Jay GW

Have a question debated guy from Syria who says "everyone here knows Jesus was real. He lived here."

There's no contemporary account. Everything known comes after the dates he is claimed to have lived. Second, the story of his life mirrors every messiah myth from several religions. Coincidence or not.

He then says, "If he wasn't real how was Christianity born?"
Which is a pretty good question

spin

The topic has been done to death here. Check out these polls asking the same question: 1, 2, 3 & 4.

There are more choices than whether Jesus was real or a myth. You'll find here people who have claimed that he was fictional (ie intentionally created as non-real) as against a myth (ie religiously motivated story with an accompanying belief system). I myself have suggested that it could have started with a psychotic break of a delusional man (Paul -- though it need not have been a delusion) who had a revelation from god of Jesus and beleived he was real without him ever having been real.

But it is safer for saner people to work with a certain level of not knowing. We don't know whether King Arthur was real or not. We don't know about Robin Hood either. Do we need to choose if the data is lacking? This notion is hard to put into believers' heads.

Reality is not a matter of what "everyone here knows". The past will not change based on what people believe they know.


spin

storytime

Was Jesus a real person? Who has the most evidence against him as a real person? Isn't it the Jews themselves? I'm thinking of the Talmud and the rabbi's writing about Jesus as a real person. How do you counter this with Jesus being a myth?

Deus Ex

Yes!

He was the son of Joe and Mary Christ.

Vinnie

Step-son of Joe Christ.

spin

Aw, Vinnie, that's apocryphal: it blows the logic behind the genealogies. For Mt the genealogy is of Jesus Christ son of David son of Abraham, but virgin birth says the genealogy's a red herring, 'cause he wasn't really the son of Joseph, so he wasn't -- as far as we know -- a son of David or for that matter of Abraham!?... He could have been (if he existed...), but the genealogy doesn't help us establish it because it's been derailed by this virgin birth stuff, which effectively detaches Jesus from the genealogy logic. Adopted sons don't make bloodline.


spin

storytime

But... "begotten" sons indicate Levites as the only sons who were chosen to be priests of God, as the "elect", out of all the other tribes of Israel. Thier name above every other name in Israel.

Come on guys, answer my question about Jews and their "evidence" for a real person named Jesus in their Hebrew name Joshua. If he wasn't a real person, why have the Jewish rabbi's cursed him for 2000 years?

spamandham

For what it's worth (not much), I voted 5, since I certainly don't know whether or not there is some historical core to Jesus, but I don't think that idea best fits the evidence.

spin

Ever hear the expression "blame it on Cain"? How many people today believe Cain was a real person? One has cursed Cain for a long time.

If you read my first post in this thread, there are plenty of situations where there is insufficient data to make conclusions. Examples given were King Arthur and Robin Hood. Were they real people? How would you know? Given the available data, I don't think you can argue for a Jesus more real that Arthur or Robin Hood.

It doesn't matter what a text written hundreds of years after the reputed time says, when there is no trajectory for the information back to that time. Texts can reify traditions, whether those traditions have a core of reality or not. (I keep pointing people to the existence of Ebion the founder of the Ebionite movement, acknowledged by church fathers, but non-existent.)

I really wish people would get it into their heads that the dichotomy "real"/"myth" is false. The simple dichotomy "real"/"not real" is functional and "myth" is only a subset of "not real". That leaves room for other positions.

Nevertheless, one needn't fall into a false necessity of choosing between "real" and "not real" when there is insufficient data. (Remember Arthur.)


spin

aa5874

It is most basic that Jesus of the NT did not exist. There is no need to fabricate some other character and claimed that your fabricated Jesus existed.

The Church have described Jesus Christ just as Homer described Achilles.

Jesus Christ was a product of an out-of-context verse found in Isaiah 7.14.

If anyone wants to look for Jesus Christ or anyone else, the description of the person to be positively identified MUST be taken into account.

This is the fundamental description of Jesus Christ according to the Church.

Jesus was truly the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Paul claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state after he had died.

Now, if the Church gave false information about Jesus Christ then there is no other source of antiquity that have information that is credible about Jesus Christ.

The Jesus of the NT is just pure fiction, a total implausible entity.

Why do people fabricate another Jesus of their own liking, after not finding Jesus of the NT, and then look for him in the 1st century when their Jesus EXISTS only in their head?