Did Jesus Exist?

[Iacchus]

It's a long time since I studied idealism but doesn't that mean you are pretty much going to be unable to share any evidence for anything with me?

Evidence for what? The evidence without you is as plain as the nose on your face or, at least verifiable in that sense. The evidence within? Well, you'll just have to look within. Also, I can't tell you that 1 + 1 = 2. I mean I can but, unless you can see it for yourself, there's not much point to it now is there?

 

[Iacchus]

Evidence for what? The evidence without you is as plain as the nose on your face or, at least verifiable in that sense. The evidence within? Well, you'll just have to look within. Also, I can't tell you that 1 + 1 = 2. I mean I can but, unless you can see it for yourself, there's not much point to it now is there?

Actually, if you can understand that 1 + 1 = 2 without having anyone tell you it's so, you've just discovered the key which unlocks the mystery of God. It's as simple as that really, if we understand that our acknowledgment of the truth is wholly internal and, we seek to identify this aspect "further" within ourselves. This is where we will find God.

 

[Throg]

Actually, if you can understand that 1 + 1 = 2 without having anyone tell you it's so, you've just discovered the key which unlocks the mystery of God. It's as simple as that really, if we understand that our acknowledgment of the truth is wholly internal and, we seek to identify this aspect "further" within ourselves. This is where we will find God.

1+1=2 is true in virtue of it's tautologous. The counter-claim that 1+1â‰_2 is nonsense. The claim "God exists" is not tautologous. The counter-claim "God does not exist" makes as much sense. If there is a logical proof either way it is not trivial.

It's as simple as that really, if we understand that our acknowledgment of the truth is wholly internal and, we seek to identify this aspect "further" within ourselves.

Acknowledgement of truth may be internal but that does not imply that truth is internal. Even if we were to except that truth is internal, that in no way precludes you from providing logical demonstrations of your position which might aid others in finding this truth internally. Given that these can only be demonstrations, of course, it is incumbent on you to make them as clear and unambiguous as possible.

 

[Iacchus]

If all truth emanates from God, we begin to acknowledge God when we acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2. So yes, it's the acknowledgment of truth which is internal. Therefore when we accept the truth, and begin to apply it to our lives (through our understanding), we begin to develop a relationship with that which is internal. And, if we are dilligent enough in our inquiries, we may ultimately discover that there is an Ultimate Truth to all truths.

 

[pgwenthold]

I have never made it a practice to name all the incidental characters in stories I have written.

Of course, "the beloved disciple" is not at all an incidental character in the Gospel of John, so this explanation does not wash.

 

[Pahansiri]

Actually, if you can understand that 1 + 1 = 2 without having anyone tell you it's so, you've just discovered the key which unlocks the mystery of God. It's as simple as that really, if we understand that our acknowledgment of the truth is wholly internal and, we seek to identify this aspect "further" within ourselves. This is where we will find God.

To understand that 1+1=2 is to understand 1+1=2 it is no more proof of a God then it is a 10' purple bunny.

1+1=2 is a fact a God is a belief.

 

[Throg]

If all truth emanates from God, we begin to acknowledge God when we acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2. So yes, it's the acknowledgment of truth which is internal. Therefore when we accept the truth, and begin to apply it to our lives (through our understanding), we begin to develop a relationship with that which is internal. And, if we are dilligent enough in our inquiries, we may ultimately discover that there is an Ultimate Truth to all truths.

That is an article of faith rather than any form of argument and so of no real use to me.

 

[Throg]

Of course, "the beloved disciple" is not at all an incidental character in the Gospel of John, so this explanation does not wash.

He seemed pretty incidental to me, not to say woefully underwritten. What exactly did he contribute either to the story or the message which would justify calling him anything other than an incidental character?

 

[Pahansiri]

If all truth emanates from God, we begin to acknowledge God when we acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2. So yes, it's the acknowledgment of truth which is internal. Therefore when we accept the truth, and begin to apply it to our lives (through our understanding), we begin to develop a relationship with that which is internal. And, if we are dilligent enough in our inquiries, we may ultimately discover that there is an Ultimate Truth to all truths.

1st you need to prove God or your whole position is irrelevant. You start with a belief stating it as fact, that is illogical.

