Is there actual physical, scientific proof that Jesus did exist.

[hang a left]

Not trying to start a flame war. I am just curious. I have read a little about the subject from time to time here on DU. Is the existence of Jesus a issue of faith or an issue of scientific fact?

[lildreamer316]

1. Advice:

Are you kidding? of COURSE this is gonna start a flame war! We have other issues to concentrate on; please go discuss this in the Religion and Theology group. Thanks.

[hang a left]

5. Adice:

Click on a different thread.

[greyl]

18. more unsolicited advice:

Use the search function and read all of the threads in here (r/t) about the topic already. ;)

[htuttle]

2. No, nothing widely accepted

As far as I know, there are some disputed passages in the works of the historian Josephus, but little more. Nothing concrete.

I would second the motion to move this to the Religion and Theology forum. You'll get much more thoughtful answers, and less flame (though there will still be some, no doubt).

[thereismore]

3. physical edidence? like, a relic? don't answer. take this

subject into another forum.

[hang a left]

8. Actually there is another thread already started in GD that made

me ask the question. See my star? If the mods think it is inappropriate they will move it. What are you? Thread Police?

[silverweb]

4. Nope.

I've read that some scholars even admit that he could be a "composite" character drawn from several prophets/preachers, since they apparently abounded 2000 years ago. Apollonius of Tyana is one who has been considered a possible basis for the Jesus persona.

On edit: I concur that this discussion belongs in Religion/Theology forum.

[htuttle]

9. "Hillel the Elder" is another possible source

He was a first century Jewish scholar teacher thought to live shortly before the stated period that Jesus supposedly lived. Among other things, he taught the 'Golden Rule' (do unto others, etc...) as part of his teachings. I think the exact quote was "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Shab. 31a).

[hang a left]

12. I love that.

Kind of like "Do unto others, and the rest is just filler"

[megatherium]

26. No, not him.

Everyone taught the Golden Rule, it's the minimal qualification for wisdom.

[PassingFair]

38. Over 500 years before the birth of the alleged Jesus, Confucius

was all about the golden rule.

Confucius' social philosophy largely revolves around the concept of ren, “compassion” or “loving others.” Cultivating or practicing such concern for others involved deprecating oneself. This meant being sure to avoid artful speech or an ingratiating manner that would create a false impression and lead to self-aggrandizement. (Lunyu 1.3) Those who have cultivated ren are, on the contrary, “simple in manner and slow of speech.” (Lunyu 13.27). For Confucius, such concern for others is demonstrated through the practice of forms of the Golden Rule: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others;” “Since you yourself desire standing then help others achieve it, since you yourself desire success then help others attain it.”

[Sgent]

6. There is some writings

in the work of Josephus (which have their own problems).

There are also references in the Babylonian Talmud to persons claiming to be messiahs, as well as Christianity. Unfortunately, these are not made by Jesus' contemporaries.

IMHO, he existed, but we have more evidence on other historical figures than we do on Jesus.

[havocmom]

7. There isn't much physical, scientific proof you and I exist

I choose to believe I do. Not sure about anybody else.

[manic expression]

44. ?

for starters, we have bodies. That's quite a bit of "physical proof", now isn't it?

Look, there is real proof that Caesar existed, there is real proof that Tutankhamen existed, there is real proof that Shapur II existed, there is real proof that Cyrus existed, there is real proof that Xerxes existed and I could go on and on.

[varkam]

47. This is the matrix....whoa...

But to be honest, we experience "reality" through our perceptions. It's entirely possible that don't exist in the forms that we perceive ourselves as. We could all just, essentially, be separate thoughts of an individual consciousness. Not that I really believe that, just throwing out food for thought.

[manic expression]

48. Nevertheless

Even dreams are expressions of reality, only a level "further" from the physical one. When you dream something, it is actually happening to you, and they show perceptions of the "real world". The only difference is that they are further manifestations of reality, taken from the physical manifestation. Reality pervades everything, the only variable is how intimate one is with that.

Oh, and if the matrix was real, then why would they let us make the movie? ;)

[varkam]

49. On dreams.

On the contrary. When you're dreaming, you're lying in bed asleep - most likely in stage REM (which is when we do most of our visceral dreaming). The things going on in our head aren't actually happening to us, but they're merely our brain trying to make sense out of pseudo-random neurochemical impulses - which is why they can be so damn weird (at least according to the activation synthesis hypothesis of dreaming).

