepted that a man named Jesus lived in Judea during that time. The man was either a "teacher/philosopher" or "rabble rouser" depending on ones perspective. They also mark that this man was crucified for his actions. Little is written of Jesus at the exact time, mainly because he wasn't really seen as anyone of any importance, just another guy inciting Jews by claiming he was the messiah. It is only in the 50-100 years after his death when the nascent Christian movement was gaining attention that people began to include Jesus in their histories. Even then, they were not written in such a way to validate who Jesus was, but more as a way to say; "There was this guy named Jesus they called 'The Christ' who ran around Judea preaching. He was crucified for sedition against the Empire. He is the inspiration for that 'cult' called Christianity."
From a purely historical perspective that is all that is known or can be proven about Jesus. Anything else about the man is essentially a matter of faith and is better discussed in the religion forum.
This guy John Armstrong is one of the first people I came across who questioned wether or not Jesus actually existed. His main point was that you can't find anyone who was an actual eyewitness to Jesus who mentions him. He says our knowledge of Jesus mainly comes from people who never actually met or saw him when he was alive. Isn't that basically true?
The most immediate evidence available, and it unfortunately isn't too terribly immediate, coming three decades after the supposed death of Jesus, are the gospels and documents written by Paul et al that form the rest of the New Testament.
All of that documentation, despite its unreliable nature, coming as it does from the fanatic followers of a cult figure, indicates that there was indeed was a single individual named Jesus who was responsible for the activities and devotions of believers which followed his life and death.
Those responsible for spreading Christianity certainly behaved as though they believed that Jesus was a real individual. Though there are contradictions among the four biographic gospels, they are overwhelmed by the consistencies. Jesus was born in Palestine. Sometime around his 30th year he embarked on a religious ministry centered on a concept he called Kingdom of Heaven. This concept suggested that the existing temporal order would be dramtically overthrown during the lifetime of those listening to Jesus. Jesus was perceived as an immediate threat to the powers which administered Judea on behalf of the Romans and they acted to arrange his state execution.
All four gospels are in agreement on those basic facts. All of the other New Testament books, while containing no biographic details of the life of Jesus, read as though they are talking about one person, the fellow decribed in those four gospels.
So, from the available evidenciary viewpoint, Jesus really lived and died. We may question the accuracy of the available evidence, but what we do not have is any surviving counter evidence to suggest that what we do have is entirely mythological and devoid of anything factual.
Goat brought up the Roman world sources which make mention of Jesus, but those are not really very helpful since they are actually referencing the phenomena of the Jesus cult rather than Jesus himself.
So, we do not have unassailable evidence, but all of what we do have indicates an actual historical figure.
The Jesus we know today is a mostly mythological archeytpe of what our culture would consider the "perfect" leader, and the character has served in that role since midevil times.
I don't know if Jesus was real man, but I tend to think the story was inspired by a real guy that today's Christianity probably wouldn't recognize.
There is no hard evidence for Jesus. It's a matter of faith. I believe that he is real, but I'm not going to dig for evidence becoz it does not exist in the fullest sense of evidence.
The only convincing evidence if any could be that he has inspired and captivated humanity for nearly 2 millenniums now - ranging from Christians to Muslims to gnostics to Hindus to Jews and bizarrely, even atheists, who spend as much time speaking about him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
