Did Jesus exist? Parts 1 and 2 (copied from my Wire Club blog) (Page 2)

near50ohoh: This is what I know from various sources thru my years of religious and cultural studies:

at that time
1) Jesus was a common name
2) there were many miracle workers and wandering prophets
3) there were religious groups searching for and pitching different guys as the "saviour"
4) there were rebellions against the Roman empire and the Jewish hierarchy of the temple
5) it was unlikely that fishermen would hang with the son of a guy who built what was needed for burial by Jewish rites
6) it was unlikely that they would hang with a guy who collected taxes for the Roman empire.

since
1) the Bible has been translated to death
2) a group of ppl who wanted to keep stuff out of the hands of the Romans would not write them down in any Greek or Roman known language
3) the theory is that either the Essenes or the Zealots wrote the Bible and they were both anti-Roman empire.
4) there are some historic rebellions of that time that were pretty famously known and aren't mentioned in a document that is supposedly pro-Jew anti-Roman.
5) there is a theory that contained in the Bible are "codes" yet even Jewish scholars can't seem to translate/break them.

is Jesus real? There is no proof he is/was. There's no proof he wasn't either. But it's unlikely the Bible is true.

near50ohoh: but hey aren't the poems pretty?

TheDoctor394: Alright, I want to make sure we don't get off topic here. My initial post was not about whether everything about Jesus, as mentioned in the Gospels, is true (as much as I think it is), but about His very existence. That, at the very least, due to all the evidence, we can accept He did live on Earth, and my bewilderment at those who even attempt to try and deny it.

Orkanen, I would not necessarily disagree with some of your points, but I don't see what they have to do with the topic at hand (like the Theory of Meteorology paragraph).

What I would like to know is, for the atheists (or others) who refuse to accept that Jesus existed, how they have come to such a conclusion?
I base my assertions that He did, at the very least, exist, on the following convictions...

The Gospels - someone wrote them, they exist. We have thousands of copies (either parts of individual books, or in completion) in the original language, some dating back to the second century.

The birth of the Christian church - something happened in the early-to-mid first century, something that sparked a new, eventually widespread religion, that many, many people were ready to (and did) die for. So what happened? Are we supposed to accept that, somehow, these people were fooled into believing that there was a wonderful teacher who gave them from salvation but who, in truth, never even existed? And this started just after the time Jesus was believed to have died? And the people who supposedly made up His existence (like the apostles/the Gospel writers) were ready to die for a lie? No. How could such a belief system have started, at such a time, if Jesus never even existed at all?

The general acceptance by the world - Certainly in my experience, the secular world accepts Jesus Christ's existence as factual. To give just a few examples, I have at my desk here a book called "Historica", which is a chronological account of the history of the world from around 1000 AD. Before that, it covers the previous thousand years, including the birth and death of Jesus. I also bought a card game recently, Time Line, which is full of historical events that the players have to put in the correct order to win. One of the cards is the death of Jesus. Also, some years ago, a newspaper here (which, nowadays, is garbage) did a list of the most influential people in history. Jesus came second (Mohammad was first). Again, Jesus was accepted, at the very least, as a real human being who started something major in the world.

None of this "proves" anything. But it is strong evidence that convicts me that there was a person called Jesus who lived early in the first century, and started something major that was to have a big influence on the world.
That is the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

near50ohoh: I feel ignored :

oh_good_laughs: Some people deny the Holocaust too. People see what they want to see sometimes, i think.

orkanen: I understand and accept the points you are trying to make. I used the example of Meteorology, because "everyone" has an opinion about the weather, whether they understand the physics behind it or not. It's about belief, and that people are usually wrong when believing in something. I brought up the life situation of Scandinavians, because I am sure it is relevant, in comparison to the life situation of the early Christians. Which is also why I asked how it is in Australia and America.

I brought up psychology because I often come across the claim "how come someone dies for their beliefs". If you don't know any better, you're stuck with what you have. If your life is miserable, compared to those who have everything, and believe you will have a better next life, it's easier to put your life on the line. See B. F. Skinner's pigeon experiments for religious understanding. Would you accept Muslim suicide bombers to be equally faithful to their faith, for killing everyone who refuse to accept or follow their particular flavour of faith, despite it being the wrong one, or do you twist it to equal yours? How about the present Redshirts in Thailand, being killed by Yellowshirts for supporting a different political party, despite neither quite knowing what their parties stand for? The early Christians were not the first to die for their beliefs, nor will they be the last.

I accept that specific dates are asserted for the birth and death of the Biblical figure Jesus. The birth, taking the date of the winter solstice, or the Jólablót, to fit the narrative to an already existing day of celebration. The death date keeps jumping back and forth in relation to the position of the moon. The expression "Christ Mass" never caught on up here. It's always been "Yule", despite the efforts by those forcing in a new religion. The "because everyone believes it" is a lousy argument, has absolutely nothing to do with its validity. I may not know all the facts, but the ones I know don't convince me.

Yes, someone wrote the Gospels. Someone also wrote the Iliad. The Gospels may contain references to existing people, but that doesn't make the story itself true. I am still curious as to why you accept the Gospels so freely.

moofy: As a Jew, I don't negate the possibility of Jesus's existence. That's not Judaism's position, but rather the opinion of individuals who make such claims.

