Evidence seems to point to the fact that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after earlier "God-men" figures that were prevalent in pagan Mystery Religions such as Dionysus, Adonis, Osiris, etc. Is there any concrete evidence to support the actual existence of the man described in the Bible known as Jesus besides second hand and heresay accounts of church apologists decades after Jesus supposedly lived?
2006-06-26 07:28:43 · 35 answers · asked by Michael S 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'd say he was a Jewish rabbi who may have claimed to be the messiah, and (if he was married) had many followers. Many other Jews have also claimed to be the messiah, but when they died and there was no peace on earth, their followers conceded that he was not the great leader that prophesy declared would lead the people to peace on earth.
He was elevated to the status of God at the time of the Nicene Creed (4th century). The Roman Catholic Church exterminated all "heretics" who didn't believe he was God. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepted many other creeds and allowed them to continue side by side, much as the Roman Catholic Church has reluctantly done with Protestants many centuries later.
So, yes he was a "real" person elevated to the status of God after three centuries. No concrete "evidence" other than that it was very common to follow great leaders who called themselves the messiah.
2006-06-26 07:45:10 · answer #1 · answered by Hatikvah 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shortly after losing faith, I took on the classical secular position that Jesus was an itinerat preacher, who was later mythicised (sort of like how Santa is the mythical incarnation of the possibly real St. Nicholas).
But as I have studied the evidence more deeply, I've changed my mind. I would wager there never was a historical Jesus at all. The reason for this is that the earliest Christian writings have nothing whatsoever to say about a human Jesus. Paul makes it clear that he (Paul) was chosen by god to reveal the mystery of Jesus that had been hidden in the scriptures.
If Jesus was a real person who had lived just 20 years earlier, then most of what Paul writes makes no sense. Further, the mission of Jesus closely matches the Son of Man character from the books of Enoch that pre-date Christianity.
Finally, there was a motive for the church of Rome to historicise Jesus. Namely, by doing so, they could claim that he passed his godly authority on to them. If the Christ was a mystical being rather than a fleshy human, this couldn't have been done.
...other posters are going to bring up Josephus and later historians. Don't be fooled by these arguments. The only thing Josephus proves is that there were Christians in the late first century - a point no-one contends.
2006-06-26 07:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why isn't the bible evidence enough? The bible is not "heresay" evidence; the men who walked with Jesus wrote many of the books of the new testament.
Jesus was a real person and you can believe the bible. Take some time and read it...ask God to show you. Many people don't take this kind of time to even pursue an answer. If you really want to know, He will not withhold His truth from you.
2006-06-26 07:32:44 · answer #3 · answered by christian_lady_2001 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you take a look at the reserch in to the historical Jesus it seems pretty clear that there was a guy who lived some 2000 years ago as more or less as testified to in the scripture.
Whether or not you choose to believe that that man was the son of God or not is something you will have to work out for yourself - however... from a purely logical point of view, it seems obvious that Jesus was both human and divine.
It is clear that Jesus’ teachings were inspired and beyond human wisdom. Most everyone agrees about that.
It is unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was just a man who was a great teacher, but not God incarnate, because Jesus said he was God. If Jesus then was not God, then he was a mad man, and a liar, not a good man or a good teacher.
It is clear from his teaching that he was not mad, or a liar, so the only reasonable deduction is that Jesus was both human and divine.
2006-06-26 08:42:36 · answer #4 · answered by ***** 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there is evidence he existed. The best evidence exists through carvings in cave-walls and such, and a grave that says "Here lies the brother of Jesus". Historians agree that Jesus did live. However, the events, as described in the Bible, do not appear to be accurate.
It should also be noted that I do not believe in God. I do, however, accept that Jesus lived, and was a philosopher, but I regard his teachings in much the same way I regard Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
2006-06-26 07:35:32 · answer #5 · answered by rliedtky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That Jesus was a living historical figure as discribed in the Bible is a historically known fact from secular, Jewish, and Christian writtings as early as a few years after His death. There is no reputable main historic source that denies His existance, secular or otherwise. Even those that persecuted the Christians in the first century, when those that were eyewitnesses were still alive to give their accounts, never tried to deny the fact of His life. Even that He was cruicified was never a matter of historical contention. A good book to read is The Case for Christ.
2006-06-26 07:37:21 · answer #6 · answered by Jez 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus is also mentioned in Roman texts that date back to the time when he supposedly lived, which provides some evidence towards the existance of a man by the name of Jesus at that time.
Whether he was the son of any god, or had any supernatural powers, is entirely a matter of faith and cannot be proven.
2006-06-26 07:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by Toutatis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When one views all of the Gospels, specifically the gospel of John. Jesus does not appear to be simply a myth figure. I think if the only gospel we had was the gospel of Luke your argument might hold together better. Often the God men in mystery religions are based on actual figures such as several Roman emperors (Augustus had such a story produced to deify himself).
2006-06-26 07:34:36 · answer #8 · answered by Huey from Ohio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that Jesus was real but the story of his birth is fiction. I believe that Mary had sex with Joseph (or someone) before she was married and became pregnant. In those days her father could have rightfully killed her, and she made up the God story to cover up her "sin." Back then, people would have believed her story about God and the angels, so it made sense that she would have come up with that story. And there is scientific proof that Jesus existed. But I think that at this point, so many years after the fact, it can be left up to personal opinion I guess.
2006-06-26 08:03:28 · answer #9 · answered by sonnysgrrl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus the MAN was real, Wether he was or is the son of God, as well as wether he was resurected is another story. One secular belief is. Being such an important religous figure of his time, his body may have been stolen by grave robbers. Of course this is all dependant on faith. If you believe in Jesus the son of God then that is who he is to You. As long as you believe what you believe, and let others believe what they believe. then everything is ok. It's when these different beliefs cross paths when people seem to have problems.
2006-06-26 07:35:47 · answer #10 · answered by lovpayne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