jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (45 posts)

Did Jesus Christ Really Exist?

  1. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Or is he a medaphore, like Robin Hood or King Author? He's only exists in the Bible and nothing was written about him till 30 years after his supposed death by biographers who never met him! Fanatstic and crazy things (although not true) were written about other historic figures like George Washington, Davy Crochett, and others. In my opinion the reason why Jesus and other Biblical characters existed is because we've been told they did and we're expectred to accept this without question, and there's a ton of questions.

    1. tmbridgeland profile image87
      tmbridgelandposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Paul began writing about Jesus somewhere between 15 and 20 years after his death, when plenty of his personal friends and followers were still alive. Did Paul really exist? Christianity started SOMEHOW, and records by non-Christians show the savage persecution the Christians sometimes faced. Why did they, if they knew Jesus didn't really exist?

      There is no doubt that Jesus existed. Whether he did all the things he is said to have, is a different question.

      1. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        can someone please tell me what Jesus looks like - all the years I loved Jesus, he was invisible to me

        1. BDazzler profile image82
          BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Have you read my hub on the scientific side of the Shroud of Turin?

          I met one of the scientists that studied it.

          It is a photographic negative of what many believe to be the image of Christ during his resurrection.

          At the very least it is a fascinating curiosity with more questions than answers.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I see you using the term "science" freely now. Odd that none of what you refer to is actually science. Like the "science" of textual criticism. A completely subjective "science" still - I suppose that is "proof" and "evidence" for you?

            What did you think of the shroud when you saw it?

            1. BDazzler profile image82
              BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mark, dude, I don't know what you've been drinking, but it was not single barrel.  What I'm taking about is hard science.  I don't offer it up a "proof" of anything (you know I don't try to prove.)

              The guy I met was John P. Jackson, of the US Air Force Academy.  He was the one who did the 3D analysis on it.

              The data is 3D.  That is a fact. That fact does not prove anything. It may indicate, but it does not "prove" and I never said it did.   

              I said it was curious and ... it is.

              I didn't see the shroud itself, but the data of the various images fascinates me.

              1. Jewels profile image81
                Jewelsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The Shroud of Turin is now said to be the very creative work of Michael Angelo.  Not sure about your scientific evidence as there is currently no satisfactory evidence of it being a person named Jesus.

              2. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Textual criticism is not a science. I personally find it offensive that you ask things like "How familiar are you with the science of textual criticism?" as though it was actually a science and you know what you are talking about. LOLOLOLOLO

                The Turin shroud is not curious - if you had actually seen it - as I have - you would laugh out loud (as I did).

                Italy is full of such things - the ignorant have been parted from their money to look at things like this ever since the Christ Cult started.

                Psst - "wanna hold the dried penis of St Francis? " lol

                Science? No.

                1. BDazzler profile image82
                  BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Websters Dictionary on Science:

                  Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

                  ---

                  Webster's:
                  Textual criticism:

                  The study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text

                  ---
                  In the strictest sense of the word, it's a science. In more common parlance, it may be more accurate to call it a field of study or discipline.


                  Just because you reject something or don't like it does not make it invalid or untrue. (Any more than my accepting something and liking it makes it true.)

                  ---

                  I acknowledged in the hub and comments that the fact that it was discovered and revealed during period of extensive faking of artifacts, was, in my opinion the strongest argument against authenticity.

                  Even if it's fake, that doesn't make it any less cool.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So - websters specifically do not define it as a science. But you call it a science because you do not like the dictionary definition.

                    It is not a science because it does not meet the criteria of being a science. It is wholly subjective.

                    I agree the shroud is "curious" or "cool" if you like - if only to demonstrate how gullible and desperate people are when it comes to their irrational beliefs. Especially ones that promise eternal happiness and life after death. These will be defended no matter the cost.

                    I actually had an argument with one of my Italian friends over a phenomenon called "Padre Pio."

                    Look it up - - people are just as desperate to imagine they will live forever and they are better than others today as they were when the Turin Shroud was faked. sad

                    Now lets discuss the term "credible evidence," shall we?

          2. 0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            yeah, I read it.  Of course, I was skeptical.

    2. 0
      linsm76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      People will let art hang on a gallery wall, but when the alleged artist dies, they will pay thousands for painting which is supposed to be an original done by a dead guy years after his death.

      So, what was it you were saying.  The people received the Word of God through the spirit of God, nobody has ever claimed that the took dictation from jesus.

    3. ediggity profile image59
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thirty years after your death will people question whether or not you existed?  What about 2000 years later?  Will you even be spoke about that many years later?  How many times do you talk about your great great great grandfather?  Yes, Jesus existed.  Even if you don't believe his teachings give the man that much.