And, if you've ever woken from a dream into another one then you know how freaky they can be. Who's to say you're not dreaming right now? Who's to say I'm not?

And they let us make the movie because the machines just like to throw us a bone every now and then :)

[manic expression]

50. When you're dreaming

The things happening in our head are still happening. It doesn't matter if they are mere reflections of experiences and memories, those entities are still existent on that level. The experiences and people (and what-have-you) are on that level, they are living in the mind, but that plane of reality is one removed from true reality.

When you see these words on your computer screen, they are expressing ideas. Those ideas are from my brain, but they make their way through various mediums to you. Different forms of the same thing.

Who is really to say that we are not dreaming? That is the point, because this is actually very much like a dream; we are asleep to reality, we live in the physical world, which is the manifestation of the ultimate forms of all things.

What should be asked is: who is to say that dreams are not representations of "real" things? They are. To look at the bigger picture, however, the "real things" of the physical world are themselves only representations of truly real things.

Another thing is how you can wake up from a dream and think that it actually happened (I once went to school expecting to be harshly punished because I did something terrible in a dream!). Another thing is how we react physically to dreams as well. These things only help to show that dreams actually happen to people, and that the things involved are representations of the "real" beings, and therefore dreams are manifestations of reality in another plane. These expressions of reality are simply further from the ultimate reality.

And the movies were made because someone liked the idea and got the means to do it since the studios thought it might make money. The fact that people think it is true without having a mechanical bug being put in their bodies shows this.

Sorry for being repetitive (manifestation, reflection, reality...), but it's hard thinking of new ways to express the same thing.

[varkam]

51. We've gotten wayyyy o/t. n/t

[manic expression]

52. Perhaps, but it's definitely interesting stuff n/t

[varkam]

53. Indeed.

I mostly find such things interesting because I definitely do not have the mind for it. In other words, I like it because it makes my head hurt.

[Nikia]

56. Will there be proof over a thousand years ago that we existed?

We may have physical bodies. Our bodies might be buried and be embalmed quite well. That may or may preserve some part of us or not. Even if the cementary that we are interned at is not disturbed (as in destroyed in the name of development), if we have a stone monument, it probably will not be intact. Even if someone suspected that we existed and went looking for us, it might be hard to find us and prove that it really is us if they would. A major teaching of Christianity of course is that Jesus's body is not on Earth. Even if it was, though, we would have a hard time finding it.
In Modern America, we do keep records. Some of those records are kept on paper, which is rather fragile over time. It is also easily discarded, torn, or burned. We also now have electronic media, which can eaily be erased or might not be useable in the distant future. Any records of Jesus or us, for that matter, could have easily been destroyed accidently. This is especially true since Jerusalem has been conquered and involved in war several times since then. Records could have intentionally been destroyed as well. This could have even been done by the "Church" if they revealed a representation of Jesus that was not what the Church wanted to present. The only reason that we have many of the Gnostic writings is because they were buried in a safe place in order not to be destroyed. It could have also been done by those seeking to discredit Christianity.
The people that you cite as having physical proof were powerful rulers. They also had powerful supporters who had an interest in preserving their legacy.
You, I, and Jesus don't have that luxury. Jesus had even less of that luxury because of the technology that was not available at the time.

[libhill]

70. But but but

The 1st Century A.D. is a well documented period of history. Some very erudite writers, historians, and philosophers lived at this time, Philo of Alexandria to name just one. Philo recorded many events of his lifetime (roughly the era of Jesus) and spent time in Jerusalem during the alleged time of Jesus. He never once mentions anything recorded in the Gospels. You're talking about a guy who raised the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, and many other things. You'd think some of these events might have been worth recording, if they had really happened. Sometimes, silence speaks volumes.

[LostinVA]

10. Zero primary sources, suspect second-hand sources

[megatherium]

29. The closest thing to primary we have is Paul's letters,

which are still second-hand (he never met Jesus). He wrote within three decades of Jesus's life; it is clear from his writings he became a Christian probably only 10 years after Jesus's death. Based on the lack of details about Jesus's actual life in Paul's writings (most of Paul's writings are theological discourse and advice for churches), some believe Jesus was either a fiction of Paul's, or that Jesus existed but Christianity as we know it was invented by Paul. (I myself doubt that.) Paul does quote Jesus as saying "it is better to give than to receive," a quote that is not found in the Gospels. Paul wrote in the 50s and early 60s; the Gospels probably were written a generation or two later.

