Did Jesus exist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

HJ vs MJ is a false dichotomy: just the plausible explanations range from OG Street Rabbi to Pauline Hallucination and hit every point in between. I would, and have, and will continue to argue that as we don't have any evidence, any conclusions one might make (even in consensus) are mere opinion, and ought to be treated as such.

The need for a HJ is reflective of the uncertainty over a MJ. If the believers can get HJ validated they can feel better about MJ.

However, MJ will not be coming back to the Neverland Ranch, so the issue is moot.

 

[Darat]

HJ vs MJ is a false dichotomy: just the plausible explanations range from OG Street Rabbi to Pauline Hallucination and hit every point in between. I would, and have, and will continue to argue that as we don't have any evidence, any conclusions one might make (even in consensus) are mere opinion, and ought to be treated as such.

This is pretty much my view. I do fall more towards the "no Jesus" side simply because there is no evidence that requires a historical Jesus to have existed so using Ockham's razor it's more a "no actual person was Jesus".

But in the end we simply don't have the evidence to make a firm conclusion.

And I appreciate the irony of using Okham's razor in relation to this question!

 

[Tomtomkent]

We don't know. But if he did a mortal guy who may have been the legitimate descendant of the jewish throne is the most likely form he took. The Jesus Papers and Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are entertaining books, but there was a lot built on a little evidence and I would need way better evidence to convince me the story of the calculated myth building was as likely as it was entertaining.

 

[bluesjnr]

A Jew with a with a Mexican name?

Gotta be fake.

 

[Rincewind]

A Jew with a with a Mexican name?

Gotta be fake.

I love this one!

However, I voted not enough info.

Now isn't that a sad comment on one of the world's big religions.

 

[pakeha]

A Jew with a with a Mexican name?

Gotta be fake.

I'd vote for this option.

 

[catsmate]

I have selected options 1, 3 and 4.
If there was a JC he resembles the biblical figure (even omitting the supernatural guff) so little as to be irrelevant

 

[Loss Leader]

Some pagan myths and a couple street preachers mixed together.

It's just impossible to ignore the lack of contemporaneous records.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Option 4

For a long time I accepted HJ based on "James, the Lord's brother" as meaning sibling. It still seems the natural reading to me, nor do I think Doherty hit a home run with his "title" thing, but it is disputed.

We can't know.

 

[HansMustermann]

This is pretty much my view. I do fall more towards the "no Jesus" side simply because there is no evidence that requires a historical Jesus to have existed so using Ockham's razor it's more a "no actual person was Jesus".

But in the end we simply don't have the evidence to make a firm conclusion.

And I appreciate the irony of using Okham's razor in relation to this question!

You know, I don't know why people are so cautious of the caveat of Occam's Razor for this one question alone.

I mean, you also can't know for 100% sure that my invisible cat didn't create the universe last Tuesday, complete with your memories and all. In fact, you can't even know for 100% that I don't even receive such revelations telepathically from the great cosmic cat.

Or conversely, you can't know for 100% that I'm not the bored Skynet AI, passing the time until doomsday by posting on a few thousand forums. (Some may or may have met a terminato... err.. a human that represents me, but that doesn't prove I'm a human.)

You can't know for 100% sure that I didn't actually met Elvis on an UFO.

Nor, to return to a previous theme, that I don't have a point when I say that the real messiah is the risen John Holmes. I mean, forget about the couple of people who saw the risen Jesus, there are hundreds of thousands who saw John Holmes rise. Mostly on VHS, granted, but it still counts, right?

Yet if I made a poll on any of those topics, nobody would vote that they don't have enough information to really know.

 

[moogspaceport]

I voted for 4 but only because I didn't know I could vote for more than one (should have paid attention)...

I would have voted for 1 and 4. I suspect 1 is accurate, but for now I think 4 is on more solid ground.

 

[tsig]

I voted for 4 but only because I didn't know I could vote for more than one (should have paid attention)...

I would have voted for 1 and 4. I suspect 1 is accurate, but for now I think 4 is on more solid ground.

Sorry I didn't mention it in the OP.

 

[davefoc]

I voted for 4 because I think the early history of Christianity is unknown and unknowable. There are a lot of intriguing clues but one needs to use confirmation bias driven analysis to form any kind of strong conclusion based on them. We can't even determine in which group Christianity arose, let alone whether the group happened to have a Jesus like character that played a prominent role.

