Did Jesus exist?

[Farnhamia]

Jesus did teach through analogy and allegory but the gospels state quite definitively that he performed miracles. He healed, he raised at, least one person from the dead, he turned water into wine, he drove out demons. These are stated as facts by the authors of the gospels, not as allegories.

And when did these authors write the gospels, using what material?

The earliest dates for Mark (generally accepted as the earliest of the three synoptics) is the latter half of the 60s. The material was probably stories and preaching in the early church, maybe something written down. All I'm saying is that the miracles are reported as fact, not as allegory.

[Imperial Esplanade]

He may have existed as a person but he sure as heck didn't walk on water and come back from the dead. Religious texts aren't a source of evidence that he actually did all those things; that's like saying Harry Potter is proof that magic exists. Sure, J.K. Rowling wrote about it but does that actually mean it's true? I'd need solid, rock-bottom proof that God exists before I say Jesus did all those things.

First off, there's a huge difference between magic and miracles.

Magic = capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Supernatural abilities used by man for man's own benefit. No divine intervention needed.
Miracles = not capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Divine abilities used by God for man's benefit. Divine intervention inherently required.

Secondly, I don't recall anyone talking about Harry Potter being God or J.K. Rowling's texts being taken sacredly. It's a fun tale, and that's it. The Bible, on the other hand, is meant to be taken as a religious text. Jesus was a true historical figure, Harry Potter was not, and all but two of his Apostles (Judas hung himself after betraying Jesus and John escaped persecution to write some more books of the New Testament) were killed by persecutors for their testaments. I don't believe there is a single documented case of any of Jesus' followers in his day faced being persecuted, and said none of the things we've read in the Gospels were false to escape said persecution - rather there's documentation of an endless litany of those who stared said persecution in the face and refused to refute any of it. Take what you want out of all that, but I advise against making a stupid comparison like that again.

[Farnhamia]

And when did these authors write the gospels, using what material?

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

Their sources were themselves. They witnessed what they wrote in the gospel.
Not reliable enough? Tell me how? I'm all ears.

Actually, none of the authors of the gospels can be definitely said to have known Jesus. Mark's identity cannot be determined with any real accuracy, there are three candidates. Matthew's gospel nowhere mentions its author by name and "according to Matthew" wasn't added to it until the second century. The same applies to Luke.

[Imperial Esplanade]

And when did these authors write the gospels, using what material?

The earliest dates for Mark (generally accepted as the earliest of the three synoptics) is the latter half of the 60s. The material was probably stories and preaching in the early church, maybe something written down. All I'm saying is that the miracles are reported as fact, not as allegory.

Many of these stories were passed around orally, so I imagine things got to the point where someone (with first-hand knowledge, or a protege of one who did) had to actually write down these stories so that (assuming that they are true) they don't end up with a wide range of bloated, exaggerated interpretations that had arisen out of a glorified game of telephone. Rather, all future followers could just point to a religious text to rely on for their religious observance.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And when did these authors write the gospels, using what material?

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

Their sources were themselves. They witnessed what they wrote in the gospel.
Not reliable enough? Tell me how? I'm all ears.

So they, purportedly witnesses to the acts, wrote the books, which purported they witnessed the acts, at least twenty years after when they supposedly witnessed the acts.

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous

The author [of Luke] is not named in either volume

The Gospel of John was written by an anonymous author

My claim is still unproven? I'm not the one who claimed a guy literally pulled off miracles and was the son of God, so . I'm only following the logic that if the OT is allegory, then it's not unreasonable the NT is too.

Oh, and furthermore, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right, because Jesus often gave his lessons through analogy and allegory.

You never did. But you did claim that,

"Jesus's miracles were allegorical, obviously."

But you have produced no proof of this.

I'm willing to accept an alternative to my hypothesis if that doesn't cut it. Such as the writers taking from secondhand accounts or outright lying.

[Immoren]

He may have existed as a person but he sure as heck didn't walk on water and come back from the dead. Religious texts aren't a source of evidence that he actually did all those things; that's like saying Harry Potter is proof that magic exists. Sure, J.K. Rowling wrote about it but does that actually mean it's true? I'd need solid, rock-bottom proof that God exists before I say Jesus did all those things.

First off, there's a huge difference between magic and miracles.