    4. BDazzler profile image82
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How familiar are you with the science of textual criticism?  I use the term science deliberately because the techniques are both objective and repeatable. (Which of course as in any science, this does not guarantee accuracy, only consistency.)

      The techniques in the science of textual criticism are used to authenticate historical documents to determine if they are valid copies , not just biblcal manuscripts.

      The synoptic biographies are clearly drawn form the same outline which scholars call "Q". These appear to have been notes taken during sermons and miracles and compiled for use within the small community of disciples.

      There is credible evidence that Matthew and John both knew Jesus.

      As the movement began to grow the biographies were written from the notes and memories of the eye witnesses.

      To write these things off as myth or legend is to disregard otherwise valid document authentication techniques because they present information of events of which you have no experience.


      So, two of the suppositions  (written late and by strangers) upon which you predicate your conclusion are disputed by reputable scholars.

      Based soley on your original post it appears that you "know" certain things are "impossible" because you have not experienced them.  I've never gone to the moon.  I don't understand all the rocket science behind the trip. But that doesn't mean humans didn't go.

      I don't know who told you not to ask questions, but they were wrong.  Asking questions is a very good thing.  However, before you assume that the answers don't exist ... ask more questions wink

  2. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    What do you think?

    It's a matter of faith, NO?

    Is the source of evidence reliable, & trustworthy?

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well i think in end it doesnot matter whether jesus existed or not...in end what matters is conviction and faith...no figure is more important than one's faith...faith moves things and not figures...

      1. aka-dj profile image80
        aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Quite the contrary!
        It matters!

        He'll be the ONE judging the living and the dead!

        In the end, it's always WHO you know, and NOT WHAT you know, that counts.
        If your faith is not based in Him, it will not work in your favour. Sorry sad

        1. pisean282311 profile image58
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          no need to say sorry...your statement is very much in synergy with what i stated..in end your faith makes you say what you said...and that is why i said only faith matters...whether one believes in x or y or z...same feeling,emotions and reactions occur in brain level...what matters are those reactions and emotions,feelings not x or y or z...

        2. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So, humour me -

          Let's say 'the living and the dead' will total 20 Billion 'souls'.

          If he gives each one of them a one second judgement, it's still going to take him 634 years to complete the task and that's working 24/7 without a break.

          How does that work?

          1. kirstenblog profile image78
            kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Make sure you are at the back of the queue!

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh I don't know. I don't even like waiting for a bus smile

              1. kirstenblog profile image78
                kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I will gladly let you have cuts in front of me in the queue tongue
                Aren't I sweet? big_smile

          2. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            @Paraglider

            well now i get it why god just cannot answer prayers of homeless and starving kids...he doesnot have time for that..he is always busy with judging...may be that was eternal punishment god got for his works smile

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And while we're at it, if only 144,000 are to be saved (according to some) that means your chance is 1 in 138,889.

              Hardly seems worth queueing for.

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What is written is that only 144,000 will (was) redeemed from the living, such as Enoch was. 
                  Everyone else is to be (was) resurrected at the first resurrection.
                  From that day forward when a person dies (died) in the Lord they go strait to heaven.

                   Just stating what is written in the Bible, and attempting to not jump to any conclusions in this statement.

            2. maven101 profile image76
              maven101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sort of like Sisyphus...

              Getting back to the original question, Did JC actually live?, like any examination of past historical figures, we must depend on the historical record which has been produced by men...Prejudice, cultural change, fabrication, and hidden agenda must always be factored in when searching out the truth...
              My opinion, for what its worth, leads me to believe JC did in fact exist on this earth some 2000 years ago...Christianity, like spontaneous combustion, suddenly ignited 2000 years ago with a force that would not be denied...Even with mass persecutions, martyrdom, and state-sponsored pogroms, Christianity exploded across the civilized world and actually grew during these early oppressive times...That kind of locus, that kind of momentum requires a basis in fact...probably much distorted during the early years to promote membership, but based on a verifiable knowledge at that time that JC existed as a man on this earth...Just some thoughts...Larry

  3. jay_kumar_07 profile image61
    jay_kumar_07posted 6 years ago

    Go and search at early morning.

  4. kirstenblog profile image78
    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago

    I think he did exist, I also think he did not hold well with organized religion and never meant for one to be built around him! Remember how outraged he got at the money changing in the temple? The inevitable corruption inherent in organized religion was what got him in so much trouble in the first place. I do think that the stories of conspiracy in the church are very likely. I would love to get my hands on those books disallowed from the bible, the book of Thomas, the book of Mary of Magdalene, I suspect the messages there would destroy the organizations we call church hmm

  5. thirdmillenium profile image70
    thirdmilleniumposted 6 years ago

    You bet

  6. geoffbrecker profile image60
    geoffbreckerposted 6 years ago

    No. Let's move on.

