The Historical Jesus Never Existed

[Lon]

Viability of the historic account is the elephant in the room that has room for debate over, in the literal christian dogma forum that wouldn't be a elephant but in this section it is.

https://youtu.be/NJ5rnkrSzsQ

To keep from derailing another thread. No serious scholar or academic questions the historicity of the person of Jesus Christ. The video is wrong, there are about 10 other sources that mention the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the Quran speaks of His actual existence. Zeke, you are paying attention to men with no credibility. That is the elephant in the room. It is television mockumentary for $$$ and fame. Some of these guys might be as persuaded by this nonsense as you are - they are nothing new, and not at all novel. They die off or fade away because nobody pays attention to conspiracy theorists on 'how' something might/could/perhaps happen. It is un-academic conjecture.

The short of it: Don't listen to gossip and never believe it. Exodus 23:1 Proverbs 16:28 Proverbs 26:20 1 Timothy 5:13 Titus 3:1-3

 

[chair]

I do think there was a Jew named Jesus. But be careful- the sources outside of the Christian holy books are generally from many years later. The Quran's mentioning Jesus doesn't prove anything besides that the legend of Jesus existed 600 years after his death.

 

[Lon]

I do think there was a Jew named Jesus. But be careful- the sources outside of the Christian holy books are generally from many years later. The Quran's mentioning Jesus doesn't prove anything besides that the legend of Jesus existed 600 years after his death.

The Rabbis say they 'cannot be sure of anything' historically. Sad because all of the O.T. is history, but only a fraction of them use this line as an excuse to suspend Belief. They are believing, in addition to evidence, not lacking it. There are a few modern-day Jewish scholars naysaying the Historical fact of His existence, but I don't know of any of them that are rabbis and none of note (link Judaism's views on the historical Jesus)until this century. "Convenient" in the day of make-believe and relative truth. Not my God. Not my belief. Not Truth as I understand it.


In my studied opinion, this is all foolishness. He existed. The other threads are right to concede and move on to whether He was Messiah or not. Thanks to agreeing also to this extent :up:

 

[freelight]

Jesus in the hot seat.......

Jesus in the hot seat.......

Regarding the video Zeke shared, quoting Alvin Boyd Kuhn, there is nothing false about seeing the esoteric meaning of the Christ-story, understanding it's symbology relating to man's own religious experience. Such is basic to the religious study of every theosophist, one who is a student of divine wisdom, or esoteric philosophy.

I share my own insights of 'the ascension' here, since believers experience a mystical union with Christ in spirit, undergoing death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Such is the journey of mortality engaging and taking on immortality.

As to whether Jesus was an actual historical person, a combination of 2 or 3 personalities, or a pure myth or some variation thereof, the story and what it teaches, conveys or reveals is what matters. My own liberal views include many different aspects of Jesus truth,....from historical to allegorical, and everything in between - dogma is unnecessary.

There are plenty of books written by scholars that question and challenge the historicity of Jesus. Nothing new. Since you've made the outstanding statement in the thread-title, it behooves one to honestly do his own homework and find out answers for himself, which is the path of all truth seekers. Intellectual honesty demands that all facts, evidences or lack thereof be examined in this quest-ion. Let the games begin

 

[chair]

The Rabbis say they 'cannot be sure of anything' historically. Sad because all of the O.T. is history, but only a fraction of them use this line as an excuse to suspend Belief. ...

I don't understand what you are saying. Which Rabbis? What?! Sources?

 

[Lon]

I don't understand what you are saying. Which Rabbis? What?! Sources?

Was from a wiki quote (indirectly) of what Rabbis have believed about the historical Lord Jesus. Like you, most of them agree He historically existed. Then, I noted from another article that there exist a number of Atheist Rabbis. That's a weird one.

