Did Jesus Exist?

[Danustouch]

Italian Court to decide, Did Jesus Exist?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_religion_court;_ylt=AtpWhRJJgQh5GlmWXWe90les0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[kal]

i will need to keep an eye on that one
it should be good

[tiamat-4]

I would say he did exist, but i don't have documentation of that. However, i have information that points to the idea that the jews believed that the saviour would come to free them from Roman rule. And then along came Bar Kophba, who led revolt against the Roman army.

What i do know is that if Jesus did exist, he lived his life as an Essene Jew, one of the prevailing types of that era, along with Pharisaic and Saduccees.

[Cain]

Joespheus Flavius (Roman historian) mentions him by name, though he wasnt present in Israel at the time Jesus was. I believe he was there during the revolt, about AD 60, so I think there is some evidence to suggest Jesus existed.

[WokeUpDead]

Probably did exist and then somewhere along the line after he died a few guys decided he would make a great poster boy for them.

[omar]

This is the third site this has been posted. So when do we get the verdic?

[LadyCelt]

he was written about by Greeks and Romans and not just his followers.

[David19]

I think he did exist because, from what i've heard, most serious scholars have proven he did exist, the only ones that don't are usually not serious, not as educated or just dumb or have some sort of racist/anti-Semitic agenda to promote (some neo-nazis don't like admiting anything good can from Jews, which is BS). So i think he defently existed and was probably the son of Yahweh, although that doesn't make other gods false, and from what i know, he never mentioned the other gods (Yahweh did but even he didn't say they were false)

[Little Billy]

I think he did exist because, from what i've heard, most serious scholars have proven he did exist, the only ones that don't are usually not serious, not as educated or just dumb or have some sort of racist/anti-Semitic agenda to promote (some neo-nazis don't like admiting anything good can from Jews, which is BS). So i think he defently existed and was probably the son of Yahweh, although that doesn't make other gods false, and from what i know, he never mentioned the other gods (Yahweh did but even he didn't say they were false)

Please name one of these serious scholars.

I believe he existed, personally, but he also got what happens to ALL people who "go slumming", sooner or later.

[Vincent Verthaine]

I also believe he existed.
I also believe that alot of what he did and said has been deliberately misrepresented by people with their own agenda's.
And why is he being called "Jesus Christ"?
Why do so many christians seem to have an aversion to pronouncing his name the way he would have pronounced it.
I mean,Yesh-u-a isn't that hard to say.
I really don't think Yeshua Ben Yosef would have aprroved of all the things being done in his name.

[brighid's child]

Yes Vincent, it's always bugged me that we change everyone's name and the name of their country instead of attempting to pronounce it the way they do.
But as far as the case goes, I would really like to see what solid scholarly evidence there is on both sides. The Roman were meticulous about records, so I would expect something.
Obviously, the plaintiff can't win even if he's right, but it may be very interesting.

[Zibblsnrt]

And why is he being called "Jesus Christ"?
Why do so many christians seem to have an aversion to pronouncing his name the way he would have pronounced it.
I mean,Yesh-u-a isn't that hard to say.

The closest thing to an explanation for that lies in the ways that the other languages of the time were pronounced. We get our records, such as they are, of Jesus via the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, written down and discussed in Greek and Latin for some time.

One of the problems that causes is one of pronunciation. Neither Greek nor classical Latin had the "sh" sound. The closest Latin equivalent to it, the that you hear in veni, vedi, vici, comes from medieval Latin, which can get to be a radically different dialect at points. Classical Latin was very much not a gutteral language compared to Aramaic; Greek was moreso, but not by much.

So they're encountered with a sound that doesn't exist in their language, which doesn't have letters or letter combinations that would cover it... the options available for them were to change their alphabet, add new phonemes to their language, or simply fit a round peg in a square hole using a hammer by fitting the sounds to their language as close as possible. That turns the sh in Yeshua into "sh." The Y-J thing's another result of language drift over time, and so on.

It's the Roman equivalent of the stereotype Japanese accent being unable to pronounce the letter "L," substituting an "R" instead because it's the closest sound the mouth is trained to shape.

As for the "Christ" part, that's a epithet/title. It's the same sort of thing about how we typically call Queen Elizabeth II "Queen Elizabeth" or "the Queen," even though "Queen" isn't actually part of her name.

None of it is a deliberate distortion at all. Languages are as alive as the people who speak them; they just live, change and evolve over much longer periods than individuals.

