This is a subject that has cropped up in a couple threads already so I figure why not give it it's own thread.
So the questions Was the Biblical Jesus a real person? If not was there at least a historical Jesus used as a basis for the stories? Could it have been a complete fabrication?
Please provide evidence for or against your argument. If you use the Bible provide external sources to also back up your claim.
That video said that Jesus wasn't the first to take his life for a religion in a "resurrection" type of way. No, it doesn't. You should watch all three videos so you'll get better idea! No, they specifically stated that Jesus knew that others had taken their own lives to try to help their religion, which is what (may have) given him the idea.
There just making the question, no one is answered it. Asking if Jesus knew about some others who took their own life is not specifically stating that He did know about some others. The two sides are just being discussed in the show!
It's on Friday Saturday and Saturday again! Here's the link again: Was Jesus Real?
No, they said that the idea of dying for the Jewish religion was well-known and that there were people who were known for doing that. Jesus is depicted as a devout Jew, and one who had knowledge of the religion would have knowledge of those sacrifices.
One scholar there said "well yes of course he knew what he was doing, every Jew knew of a sacrifice for their religion, he knew that by making a disturbance he would be killed."
The other said "well, we can't say anything to be exact without Jesus' writing."
the flaw in the second scholar's thoughts is that in this sequence, Jesus disrupted and vandalized the scene on church grounds, when many soldiers were around (and a week before passover), so he wouldn't have been given time to write anything about his thoughts -- he would have been imprisoned immediately and scheduled to hang out to dry.
Nevertheless, in the clip they do state that there was at least one well-known sacrifice by someone else for the Jewish sins/religion, and that Jesus knew he would be causing his own death by disturbing the church.
Well, this is where it gets complicated. Jesus as Son of God knew far ahead about all of his Mission. He was being instructed by His Father so that's one part, and Christians believe that Jesus knew His Father's PLAN.
But National Geographic History is bringing it without there being religious. So the other part is this. There was Jesus the Man. If your talking about a Man, then there's no way to know WHAT a Man was thinking when he destroyed temple over 2,000 years ago. Unless you had some kind of solid evidence about that, like something set in stone that stood in Nazareth where Jesus went to school, and he passed by it everyday and had to study it or something like that would be a good solid evidence!
So the first side is the one that says there is this solid evidence. And so it's the one that's in danger of being flawed, depending on how solid the evidence really is.
The second side says this: you have to be careful about "sychoanalyzing Jesus" cause there's just no way to know what he was thinking!
So the show is going to see how solid the proof is for the one side, and along the way there just describing some events around "Jesus the Man" 's life!
Nevertheless, in the clip they do state that there was at least one well-known sacrifice by someone else for the Jewish sins/religion, and that Jesus knew he would be causing his own death by disturbing the church.
There not saying this, they just bring up the questions. Here's the introduction and then there's the questions that they will answer at the end:
He called himself the King of the Jews, likely considered to be a Messiah. Just around Passover, the Romans killed him and crucified many of his followers outside Jerusalem. But his name was not Jesus, it was Simon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who died four years before Christ was born. Now, new analysis of a three-foot-tall stone tablet from the first century B.C., being hailed by scholars as a âDead Sea Scroll on stone,â may speak of an early Messiah and his resurrection. Was Simon of Peraea real? Did his life serve as the prototype of a Messiah for Jesus and his followers? And could this tablet shake up the basic premise of Christianity?
So whenever you put a QUESTION MARK at the end of a sentence it means your not saying, your just asking!
I thought you presented that half good, it was just the other half you missed...and you sort of got the flaw idea backward also. I guess you did pretty good at summarizing that one half though.
no one believes Jesus didn't exist anymore, it's a question of the Jesus in the bible.
What evidence have you shown that jesus was real??? NatGeo isnt evidence.
You are deviating from the subject and have said "jesus is real", maybe a new thread asking what Jesus's motives were, did he get himself killed, and who was simon etc... would be more appropriate.
Show me something that says, JESUS WAS REAL, as in real person, regardless of god or not. Was the historical jesus real. Not just some tom, dick or simon that was like him...
Im sorry to be the hardline skeptic, but I cant sit by and let people just SAY he is real.
According to historian Paula Fredriksen (1988: 5), critical scholars rely on four basic criteria for extrapolating an "authentic" historical account of Jesus out of the New Testament sources:
1. dissimilarity: "if the earliest form of a saying or story differs in emphasis from a characteristic teaching or concern both of contemporary Judaism and of the early church, then it may be authentic." 2. coherence: "if material from the earlier strata of tradition is consonant with other material already established as probably authentic, then it too is probably authentic." 3. multiple attestation: if material appears in a number of different sources and literary contexts, then it may be authentic." 4. linguistic suitability: "material with a claim to authenticity should be susceptible of Aramaic rendering, since Jesus did not teach in Greek, the language of the documents."
As Fredriksen observes, these criteria do not guarantee an accurate historical reconstruction. Nevertheless, she argues,
If something stands in the gospels that is clearly not in the interests of the late first-century church â" disparaging remarks about Gentiles, for example, or explicit pronouncements about the imminent end of the world â" then it has a stronger claim to authenticity than otherwise. Stated briefly, anything embarrassing is probably earlier. (1988: 6).
Even these criteria are not sufficient to recover "what really happened." They can, however, enable historians to suggest "with reasonable security what possibly happened, what probably happened, and what could not possibly have happened.
According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: John's baptism, and Pilate's crucifixion, of Jesus. These events are mentioned in all four gospels. Moreover, they do not conform to Jewish tradition, in which there are no baptized and crucified messiahs. They are also embarrassing to the early Church.
According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: John's baptism, and Pilate's crucifixion, of Jesus.
But I want some historical evidence outside the gospels. I cant look to scientologys readings (i have no idea what they call em) and use that as evidence, regardless of the context.
They are also embarrassing to the early Church.
This isnt the early church tho. And one thing humans are good at is shifting power to suit their own take on religion, I mean, just look at all the religions based on this one god. Christianity, Islam, Judism... and within even christianity alone we have catholics, protestants, baptist, jehovah witnesses etc.. theres more but I cant be bothered.
I'm pretty sure that jesus was a real person and there is proof
Id would like to see the proof. We know of historical figures that are real because there is sooo much historical proof. The only proof that jesus was real comes from the bible or things directly linked to it.
@MGM - It looks like National Geographic made the story seem bigger than it was cause there's a letter by one of the sides who was really mad at them! So here's his letter.