 

[Lon]

Matthew 10:33

 

[Lon]

Regarding the video Zeke shared, quoting Alvin Boyd Kuhn, there is nothing false about seeing the esoteric meaning of the Christ-story, understanding it's symbology relating to man's own religious experience. Such is basic to the religious study of every theosophist, one who is a student of divine wisdom, or esoteric philosophy.

Just fanciful fluff and wishing with all one's might upon a star. I guess that's what one would necessarily have to mean by 'nothing false.' Sure, fantasy is like that....

I share my own insights of 'the ascension' here, since believers experience a mystical union with Christ in spirit, undergoing death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Such is the journey of mortality engaging and taking on immortality.

You say insight/I say delusional....

As to whether Jesus was an actual historical person, a combination of 2 or 3 personalities, or a pure myth or some variation thereof, the story and what it teaches, conveys or reveals is what matters. My own liberal views include many different aspects of Jesus truth,....from historical to allegorical, and everything in between - dogma is unnecessary.

Says more about you than life or observation in general. It really does. You are a peculiar fluke of nature (of course you know this pointedly and clearly). I guess all this is preliminaries because there really isn't anything new being discussed between us. Your lifting up your own-bootstrap oddities, the rest of us seeing them exactly as nothing but that and never anything but that.... No point any more.

There are plenty of books written by scholars that question and challenge the historicity of Jesus.

Not of much weight. Have read a few, skimmed others. Done with those.

Nothing new. Since you've made the outstanding statement in the thread-title, it behooves one to honestly do his own homework and find out answers for himself, which is the path of all truth seekers. Intellectual honesty demands that all facts, evidences or lack thereof be examined in this quest-ion.

It is a fairly eclectic thread and I won't participate long. It doesn't appeal to most of us especially as we see it as academically dishonest. There is no real way to jump that hurdle imho.

Let the games begin

God is much more than a glibness of discussion to me. It is no game. It is life and death. Try Evidence that Demands a Verdict and New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

 

[Lon]

The birth of the carnal Christ was a invention of Rome and stole most of their doctrine from others/pagans/Egypt etc....And does weigh on the trinity being a viable teaching, plus the teaching of Spirit that Jesus represented (Matt 11:11) I don't deny only the historic human sacrifice that has no factual bases except hear say and assumption.

You are what you eat, but this junkfood pop-theology is a poor diet. Seen most of it, Zeke. Its rubbish.

You have no discernment ability outside the box and if you did you would grasp the two father/mother/sibling allegorical tale in Galatians 4:20-28 which explains it in a nut shell what these motifs represent so cockle doodle do all you want but you're blinded by that theological pride virus that controls you're mind loyal to this world cause/system and is a generic spirit you try and pin on me.

What, outside of you and like 20 other people? That's delusional. When a snake-oil salesman starts drinking up his own supply, he's out of business. It would take a LOT more than a few lack-luster theologians/pseudo-quasi-'gurus to shake a firm historical foundation. There is every reason to suspect those feeble attempts. It is clearly and pronounced agenda. You see the agenda and then you see that this topic has nothing to do with academics or truth. It is a heart-issue, Zeke.

 

[Zeke]

The historic doesn't have much to go on except generations of religious dogma that was just assumed to be trust worthy, The fraud that had to happen for the carnal Christ theory to be pushed is just one area where the foundation is made of mostly sand, the stories where never meant to carnalized except to teach with, which is what an allegorical/figurative/type/similitude/etc........are used for to point the searcher inwardly Luke 17:20-21, being a fundy type for years I just excepted the religious institutions version of what happened as historic fact when its far from it when the religious veil of fear and hate is removed the carnal spirit behind the carnal christ is exposed for what it is a fraud that excludes like all sect/clubs do 2Cor 3:6.

 

[Zeke]

Her ya go Lon a scholar saying the same thing and I think his qualifications even surpass you're theological prowess.