(I'm also occasionally hearing of the odd congregation bringing back the old terms, like Yeshua or Yahweh. Personally, I approve.)


Yes Vincent, it's always bugged me that we change everyone's name and the name of their country instead of attempting to pronounce it the way they do.

A few years ago while doing Roman history, we spent awhile trying to pick up on what particular groups actually called themselves. A lot of history's peoples are described only through Latinized forms just because of the way our scholarship evolved, and a lot of the old names have been lost or almost lost.

Finding out that the Etruscans called themselves the Rasenna, or that the Sassanid "Persian" Empire was known to itself as Eranshahr, suddenly makes those cultures feel more real and less like simple records.


But as far as the case goes, I would really like to see what solid scholarly evidence there is on both sides. The Roman were meticulous about records, so I would expect something.

I imagine nothing directly relating to Jesus himself survived, no matter how meticulous the Romans were. Modern scholars don't even have a fraction of one percent of the materials written down by the Romans, and most of that of a broad, usually literary nature. Court records and other mundane things tended not to last long. And remember, to the Romans, Jesus wasn't even that important - just another petty rebel in a violent part of the Empire. He was a statistic to them.

[David19]

I think i heard that Jesus's real name is Joshua (although in Hebrew, i think it's Yeshua or something).

[pinsher6]

he lives in our heart forever

[PoisonIvy]

Did Jesus exist?


YES!


How do I know?


BECAUSE I KNOW!

[SSanf]

Did Jesus exist?

Probably not as an actual, factual person as an historical figure.

Glad you asked the question because it is a good one and on many people's minds.

Here is a very good essay on the subject.

DID JESUS EXIST? (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html)

And, another one.

HOW JESUS GOT A LIFE (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html)

And Also, check this out and go to the link at the bottom of the page.

The Origins of Christianity (http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages/origins_of_christianity.htm)

I consider the above as MUST READING for people living in a Christianized society.

If anyone has rational, non-emotional, non-faith based counter arguments to the above articles, I would be very interested in what they are.

(I consider, "The Bible said it, so it's so," faith based.)

For even more, check this
http://www.google.com/custom?q=jesus&sa=Google+Search&cof=LW%3A120%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheists.org%2Fpix%2Fslogo.gif%3BLH%3A120%3BBGC%3Awhite%3BAH%3Al eft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheists.org%2F%3BAWFID%3Ac521f073ddec5420%3B&domains=atheists.org%3Bamericanatheist.org&sitesearch=atheists.org

[LostSheep]

As an actual, historical figure, yes, i think he did. The evidence may be circumstantial but I think there's enough of it - references from historians at the time, little details in the Gospels that would seem pointless for someone to have made up - but whether that means that what the gospels, even less Paul, say about him and what was subsequently done in his name have anything to do with the actual person is something else entirely.

i think Vincent sums it up well, in that I think he did exist but the Christian church has become a very different thing from the Jewish healer and preacher that he probably was.

[SSanf]

As an actual, historical figure, yes, i think he did. The evidence may be circumstantial but I think there's enough of it - references from historians at the time, little details in the Gospels that would seem pointless for someone to have made up - but whether that means that what the gospels, even less Paul, say about him and what was subsequently done in his name have anything to do with the actual person is something else entirely.

i think Vincent sums it up well, in that I think he did exist but the Christian church has become a very different thing from the Jewish healer and preacher that he probably was.It is my understanding that so called references of historians "at the time" (a hundred years later) has pretty much been debunked. I understand that there is absolutely no independent verification from any non-Christian source of any kind.

The Romans were very good record keepers. There should be some kind of independent verification if such a rabbi existed and was making such a row.

Did you read the articles? They are very interesting.

[Thunder]

he was written about by Greeks and Romans and not just his followers.

He is refered to as Saint Issa in texts that have survived in India, Nepal and Tibet. Some believe that he traveled there during the period that he is conspicuously missing from biblical accounts (age 13 to 30).
No serious scholar that I have read doubts his existence, only his divinity.

[SSanf]

No serious scholar that I have read doubts his existence, only his divinity.OK, then. There are a few serious scholars who do doubt his existance for you. New information is almost always good to have.

[Thunder]

The Romans were very good record keepers. There should be some kind of independent verification if such a rabbi existed and was making such a row.


If there is a myth here it is this. The Romans were not particularly good record keepers. Most of what survives through to this day are their myths, not accounts of daily activities.

The old testament was written in Hebrew but the new testament was written in Greek not Latin. The preponderance of historical information of that time was stored in the Royal Library at Alexandria. Upon its demise, much of the "proof" of all that occured during those times vanished.

