Did Jesus Really Exist as a Person?

[knapplc]

Also, one thing I'll mention that's worth mentioning:

The Biblical accounts of Jesus are independent sources, written by different people at different times to different audiences. Just because we group them all together into one book now, doesn't discredit the strength of evidence in originally having multiple accounts independent of each other testifying to the same things.

We've been told that, but we don't know that. There's a huge difference here.

Scholarship only gets us so far. I trust that the scholars who have researched the origins of the Gospels were thorough and painstaking in their work, but they're trying to perform forensic investigations on a 2,000-year-old case. It's sketchy dealing with that kind of time gap. As recently as this year we're finding out that many theories we've developed regarding matter - most developed by some of the most brilliant minds in the past 100-200 years - have been wrong, or at best, built on the wrong foundations. Anything can change, even Biblical scholarship.

That's one of the things that ultimately drove me away from belief in a god - the realization that I was not putting my faith into a god, but into man. I was believing that the men who told us these stories over the millennia have all been correct. We know through countless demonstrations that not only are men often incorrect, but they are often intentionally incorrect, especially when that incorrectness is profitable to them. Between intentional and unintentional wrong-ness, there's simply too much of a gap between what I know and what I believe.

 

[wildman]

We'll probably never know if Jesus or God even exist until we pass on from this life, who knows maybe not even then. I to have a hard time believing the story the bible tells. I see it kinda like the movie Forrest Gump. You can prove a lot of the events told in story are true and happened. Such as people being crucified and other events in the bible. But you can't prove the main character is true.

But if it's true or not religion is a good thing. It provides a sense of belonging, security, guidance, strength, courage and hope to those who do believe or partially believe the story. So I wouldn't be upset if it's never proven to be true, but hope it's never proven to be false.

 

[knapplc]

But if it's true or not religion is a good thing. It provides a sense of belonging, security, guidance, strength, courage and hope to those who do believe or partially believe the story.

Agree with this.

And knowing someone will assuredly chip in with the inevitable recitation of harms wrought in the name of religion throughout history (and we all know this has happened, and will happen again), the fact is that these wrongs are a misuse of religion, not the intended purpose. That makes religion no more at fault than the spoon I use to murder 100 people. Misusing the spoon doesn't mean the spoon is bad.

 

[Landlord]

But if it's true or not religion is a good thing. It provides a sense of belonging, security, guidance, strength, courage and hope to those who do believe or partially believe the story.

Agree with this.

And knowing someone will assuredly chip in with the inevitable recitation of harms wrought in the name of religion throughout history (and we all know this has happened, and will happen again), the fact is that these wrongs are a misuse of religion, not the intended purpose. That makes religion no more at fault than the spoon I use to murder 100 people. Misusing the spoon doesn't mean the spoon is bad.

Hell you don't need a deity for any of those benefits anymore - atheism has it's own godless mega-church and religion growing quickly, aimed at providing all of the same things.

 

[wildman]

But if it's true or not religion is a good thing. It provides a sense of belonging, security, guidance, strength, courage and hope to those who do believe or partially believe the story.

Agree with this.

And knowing someone will assuredly chip in with the inevitable recitation of harms wrought in the name of religion throughout history (and we all know this has happened, and will happen again), the fact is that these wrongs are a misuse of religion, not the intended purpose. That makes religion no more at fault than the spoon I use to murder 100 people. Misusing the spoon doesn't mean the spoon is bad.

Oh I agree there is always going to be evil and wrong doing in the world. They will always grasp at straws to find a reason to support what they are doing. Religion would be a safe bet to be the most popular reason that's used.

 

[NUance]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

 

[wildman]

But if it's true or not religion is a good thing. It provides a sense of belonging, security, guidance, strength, courage and hope to those who do believe or partially believe the story.

Agree with this.

And knowing someone will assuredly chip in with the inevitable recitation of harms wrought in the name of religion throughout history (and we all know this has happened, and will happen again), the fact is that these wrongs are a misuse of religion, not the intended purpose. That makes religion no more at fault than the spoon I use to murder 100 people. Misusing the spoon doesn't mean the spoon is bad.

Oh I agree there is always going to be evil and wrong doing in the world. They will always grasp at straws to find a reason to support what they are doing. Religion would be a safe bet to be the most popular reason that's used.

 

[knapplc]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

 

[NUance]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.)

edit: I guess the new Testament books by Peter and Paul are not gospels. But you get the point.

 

[wildman]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.)

or the real reason they were killed and john wasn't, was lost in translation over the years. But yes i'm sure they would be if that was the case.