Your statement is no more valid then saying the following

If all truth emanates from the peanutbutter people from planet xyz, we begin to acknowledge the peanutbutter people from planet xyz when we acknowledge 1 + 1 = 2. So yes, it's the acknowledgment of the peanutbutter people from planet xyz which is internal. Therefore when we accept the peanutbutter people from planet xyz, and begin to apply it to our lives ( or bread)(through our understanding), we begin to develop a relationship with that which is internal. And, if we are dilligent enough in our inquiries, we may ultimately discover that there is an Ultimate peanutbutter people from planet xyz to all the peanutbutter people from planet xyz

 

[Meadmaker]

Isn't crucifixion sort of "hanging from a tree"? The cross is either a tree or is made out of a tree, you get nailed/bound to it and you hang there. Given that we're talking translations here

True. And the Gospels are pretty clear that Jesus was crucified. However, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is pretty clear he was hung, from a gallows, with a rope. (Did they do that to people in Judea? Was that a usual form of execution at that time? Either by Romans or Jews?)

But is the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reliable? It's a medieval document preserved by Jews. There is some reason to believe that it might be the document referred to by some early church fathers, but then again, it went missing for a thousand years so it might also be a fabrication by Jews, specifically created to throw doubt on the Jesus story. It might be a translation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew into Hebrew, and along the way the theology of it was "corrected" to a version more tolerable to Jews. Or it might be a preservation of a document that predates our Gospels, written by a follower of Jesus, who did not believe that he was a God, but a prophet.

My point in all this is that there are other documents besides the official Gospels that point to the existence of a real Jesus. On the other hand, none of them are any more reliable than the Gospels, and they do nothing to illuminate the nature of the real Jesus. Indeed, they further cloud the picture.

But even more importantly, my point is that I only recently stumbled on the existence of this document, and I thought it was cool, and I figured some other people on this forum might also find it cool.

 

[Meadmaker]

Also of interest, to me anyway, regarding the existence of Jesus are the Mandaean documents. The Mandaeans are a sect with a few thousand adherents mostly in Southern Iraq. They trace their traditions to John the Baptist. In their writings, which appear to be at least as old as the Gospels, they exalt John the Baptist, but Jesus is condemned as a false prophet.

(I actually know very little about these people and their traditions, but I'm trying to find more.)

So, the existence of these people, including the apparent antiquity of their traditions and writings, would suggest very strongly that John the Baptist and Jesus both had a historical basis.

And once again, would muddy the waters even further about the nature of this Jesus fellow.

 

[Iacchus]

That is an article of faith rather than any form of argument and so of no real use to me.

Apparently you must have missed this post ...

The subjective mind is a very tricky thing indeed, for without it, we would not be speaking of that which is the least bit objective. I agree, there's an external (objective) reality that exists without. Yet how would we know, without an internal reality -- or life -- that exists within? Which of the two would you promote? Externalized behavior? Or, that which is genuine and alive?

The thing is, and this is what you continue to dismiss, is that "everything" is an article of faith. If not, then how is that no two people can look at the exact same thing and not perceive it exactly alike?

 

[Throg]

But even more importantly, my point is that I only recently stumbled on the existence of this document, and I thought it was cool, and I figured some other people on this forum might also find it cool.

I did. Thanks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Apparently you must have missed this post ...


The thing is, and this is what you continue to dismiss, is that "everything" is an article of faith. If not, then how is that no two people can look at the exact same thing and not perceive it exactly alike?

That is absurd!

 

[Throg]

Apparently you must have missed this post ...

I didn't miss it, it just doesn't seem relevant.

The thing is, and this is what you continue to dismiss, is that "everything" is an article of faith. If not, then how is that no two people can look at the exact same thing and not perceive it exactly alike?

Because the precise structure of our perceptual apparatus from shape of the lens, density of rods and cones in the retina and the state of the neural nets in the visual cortex and their interconnections with other parts of the brain vary from person to person. Since I do not even pretend that what I perceive is a direct and accurate measure of the external world there is no faith involved. If some people do partake in such a pretence then for them, perception is an act of faith, for me it is not. For me, perception is evidence gathering with imperfect equipment (is there any other kind?) and use of the best logical methods to correct for the known imperfections of that equipment. Where in what I am doing is my faith?