Just because the history is oral does not mean that it is invalid. There is no written language for any native culture in North America. Does that invalidate their history?

[RunningRiot]

Yes, Jesus is real. My sister knows him. Also my brother knows another guy named Moses who is a Mexican.

[Thunder]

Yes, Jesus is real. My sister knows him. Also my brother knows another guy named Moses who is a Mexican.

I work with a guy named Jesus Rodriguez... somehow I think we are discussing a different Jesus... if we are not it certainly changes the tone of this thread...

[HetHert]

If Jesus didn't exist than there is a long line of Morivingians that will be sorely disappointed.

[SSanf]

I am so disappointed. I was hoping someone would respond to the arguments put forth in the articles rather than their own perceptions or gut feelings.

I have had links to these posted for many years and have yet to hear any well reasoned refutation of them.

I hope people at least read The Origins of Christianity (http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages/origins_of_christianity.htm) if the other stuff is too dry.

[Thunder]

I am so disappointed. I was hoping someone would respond to the arguments put forth in the articles rather than their own perceptions or gut feelings.

I have had links to these posted for many years and have yet to hear any well reasoned refutation of them.

I hope people at least read The Origins of Christianity (http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages/origins_of_christianity.htm) if the other stuff is too dry.

With all due respect SSanf, that link is tantamount to reading "The Truth About White People" by Al Sharpton. When you said serious I thought meant "serious".

[David19]

I think he did exist, although i'm not a scholar, i think most accept that he did exist (i've read a few articles like things on www.jesusneverexisted.com or .net) but the author seems like an idiot, anti-Semite (the things he says about Jews, i really hate) and probably a neo-nazi.

I don't like it when i see other pagans say he didn't exist or it's not conclusive that he existed or whatever or saying christianity stole myths from pagan religions (maybe true, but it's not like other pagan religions didn't) when every other religion has done so (Jews took the flood myth from the Sumerians (although considering they were originally from Iraq, it may not be stealing), Greeks took the season myth from Sumerians e.g. Inanna going to the underworld, also wicca has taken a lot from every religion including christianity.

BTW, this isn't an insult or anything towards any religion, i'm just showing the hyprocracy of some people, and now i think i've gone kind of off topic :).

[Catiana]

The lawsuit has been dismissed by the judge.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210JesusCase10-ON.html

[Valnorran]

I hope people at least read The Origins of Christianity (http://www.sanfords.net/Framed_pages/origins_of_christianity.htm) if the other stuff is too dry.
I did. Interesting stuff. I'm not sure how much is due to the author's interpretations, but I find it to be at least somewhat compelling. I'll have to bone up on my Egyptian mythology to see some of the things mentioned. One particular thing that struck me was what they said about Revelation and the son of god actually being the sun of god. If that's true, I guess the prophecy is right - god will return to destroy the earth with fire. In a few billion years the sun will expand and consume Earth. Kind of funny how science dovetailed with religious prophecy there.

[David19]

I also read the Origins of Christianity, and it mentioned some good points, but it didn't seem scholarly, and i would rather listen to scholars (who left their religion out of their work). Also it seems kind of like a fluff bunny site 'cause i went to the main site and it mentioned the same sort if things on a fluff bunny site (how there is no difference between wiccans and witches - there is as anyone can be a wtich, the burning times (when no witches were killed), etc).

[SSanf]

With all due respect SSanf, that link is tantamount to reading "The Truth About White People" by Al Sharpton. When you said serious I thought meant "serious".
You're kidding. (Shakes head)

Did you read the article it was taken from with all the annotated references? What I posted was just a small exert from the entire article which is linked at the bottom if someone wants to read the whole thing.

Oh well, think what you will. You will anyhow.

I guess, there is no hope for a meeting of the minds on this subject. And, that's perfectly OK.

[SSanf]

I also read the Origins of Christianity, and it mentioned some good points, but it didn't seem scholarly, and i would rather listen to scholars (who left their religion out of their work). Also it seems kind of like a fluff bunny site 'cause i went to the main site and it mentioned the same sort if things on a fluff bunny site (how there is no difference between wiccans and witches - there is as anyone can be a wtich, the burning times (when no witches were killed), etc).
Just because something has been picked up and circulated on a site that is not particularly enlightening in all things does not mean that it isn't good, itself.

However, I do understand that if you see something on a site that you generally disagree with, it is tempting to discredit everything on the site. That is understandable.