 

[Zeke]

Regarding the video Zeke shared, quoting Alvin Boyd Kuhn, there is nothing false about seeing the esoteric meaning of the Christ-story, understanding it's symbology relating to man's own religious experience. Such is basic to the religious study of every theosophist, one who is a student of divine wisdom, or esoteric philosophy.

I share my own insights of 'the ascension' here, since believers experience a mystical union with Christ in spirit, undergoing death, burial, resurrection and ascension. Such is the journey of mortality engaging and taking on immortality.

As to whether Jesus was an actual historical person, a combination of 2 or 3 personalities, or a pure myth or some variation thereof, the story and what it teaches, conveys or reveals is what matters. My own liberal views include many different aspects of Jesus truth,....from historical to allegorical, and everything in between - dogma is unnecessary.

There are plenty of books written by scholars that question and challenge the historicity of Jesus. Nothing new. Since you've made the outstanding statement in the thread-title, it behooves one to honestly do his own homework and find out answers for himself, which is the path of all truth seekers. Intellectual honesty demands that all facts, evidences or lack thereof be examined in this quest-ion. Let the games begin

He most likely hasn't even read much of Kuhn.

 

[Zeke]

You are what you eat, but this junkfood pop-theology is a poor diet. Seen most of it, Zeke. Its rubbish.

What, outside of you and like 20 other people? That's delusional. When a snake-oil salesman starts drinking up his own supply, he's out of business. It would take a LOT more than a few lack-luster theologians/pseudo-quasi-'gurus to shake a firm historical foundation. There is every reason to suspect those feeble attempts. It is clearly and pronounced agenda. You see the agenda and then you see that this topic has nothing to do with academics or truth. It is a heart-issue, Zeke.

You are a lost soul Lon, wandering in the wilderness of the carnal fraud you are forced to defend, you have no spiritual credibility or an once of spiritual fiber except what this world has taught you, a son of hagar angry and vindictive talmudic shill.

 

[Lon]

You are a lost soul Lon, wandering in the wilderness of the carnal fraud you are forced to defend, you have no spiritual credibility or an once of spiritual fiber except what this world has taught you, a son of hagar angry and vindictive talmudic shill.

This means nothing to me, Zeke. You reject the historical Jesus. Matthew 10:33 John 3:36 1 John 2:23; 5:12 Read them. I have nothing but these to answer your 'lost carnal wandering' canard. I left that empty philosophy long ago, Zeke. It was death. It was 'me left to my own devices' and I was a sinner. He is the only Way, Truth, and Life. Either you reject the whole ball of wax (Scriptures/Christianity) or you must have a serious overhaul of what you believe Christianity is. You can't have it both ways. They are mutually exclusive. Stop calling it Christianity that you espouse, or get on board. You've no other choice.

 

[Lon]

Spoiler

Her ya go Lon a scholar saying the same thing and I think his qualifications even surpass you're theological prowess.

Seen it, and no. I'm sad you think so.

This means nothing to me, Zeke. You reject the historical Jesus. Matthew 10:33 John 3:36 1 John 2:23; 5:12 Read them. I have nothing but these to answer your 'lost carnal wandering' canard. I left that empty philosophy long ago, Zeke. It was death. It was 'me left to my own devices' and I was a sinner. He is the only Way, Truth, and Life. Either you reject the whole ball of wax (Scriptures/Christianity) or you must have a serious overhaul of what you believe Christianity is. You can't have it both ways. They are mutually exclusive. Stop calling it Christianity that you espouse, or get on board. You've no other choice.

 

[freelight]

Truths told thru mythology..........

Truths told thru mythology..........

Her ya go Lon a scholar saying the same thing and I think his qualifications even surpass you're theological prowess.

:thumb:

The incarnation of God in man is one aspect of what the Christ-story embodies. The truths revealed in the archetypal myth of the Son/Sun of God are universal to man, the light of the logos being the Christ within. The story corresponds with the cycles of nature,....birth, death, rebirth. These are the essential truths mirrored in story, symbols and metaphor. Hence Jesus says, "while you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light"

It is what the story and it's characters are communicating.....that counts.