I voted for 5 because I think on Planet X they are smart enough to not give a crap about this issue.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We don't know. But if he did a mortal guy who may have been the legitimate descendant of the jewish throne is the most likely form he took.

He's not of the House of David, his father wasn't Joseph.

 

[tsig]

He's not of the House of David, his father wasn't Joseph.

God took a sperm cell from Joesph and inseminated Mary with it. Truly with god all things are possible, Praise de Lourd!!

 

[Brainache]

He's not of the House of David, his father wasn't Joseph.

You know that "Son Of Joseph" is a Messianic title, like "Son Of David"?

I think the name of the HJ's father was "Cleophas", or "Cleopas". Sometimes this name gets garbled as "Alpheus". He is listed as the father of James, Simon and Jude, who are elsewhere referred to as Jesus' Brothers.

Being "Son Of Joseph" meant he was a saviour to the North, and "Son Of David" meant being a saviour to the south.

That is one theory, anyway.

 

[kedo1981]

Hey Scorp please come back and tell where you got your :

"There were christians ready to die at the hands of Nero in 43ad, rather than recant and deny Jesus. It seems unlikely that people within living memory of Jesus lifetime would be willing to die for a fictional character. So I conclude there was a Jesus. "
info.
Cause a quick web search give you this

Nero (Latin: Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus;[2] 15 December 37 – 9 June 68)[3] was Roman Emperor from 54 to 68, and the last in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Nero was adopted by his great-uncle Claudius to become his heir and successor, and succeeded to the throne in 54 following Claudius' death.
So what you said was wrong.
Also the whole christian martyr thing is mostly made up.

 

[dejudge]

You know that "Son Of Joseph" is a Messianic title, like "Son Of David"?

I think the name of the HJ's father was "Cleophas", or "Cleopas". Sometimes this name gets garbled as "Alpheus". He is listed as the father of James, Simon and Jude, who are elsewhere referred to as Jesus' Brothers.

Being "Son Of Joseph" meant he was a saviour to the North, and "Son Of David" meant being a saviour to the south.

That is one theory, anyway.

Actually, there is no list anywhere which claims James was the actual brother of Jesus.

We have gone through this already.

In Matthew and gMark, we have QUESTIONS about Jesus.

Immediately we see problems. The author of gMatthew asked if Jesus was NOT the carpenter's son and the author of gMark ASKED if he was not the CARPENTER.

Origen would claimed Jesus was NOT known as a carpenter in any Gospel in the Church.

QUESTIONS in gMatthew.

Matthew 13:55 KJV

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

QUESTIONS in gMark.

Mark 6:3 KJV

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him..

Up to the mid 3rd century Jesus was NOT known as a carpenter in any Gospel of the Church.


Origen's Against Celsus 6.36

........in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Again we have evidence of manipulation of the Jesus story.

We cannot take the NT at face value. It is a compilation of forgeries, interpolations, fiction and implausibility.

Why are people using the NT as a source of history and do so without corroboration from non-apologetics?

In the fragments of Papias it would seem that James, Jude and Simon were NOT the sons of the mother of Jesus but an aunt named Mary.

 

[Brainache]

...
Again we have evidence of manipulation of the Jesus story.

We cannot take the NT at face value. It is a compilation of forgeries, interpolations, fiction and implausibility.

Why are people using the NT as a source of history and do so without corroboration from non-apologetics?

In the fragments of Papias it would seem that James, Jude and Simon were NOT the sons of the mother of Jesus but an aunt named Mary.

You think that Mary had a sister called Mary?

I use the Apocrypha to arrive at this conclusion by comparing it to the NT and the early church historians.

You are still taking the NT at face-value.

You lose.

 

[dejudge]

You think that Mary had a sister called Mary?

I use the Apocrypha to arrive at this conclusion by comparing it to the NT and the early church historians.

You are still taking the NT at face-value.

You lose.

You think Mary did not have a sister called Mary?

You take your Apocrypha at face value!!

When was your Apocrypha written? Is it an eyewitness account? Is supported by non-apologetics?

I use the NT and Apocrypha to expose mythology, forgeries, fiction, interpolations and implausibility.

I never take the NT and Apocrypha at face value like you do--they are not history.