Magic = capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Supernatural abilities used by man for man's own benefit. No divine intervention needed.
Miracles = not capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Divine abilities used by God for man's benefit. Divine intervention inherently required.

Secondly, I don't recall anyone talking about Harry Potter being God or J.K. Rowling's texts being taken sacredly. It's a fun tale, and that's it. The Bible, on the other hand, is meant to be taken as a religious text. Jesus was a true historical figure, Harry Potter was not, and all but two of his Apostles (Judas hung himself after betraying Jesus and John escaped persecution to write some more books of the New Testament) were killed by persecutors for their testaments. I don't believe there is a single documented case of any of Jesus' followers in his day faced being persecuted, and said none of the things we've read in the Gospels were false to escape said persecution - rather there's documentation of an endless litany of those who stared said persecution in the face and refused to refute any of it. Take what you want out of all that, but I advise against making a stupid comparison like that again.

So Jesus was merely a high level cleric?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And when did these authors write the gospels, using what material?

The earliest dates for Mark (generally accepted as the earliest of the three synoptics) is the latter half of the 60s. The material was probably stories and preaching in the early church, maybe something written down. All I'm saying is that the miracles are reported as fact, not as allegory.

Eh, fair enough. I'll concede on that then.

[Imperial Esplanade]

First off, there's a huge difference between magic and miracles.

Magic = capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Supernatural abilities used by man for man's own benefit. No divine intervention needed.
Miracles = not capable to be mastered and used by mankind. Divine abilities used by God for man's benefit. Divine intervention inherently required.

Secondly, I don't recall anyone talking about Harry Potter being God or J.K. Rowling's texts being taken sacredly. It's a fun tale, and that's it. The Bible, on the other hand, is meant to be taken as a religious text. Jesus was a true historical figure, Harry Potter was not, and all but two of his Apostles (Judas hung himself after betraying Jesus and John escaped persecution to write some more books of the New Testament) were killed by persecutors for their testaments. I don't believe there is a single documented case of any of Jesus' followers in his day faced being persecuted, and said none of the things we've read in the Gospels were false to escape said persecution - rather there's documentation of an endless litany of those who stared said persecution in the face and refused to refute any of it. Take what you want out of all that, but I advise against making a stupid comparison like that again.

So Jesus was merely a high level cleric?

Can't tell if being serious, or......

[The Huskar Social Union]

So Jesus was merely a high level cleric?

Can't tell if being serious, or......

Obvio-

No they are.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So Jesus was merely a high level cleric?

Can't tell if being serious, or......

Obviously a joke.

Now I wish I could find a /tg/ screencap for Moses being a high-level cleric.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Can't tell if being serious, or......

Obvio-

No they are.

Sarcasm doesn't come in special text, my friend, and there are plenty of instances were I assumed sarcasm... but I found out I was tragically giving them too much credibility.

[Farnhamia]

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition

Their sources were themselves. They witnessed what they wrote in the gospel.
Not reliable enough? Tell me how? I'm all ears.

So they, purportedly witnesses to the acts, wrote the books, which purported they witnessed the acts, at least twenty years after when they supposedly witnessed the acts.

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous

The author [of Luke] is not named in either volume

The Gospel of John was written by an anonymous author

You never did. But you did claim that,

"Jesus's miracles were allegorical, obviously."

But you have produced no proof of this.

I'm willing to accept an alternative to my hypothesis if that doesn't cut it. Such as the writers taking from secondhand accounts or outright lying.

Okay, well ... let's take one. "Healing the paralytic at Capernaum appears in Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26. The Synoptics state that a paralytic was brought to Jesus on a mat; Jesus told him to get up and walk, and the man did so." What's the allegory?

[Imperial Esplanade]

Can't tell if being serious, or......

Obviously a joke.

Now I wish I could find a /tg/ screencap for Moses being a high-level cleric.

If he wasn't a prophet, he was at least proctologist. The man gave all the Jews two tablets.

[Ashmoria]

Do the christian gospels, Pauline letters, and the Koran prove jesus existence?

These sources claim of jesus existence. They seem quite truthful because these sources were written at diffent places at different times by different people.