 

[Throg]

Also of interest, to me anyway, regarding the existence of Jesus are the Mandaean documents. The Mandaeans are a sect with a few thousand adherents mostly in Southern Iraq. They trace their traditions to John the Baptist. In their writings, which appear to be at least as old as the Gospels, they exalt John the Baptist, but Jesus is condemned as a false prophet.

(I actually know very little about these people and their traditions, but I'm trying to find more.)

So, the existence of these people, including the apparent antiquity of their traditions and writings, would suggest very strongly that John the Baptist and Jesus both had a historical basis.

And once again, would muddy the waters even further about the nature of this Jesus fellow.

Yes, I'd forgotten the Mandaeans. I think you've reminded me of enough stuff I'd forgotten and enough new stuff to convince me there probably was a historical Jesus and that he was a hot topic of conversation shortly after his death. The alternative would seem to be that someone perpetrated a very succesful hoax at the time and that just isn't a parsimonious explanation.

As you point out though, his nature is somewhat more elusive.

 

[P.S.A.]

Not really making too deep a point here, as I never do, but my own belief is that Jesus existed, had a life on earth, was crucified by the Romans... and then everyone who knew him discussed with lots of people who didn't what the whole point of Jesus' life had been, turning to scripture to try and find a prophetic relationship to events that they thought, or had heard, had occured. Often involving the blatant shoe horning of Jewish descriptions of ancient contempory events to a prediction of Jesus hundreds of years later.

But as we all know, when belief is involved, some very strange conclusions are very easy to reach, especially if you feel you need spiritualy or emotionally to have them... Look at Iacchus here, trying to get us all to embrace his smiley-face God, because Jesus might have suggested something 2000 years ago, or he might not... even though were the two to have ever met, as he himself admits, Jesus would have believed his view of God was different (and more accurate) to Iacchus' own... If we could send Iacchus back in time, he'd probably be known to us today as a false prophet in the Gospels, thanks to the empassioned denouncing Jesus would obviously give. Faith in Jesus was the only way to heaven, remember? So how can it be the same God they are both talking about then? And even if it is, what's this God been doing for the last 2000 years? Jesus may have existed then, but why hasn't he come back to update his words? Why isn't he here saying "look, I wanted to start out small, but these days, in a world of 6 billion, I thought I should just pop by and clarify that yes, Iacchus is talking about the same God too". Why has he left it to 2000 years of humans, and their idiocy, to warp his message so much? Why is the word of god archaic and now in so many ways errant from observable reality?

That's assuming of course that we accept God hasn't sent a new prophet for just such a reason; A number of religions, Islam being the largest, claims that he has.

The question is not so much whether Jesus existed... it's irrelevant ultimately if he did or did not. The question is; why is God's existance still in doubt...? If the answer is ultimately out there, why is it so hard to convincingly find or prove?

 

[Iacchus]

Look at Iacchus here, trying to get us all to embrace his smiley-face God, because Jesus might have suggested something 2000 years ago, or he might not...

I'm afraid you must have mistaken me for someone else. What you believe is entirely up to you. I am not responsible for that.

Faith in Jesus was the only way to heaven, remember?

Yet it's been claimed that Jesus was God Himself in the flesh. If so, then any notion of a supreme being would suffice don't you think? And as I understand, the heathen are received into heaven just as easily as (so-called) Christians are. The only criteria being that they believe in some form of supreme being and, have lived moral lives.

Jesus may have existed then, but why hasn't he come back to update his words?

How do you know he hasn't come back?

 

[Iacchus]

To understand that 1+1=2 is to understand 1+1=2 it is no more proof of a God then it is a 10' purple bunny.

1+1=2 is a fact a God is a belief.

No, I'm saying that it is possible to understand God as a fact if you could understand "why" you know 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Throg]

IAnd as I understand, the heathen are received into heaven just as easily as (so-called) Christians are. The only criteria being that they believe in some form of supreme being and, have lived moral lives.

Is this understanding entirely based on your internal experience of reality, i.e. what most of us would call a belief, or is there some form of independent evidence you can point to. It is of course, not the doctrinal position of most forms of Christianity.