The earliest non-Christian Roman writings referring to Jesus date to 115 or later.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. If Paul just made up the stories of Jesus, why was he willing to die

as a martyr? According to Acts, he not only had a vision but actually met some of the Apostles.

What writer of fiction would swear that his creation was real when it meant the death penalty? Once he saw them draw the sword (Paul, a Roman citizen, was beheaded rather than thrown to the lions), he would have said, "Just kidding, folks."

[PassingFair]

39. Oh, I don't know....

why would the Hale-Bopp people buy new shoes, don robes, and leave the world via their bunk beds?
Why would 19 Islamic men fly planes into buildings?

[megatherium]

42. Lydia has a point... We can't determine with the tools of history that

Jesus really did rise from the dead. But the tools of history can conclude that Paul and the very first group of Christians really believed that this event occurred; what they said and did doesn't make sense otherwise. It is commonly assumed by skeptics that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus came decades if not centuries later, as mythological or legendary material. This isn't the case, the belief was there at the beginning; certainly within 10 years of Jesus's death.

The objective reality of that event is another matter, of course. But it is interesting to consider that even in our day and age, it is not at all unusual for people to see apparitions of persons who have died. Parapsychologists have long collected cases where persons see apparitions of loved ones before they have learned their loved ones have passed away. Here I am alluding to the "spiritual" theory of Jesus's resurrection, the theory that his resurrection wasn't physical but that his followers did see his spirit appear to them. This is of course not an orthodox Christian teaching; it is clear that the Gospel writers took pains to portray Jesus as more than just a spirit or ghost. But they do say he had the ability to appear and vanish at will, to pass through walls and so forth.

[trotsky]

57. If Joseph Smith made up the stories of the golden plates,

why was he willing to die as a martyr?

There are martyrs in every religion - surely that doesn't validate each and every one, does it?

[htuttle]

58. The same could be asked about Marshall Applewhite and the aliens

He was willing to be a 'martyr' for the...'Hale-Boppians'.

Doesn't validate his belief in the spaceship following the comet, though. It just wasn't there.

[fasttense]

11. You should read the Historical Jesus (the life of a Mediterranean Jewish

Peasant) by John Dominic Crossan. It is a tough read but very historically accurate. Then decide for yourself. However if this was "The Jesus", he wasn't quite what Christians say he was.

[Disturbed]

14. Go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[pocket]

13. he was probably based on a real person named

Brian of Nazareth.

[daveskilt]

23. He's not the messiah - he's a naughty little boy nt

[InvisibleTouch]

15. Well, it's interesting that...

...the gospels differ in the amount of detail they give about Jesus' life and history. Only one writer (to my knowledge; I am not an expert) actually lived at the time Jesus is said to have lived, and could have physically met him; the other 3 all came decades and even centuries afterward. And curiously, the contemporary writer gives the very least amount of personal detail, a very brief and sketchy account. The details grow progressively more elaborate in later writings.

Furthermore, there's no record of a "rabble-rousing revolutionary and his followers" in the Roman records of the time - and the Romans kept meticulous records of just about everything. One would think that such a major impact by one person in the region, would have received at least a passing mention. But no.

Make of it what you will.

[megatherium]

31. Usually the Gospels are held to have been written between

about 70 and 120 (Mark the earliest, Luke the latest). Evangelicals believe these are eyewitness accounts, but secular scholars think they're at best second-hand. There are clear legendary elements (the two dissimilar Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, for example). The Gospels claim Jesus was born to a Virgin; but the earliest Christian writings (Paul's letters) omit this detail. He wrote in the 50s and 60s. (Paul does mention the Resurrection, in his first letter to the Corinthians, written in about 58.)

There are Roman references to the Christians that date to 115, but which refer to events in the 60s (Nero's persecution of the Christians, described by Roman historians as an act of scape-goating).