    1. kirstenblog profile image78
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As if we have some place to go tongue

  7. Jaggedfrost profile image88
    Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

    As much as I know Jesus the Christ did in fact exist I will split hairs to give those who might doubt a point.  To say a man who's name in Greek translates to Jesus, who inspired a multitude of people to a new way of looking at faith didn't exist would be the highest form of absurdity.  It would be the same as saying that Hitler never existed although some people want to believe that the Holocaust never happened... I digress.

    To call him the Christ, however is to assign a value to the man that didn't exist in his mortal life.  The evidence as to its veracity has always had some level of Faith attached to it.  True, the human record shows that such faith has always been rewarded but why wouldn't it when it is those who were "rewarded" who keep the record.   I will allow some room for doubt in others even if none exists for myself.  I could claim to have seen him and to not know whether in my body or not I didn't know.  I could say that I was on the point of suicide when He told me to wait a little while.  The truth still remains that you could dredge up more psychiatrists who would want a piece of my hide for so saying then I could count all claiming me mad or delusional.  Explaining it some other way.  That he was the Christ cannot empirically be proven.  That a man named Jesus existed is beyond debating.

  8. Jaggedfrost profile image88
    Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

    well said. A very scholarly approach to this issue.

  9. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    parraglider wrote;   "Let's say 'the living and the dead' will total 20 Billion 'souls'.

    If he gives each one of them a one second judgement, it's still going to take him 634 years to complete the task and that's working 24/7 without a break.

    How does that work?"

    First (incorrect) assumption. TIME.
    The spirit world is not time domain. "How long?," is an irrelevant concept.
    It can take millions of years, or less than a millisecond, there is no way to measure the "eternal" using natural, physical properties.

    As for your quote of 144,000 as being a "lottery", you have taken that number totally out of it's context. You may well want to re-read who that number is referring to. They are a very specific group, and not being "saved" out of the whole human population that has ever, or will yet exist into the future.

  10. 0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Okay, Jesus was Christ, but what about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Isn't it kinda crouded upstairs? And who is who? Do I have to pray to the one, or to all of them, in turns or simultaneously?
    Or is it that blind faith covers everything?
    What I believe is:
    The man named Jesus tried to make this imperfect world better.
    He was very talented, bright, a spokesman and a healer but at the same time impractical and naive person as most very talented people are. He was a pain in the neck with authorities and they killed him. The rest is history. History of faith, religion,use and abuse of his name and his real and imaginary powers. A person dies - people make a God from him. Nothing new. We do it everyday.

  11. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Everyone knows why the Pharisees wanted Jesus gone,   
    Have ya thought about how many physicians also would have wanted him gone?

      All of that healing must have devastated the economy.
      Probably put all the physicians out of work.

  12. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Actually if you think about it, the medical field wasn't anything to brag about 2000 years ago. If anyone recovered from any type of illness would be a miracle. The famous story of Jesus bringing a man back from the dead is a classic example. Let's say this actually happened. There was no way of knowing if the dead guy was unconscence, experiencing diabetic coma, fainted or whatever. No one knew anything about a person's vital signs since the stethescope wasn't invented till the 1840's. Up till around the mid 1800's too many people were being buried alive simply because they weren't moving. You read a lot of this in the Bible and other texts were people were raised from the dead. Think about it, were these people realy dead to begin with?

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yea ,  Devastating their economy might have been an overstatement.  But those that were physicians would not have benefited from any of these?

         To have called them physicians also an over statement.
      Medicine men, Witch Doctors etc. They still made a living for their services.

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the medical field wasn't anything to brag about 150 years ago either.  Darwin didn't do "medicine" because it was too repulsive to chop limbs of without anesthetic.

  13. hanging out profile image61
    hanging outposted 6 years ago

    yep jesus lived and lives!
    before i needed a bible to tell me that.
    Not anymore
    as a believer i have all the proof i need and i am not surprised the unbelieving can't find any proof.

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have to say that I believed it first and then found out about him is scripture.

  14. onegoodwoman profile image81
    onegoodwomanposted 6 years ago

    Jesus the Christ was the Son of God , The Creator.  He came, He taught, He died of His own gift to Mankind, to redeem us to God.This is among the things that I believe.

    1. Rishy Rich profile image80
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Its not something you should be proud of.

      1. hanging out profile image61
        hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol
        1 Corinthians 1:18   For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
        1 Corinthians 1:25   Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
        Galatians 6:14   But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
        Philippians 2:8   And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
        Colossians 2:14   Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
          Hebrews 12:2   Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the JOY that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

        oh yah. I am proud of the cross of christ which you know nothing about.

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The way that sentence is cast speaks volumes on the divisiveness of religion hmm

 
working