 

[strigori]

Very little of the Jesus story did not show up in some form from another culture prior to Jesus. Born of a virgin, walking on water, rising from the dead, all are things that exist in some form in some other mythological story.

And just because something was written down in an old book does not necessarily make it fact. No one would take the events from Beowulf or The Iliad as fact of historical events. Too much value was given to the written word for most of human history because most people couldn't read, and actually making a book was very time consuming until the advent of the printing press.

 

[Roark]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.)

edit: I guess the new Testament books by Peter and Paul are not gospels. But you get the point.

The early leaders of Christianity may very well have been killed for their beliefs. However, this would not authenticate any of the books accredited to them.

Some of the Gospels are authored anonymously and the others were written based on second-hand information. I may be mistaken, but I think most historians agree that the earliest copies of the Gospels that have been found are from the 2nd century. There are also discrepancies between Gospels, which show that at least one contains fabricated or misinterpreted information.

 

[NUance]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.)

edit: I guess the new Testament books by Peter and Paul are not gospels. But you get the point.

The early leaders of Christianity may very well have been killed for their beliefs. However, this would not authenticate any of the books accredited to them.

Some of the Gospels are authored anonymously and the others were written based on second-hand information. I may be mistaken, but I think most historians agree that the earliest copies of the Gospels that have been found are from the 2nd century. There are also discrepancies between Gospels, which show that at least one contains fabricated or misinterpreted information.

Given the penalty for being a Christian leader in those days, why would anyone write about Jesus is he didn't exist? If Jesus did not exist, what was in it for Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul and the other early Christian martyrs?

 

[strigori]

So if Jesus didn't exist I guess the gospels were just a very elaborate hoax. And an expensive hoax too, given that the writers were killed for their efforts.

Since we don't know exactly who wrote the Gospels, it's rather hard to say they were killed for writing them, isn't it?

Well, if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul didn't write them, I'll bet they were pissed at whoever did. Because most of them got killed for it. (John didn't.)

edit: I guess the new Testament books by Peter and Paul are not gospels. But you get the point.

The early leaders of Christianity may very well have been killed for their beliefs. However, this would not authenticate any of the books accredited to them.

Some of the Gospels are authored anonymously and the others were written based on second-hand information. I may be mistaken, but I think most historians agree that the earliest copies of the Gospels that have been found are from the 2nd century. There are also discrepancies between Gospels, which show that at least one contains fabricated or misinterpreted information.

Given the penalty for being a Christian leader in those days, why would anyone write about Jesus is he didn't exist? If Jesus did not exist, what was in it for Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul and the other early Christian martyrs?

That logic would old true for basically any religion on its origin period in most of human history. Religious changes in an area tended to be bloody affairs.

 

[Landlord]

Some of the Gospels are authored anonymously and the others were written based on second-hand information. I may be mistaken, but I think most historians agree that the earliest copies of the Gospels that have been found are from the 2nd century. There are also discrepancies between Gospels, which show that at least one contains fabricated or misinterpreted information.

Gospel of Matthew ~70-110

Gospel of Mark ~70

Gospel of Luke ~60-100

Gospel of John ~85-90

Your statement specifically refers to copies, and that's correct, we don't have any original manuscripts in existence today, but the range of scholarly opinions date the authorship to around these dates. I'm not sure which you're actually referring to.

The discrepancies between the gospels, which do exist, are easily explained without being problematic, in my opinion. Firstly, they existed as oral tradition long before written accounts. Now, removed 2,000 years from that time and culture, we immediately get hit with a huge dose of skepticism claiming, "You mean these stories were passed down by telling them? Then there's no way they're anywhere remotely close to accurate." But that's being fairly ignorant of the emphasis and importance, the 'sacred' nature so to speak, of oral tradition for the Jews. It was absolutely nothing like 21st century American gossip, but was a devoted and faithful retelling and preservation of stories when the means to record them were really limited.

Going along with that, the minute details of the accounts just aren't made as emphasis. A lot of Biblical literature is unique in genre - it's not historical, but it does record history. It's not fiction, but it does have elements of legend. It's not poetry, but it does use illustrations. The gospel accounts were, according to Christian tradition, never meant to be academic or scientific and contain "errors" in details, even quotes that aren't verbatim. That doesn't mean they aren't inerrant or uninspired by the Holy Spirit, it just means that our presupposition towards what they're purposed for is mistaken. It's like saying, "Jesus can't be true or the Son of God because he said mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds and we know there are smaller seeds than that." Well, no, because Jesus isn't a botanist and wasn't teaching biology.