The differences between Christianity and Judaism are how such texts are interpreted. Rather, we deny the Divinity of Jesus as the Son of G-d, Spiritual Savior of man and Messiah.

orkanen: There's also a matter of which texts are included in the Holy Scriptures.

moofy: Yes Orkanen, this is true. We don't find the NT to be canonical if you will.

orkanen: I meant that the texts of the Torah and the OT don't always match.

moofy: Oh yes, definitely not. I believe scholars place around 250k variants on the renditions of the OT, but the number is exceptionally lower in Judaism (this is in part probably due to the painstaking work sofer's use to check texts and words).

TheDoctor394:
Well, again, I want to emphasise that this thread was primarily about the EXISTENCE of Jesus, not necessarily who He was, what He did, etc. Did He exist? My contention is, at the very least, He must have existed, and I have given reasons why it is extremely obvious He did so.

But if we want to go further and why I accept the Gospels, and their actual message, I have already given a few reasons, but I can go into detail a bit more.

They sound convincing to me. People can point to apparent inconsistencies between them, etc, but the way they explain things and the way they are written have convinced me of their reliability. Also, the fact they were written by different people, and yet agree so much, makes them even more believable, in my view.

I certainly agree that many, many people in history have died for a lie before – no question. But a significant thing is that in the early days of the church, some (amongst the originators of Christianity) who were ready to be imprisoned and die, claimed to actually have seen Jesus, either before His death, or after His resurrection, or both. Why would they make this up just to face persecution? Why would they make up stories about seeing a resurrected Jesus walk around, eat fish, let them touch Him and suchlike? And why would Paul, who was a leading Jewish figure and fierce opponent of Christianity, eventually change his views, even though he was eventually imprisoned and killed himself? And if, as I saw someone suggest once, he though joining the Christian side might be to his own advantage originally (although that doesn’t really make sense anyway), why did he not change back when he saw things weren’t going well for him?

This isn't all I have that helps me be convinced of the Gospels' reliability, and I certainly have more in regards to my acceptance of the whole Bible, but these are some of the factors that have helped me accept the Gospels for being trustworthy and true.

chayim: Jesus did exist, but his prophesy did not exist, all the charm teachings he stoled from the torah and twisted it off way from God's way, off the commandment way with all kind of false love preachings, it cannot be any love out of God's Torah, God's Torah is life, off the Torah is death

All christians have nothing with God's 613 commandments, they are not chosen to God

deuce916: Well chayi, I still don't believe you. I still don't believe your god exists. It's not there chayi. Make it do something to me now because I don't believe in it. Make it treat me like the heathen I am according to you.

mirja: as i said before ...doesnt require much intelligence to prove there is no god..
its after all the reality of the world.. the one we are all able to see..

mirja: is there a jew that doesnt believe in God..i wonder
seems like its your hat..sory

mirja: maybe it was necessary to twist it (the bits of torah) to make it understandable to the simple..
Jesus was ..after all..on the side of the simple

oh_good_laughs: I am surprised there are people really denying the existence of Jesus. Jesus is a historical figure.

The 'idea' that Jesus never existed was coined in the late 18th Century.. isn't that alone a little skeptical?, to argue of a person's existence 1800 years AFTER that person? Anyone who would bother denying Jesus' existence has their own hate-agenda against Religion, imo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

orkanen: I wouldn't know about such myths. I take my lack of acceptance of the Jesus claims directly from the claims within the few Gospels available to the public, as well as how those 4 came in place, and how the rest were treated by the church. It has nothing to do with who said what, why or when, it has to do with the inconsistencies within scriptures itself, with lack of corroborating documentation, with the fact that the Gospels were written in Greek and not Aramaic, despite Aramaic being the native language of the alleged followers. Oh, and Life of Brian was a great film.

oh_good_laughs: It seems vain to argue about this, we are just spinning our wheels. None of the historians near the time of Christ suggested him a myth, so his existence sounds completely reasonable. But anyone can deny whatever they want, at the end of the day.

TheDoctor394: Orkanen, as I said, Koine Greek was the growing language of the time when the Gospels were written. Aramaic was on its way out, Greek was coming in. That's a historical fact, and is why they were written in that language.
And I don't get how people keep talking about "only" four or "few" gospels. Again, that is way more writing than we have for many other historical figures, and events. One reason I am convinced of their authenticity is the fact that there are as many as four, and they agree in so many places. And the fact that the NT letters fit with them so well makes them even more believable.

orkanen: Making a comparison to today's reality. I generally communicate in English with foreigners, because English is reckoned a world language, just like Koine Greek back in the day was reckoned a world language along the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Unless I'm communicating with Swedes or Danes, as they would to some extent understand my Norwegian, and Germans, as I speak some German.

When writing anything in general, unless I wish to address someone outside of my local sphere, I'd write it in Norwegian. As I live in Norway, despite my huge knowledge of the English language, I speak Norwegian, I communicate in Norwegian, wherever I go here in Norway. If I wish to communicate with Norwegians abroad, I would speak Norwegian, unless foreigners are included in our conversation. In other words, my preferred language is Norwegian. It is part of my identity, which is why I choose it over English.

If a language were to be replaced by another within a population, it would either be done by force, or by replacing a majority of that population with someone speaking another language, like with the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic. As Koine Greek was a language used for communication across borders, not everyone would be equally fluent in it. I'd agree that a tax collector could know it, perhaps also fishermen would know it to some extent, but why would they write in a language they were less fluent in than their own?

As for your conclusion, why isn't Koine Greek, or a derivative of it, spoken along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea today? You wrote yourself, that it was a growing language at that time. If so, why does Aramaic still exist? I suggest you look up the local importance of Aramaic, compared to Koine Greek. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

mirja: What ?...Norway banned The life of Brian... as monty python said "no big deal cos those were the ones that didnt undersand it"