Or are these sources fallacious? If they are, how so?

edit:
Also there's the Jewish Talmud.

no none of those things prove Jesus' existence. there is nothing in them that is verifiable and those things that might be are proven wrong.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Okay, well ... let's take one. "Healing the paralytic at Capernaum appears in Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26. The Synoptics state that a paralytic was brought to Jesus on a mat; Jesus told him to get up and walk, and the man did so." What's the allegory?

Clearly the mat represents a system of universal social welfare benefits, and Jesus is telling us that we should not put up with long-haired hippy malingerers, but force them in to unpaid work.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So they, purportedly witnesses to the acts, wrote the books, which purported they witnessed the acts, at least twenty years after when they supposedly witnessed the acts.







I'm willing to accept an alternative to my hypothesis if that doesn't cut it. Such as the writers taking from secondhand accounts or outright lying.

Okay, well ... let's take one. "Healing the paralytic at Capernaum appears in Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26. The Synoptics state that a paralytic was brought to Jesus on a mat; Jesus told him to get up and walk, and the man did so." What's the allegory?

People shouldn't pretend to be sick.

Alternatively, when the Lord says jump, you say how high.

[Ashmoria]

Mention of the crucifixion of a man named Jesus Christ on the Passover can be found in the history texts of the Jews, recorded day by day. As far as I can remember, the short mention also includes the reason for his sentence; that is, blasphemy. So that's at least one definitely reliable source that he existed. And, of course, Bezombia mentions the many citations by actual scholars on the subject (of which I am not one).

lol

you know that his name wasn't "jesus Christ", right?

[Ashmoria]

Couldn't the quick spread and influence of his teachings be considered an evidence?

I think it's very likely he existed, he just wasn't the son of a god.

that is really THE evidence. where did Christians come from if not from jesus?

but 1st and 2nd century beliefs about jesus varied widely. if they didn't know who he was THEN how would we know now?

[Imperial Esplanade]

Do the christian gospels, Pauline letters, and the Koran prove jesus existence?

These sources claim of jesus existence. They seem quite truthful because these sources were written at diffent places at different times by different people.

Or are these sources fallacious? If they are, how so?

edit:
Also there's the Jewish Talmud.

no none of those things prove Jesus' existence. there is nothing in them that is verifiable and those things that might be are proven wrong.

http://listverse.com/2013/03/31/8-reaso ... y-existed/

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

That was from a quick 5-second Google search too. Jesus, more than likely, actually existed. Period.

Whether he truly was divine or not is an entirely different matter.

[Ashmoria]

no none of those things prove Jesus' existence. there is nothing in them that is verifiable and those things that might be are proven wrong.

http://listverse.com/2013/03/31/8-reaso ... y-existed/

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

That was from a quick 5-second Google search too. Jesus, more than likely, actually existed. Period.

Whether he truly was divine or not is an entirely different matter.

did that address my point that the details of Jesus' life in the gospels are not verifiable?

[Imperial Esplanade]

http://listverse.com/2013/03/31/8-reaso ... y-existed/

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

That was from a quick 5-second Google search too. Jesus, more than likely, actually existed. Period.

Whether he truly was divine or not is an entirely different matter.

did that address my point that the details of Jesus' life in the gospels are not verifiable?

Crap, wrong person.

[Threlizdun]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

[Constantinopolis]

Did Khufu exist?
Did Socrates exist?
Did Hannibal exist?

Did... you know, the list of important historical figures in the ancient world whose existence is only supported by biased sources written after their death is really long. But in general, while we may dispute various facts about the lives of these people, no serious historian disputes that they did, in fact, exist, and their actions were at least generally similar to what is recorded about them.

I don't think there can be any doubt that a radical preacher named Yeshua existed in the early decades of the first century in Roman Palestine and had a significant following and was crucified. Everything else may be open to dispute, but this much, at least, is certain.

[Menassa]

[...]
edit:
Also there's the Jewish Talmud.

Jesus is not in the Jewish Talmud.

[Ashmoria]

In some form or another. I find it probable that it may have been a name attributed to the actions of many different people, and later come to be identified with a single individual. Regardless, I don't think it matters terribly much. The message and legacy of Yeshua (and Paul to an arguably even greater extent) is what has left a lasting impact on the world.

ya but if the jesus of the bible is an amalgam of several different people, did JESUS exist?