 

[john w]

I do think there was a Jew named Jesus. But be careful- the sources outside of the Christian holy books are generally from many years later. ...

How many years, after the time of Julius Caesar, were books written about him? Many years?

 

[Ben Masada]

Her ya go Lon a scholar saying the same thing and I think his qualifications even surpass you're theological prowess.

Tom Harpur in his book "The Pagan Christ"... by the way I saw the whole video, was simply unaware that he was confusing Yeshua ben Yoseph with Paul, the son of a well-to-do Hellenist Jewish couple of Tarsus in the Cilicia. Therefore, Paul had been a Hellenistic Jew from birth before he decided to found Christianity in the city of Antioch where he spent a whole year preaching his gospel in the Nazarene Synagogue whose Rabbi was Barnabas, another Hellenistic Jew, also like Paul, a bachelor. (Acts 11:26)So, the Jesus of Nazareth could not be referred to as a pagan Christ because he was a loyal Jew who of Hellenism he had nothing but only the ability to speak Greek. The pagan Christ was Paul, the man who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ and had resurrected. (II Timothy 2:8)

Now, one could ask me for the basis on which I would contradict Tom Harpur and deny his claim of the "Pagan Christ." So, did Jesus' historicity was a fact or not? Yes, from the same rason that the historicity of Maimonides, Rashi, and many other Jewish Tzadikim is taken for granted. Books! Yes, as more books have been written about Jesus than any other; even considering that only 20% is legitimate.

 

[keypurr]

Outside of scripture where is there any record of his existsnce? I accepted it only after my line of reason was crossed when I was an agnostic at age 20 or so. I was given a reason to believe in the Bible, but historic proof of Jesus can not be found. I would guess that is why they call it faith.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[freelight]

The Christ story as universal mythos

The Christ story as universal mythos

Tom Harpur in his book "The Pagan Christ"... by the way I saw the whole video, was simply unaware that he was confusing Yeshua ben Yoseph with Paul, the son of a well-to-do Hellenist Jewish couple of Tarsus in the Cilicia. Therefore, Paul had been a Hellenistic Jew from birth before he decided to found Christianity in the city of Antioch where he spent a whole year preaching his gospel in the Nazarene Synagogue whose Rabbi was Barnabas, another Hellenistic Jew, also like Paul, a bachelor. (Acts 11:26)So, the Jesus of Nazareth could not be referred to as a pagan Christ because he was a loyal Jew who of Hellenism he had nothing but only the ability to speak Greek. The pagan Christ was Paul, the man who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ and had resurrected. (II Timothy 2:8)

Now, one could ask me for the basis on which I would contradict Tom Harpur and deny his claim of the "Pagan Christ." So, did Jesus' historicity was a fact or not? Yes, from the same rason that the historicity of Maimonides, Rashi, and many other Jewish Tzadikim is taken for granted. Books! Yes, as more books have been written about Jesus than any other; even considering that only 20% is legitimate.

I believe Tom is using the term 'Pagan Christ' to describe that the mythos of dying, resurrecting demi-gods or solar deity figures spans centuries before the Christ-story, and points to the universal truth of the divine spirit in man and the evolutionary struggle of the soul as a spirit bound temporarily within a physical body ( spirit incarnate in matter), so it speaks of a cosmic religious context of universal humanity in its journey of life, death and rebirth.

While some would like to keep Jesus within a Jewish, pagan or Christian paradigm, the story of the Christ(divinity) in man transcends any specific religious culture or tradition, charting our own journey of incarnation and the ultimate potential of resurrection and ascension in Spirit.

Therefore a mythicist view holds the tradition of the story and it's archetypal meanings being shared among different cultures, having the same essential truths of the cycles of life and man's psychological process of transformation.

The historical Jesus?