[Generator]

16. No

And I was quite shocked to find that out. It kinda makes you question everything. Then I started reading the Gnostic writings-which were totally forbidden by the church-and that Jesus is a different one in many ways. I also read the book "The Jesus Mysteries"-was the original Jesus a pagan God? They claim he was.

[manic expression]

46. Jesus' life

as presented, parallels Mithras' in many ways. Mithras was a deity of the sun, originally Persian, but adopted widely by the Roman army. I don't know why they did this, but it was probably to make their cult more appealing and less alien. Actually, from the history of Rome, we see that Christians were very intolerant of other religions, and more importantly, they were mostly able to convert the uneducated while refusing to discuss their beliefs with educated members of other religions (namely polytheists). Also, they openly despised logic and denied truth as a central tenet of their religion.

I haven't read the book (yet), but "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" is highly recommended by many.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. NO

For the first few centuries, the cults were fighting about other issues. JC, that virgin birth thingie and other fairy tales really didn't make it into the common discussions until after the Council of Trent, a bloody multi-decade negotiation about whose version of gospel would survive. Lots of JC stories were either concocted then, or "edited and corrected" and later supported.

[zanne]

19. I'm not religious, but I always thought that Christians...

believe in the IDEA of Jesus.

[saltpoint]

20. I don't have 'scientific' proof that Mozart existed. But whoever wrote

that 39th Symphony sure had a boatload of talent.

For me, Jesus likely existed, likely was incredibly perceptive, intelligent, and compassion, and thereby could not abide the banal cruelties and social and political oppression of the local Roman authorities.

When he is arrested in the Garden, the apostles are armed. Peter even cuts off a man's ear. I believe they may have been ratted out but had been planning to stage a military revolt against the reigning authorities to assert spiritual kingdoms over political tyranny.

But from the times Rome had turned from republic to empire, regional revolts were put down swiftly and without mercy.

This one was no exception.

[TalkingDog]

22. So what was he doing with the naked guy in the garden?

The one that came out from behind the rocks with Jesus wrapping himself in a sheet, then fleeing when the guards arrived...

Brokeback Garden anyone?

Yes, it's in the Gospels. No, not the Brokeback Garden, the naked guy.

[saltpoint]

25. Hi, TalkingDog. Yep, it's in the New Testament.

Mark 14:49 -- or something close to that -- I'm not around my reference shelf right now.

It's in there.

But that's not 'scientific' proof unless we find the naked man's journal/diary. What a find that would be. If nothing else, it would cause Jim Dobson's angry, judgmental head to explode.

[TalkingDog]

28. Not offering as proof, just always found it very out of sync w/ other text

Figured you brought up the garden, you might have a theory.

[saltpoint]

30. I think it's referenced in some Gnostic texts but I'm not sure.

If Rev. Cheesehead (a GREAT DUer) is on the boards anytime today, we need to ask this question.

Rev. Cheesehead would be my first choice for a reliable source, bar none.

[megatherium]

32. I'd always heard the theory that the naked guy was

the Gospel writer, putting himself into the narrative. It is an odd detail, a detail that suggests to some readers the verisimilitude of the account; why include such a peculiar if not embarrassing detail?

[McKenzie]

21. he did exist it seems

whether he was divine is another question altogether.

Jesus was a Nazarene; the Koran does not term followers of Christ "Christians"; the term used is "Nazara".

edit: wine

[PassingFair]

40. It seems?

There is NO evidence.
None.

[varkam]

24. I believe Jesus existed.

I just have a hard time swallowing the whole raising from the dead thing.

[megatherium]

33. It's a tough call because the belief in the resurrection

is apparently an early teaching of the church. Paul gives a strong endorsement of the teaching in 1 Corinthians, written in about 58 AD and therefore only about 25 years after Jesus's death. Paul was in contact with the earliest Christians (he converted about 10 years after Jesus's death).

[ryan_cats]

27. Yes. We call it the New Testament!

Yes. We call it the New Testament!

I believe Josephus mentions the real historical Jesus as well.

Not to mention that a pice of toast can't be wrong.

A little Christian humor from a Christian.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. No, but it's impossible to prove that MOST people in pre-modern times

existed.

Usually only government figures or people who were cosy with them are recorded as individuals. The only exception is Egypt, where the dry climate preserved papyrus in a way that didn't happen in most places.

We know that Pontius Pilate existed, but that's because there are Roman records about his being appointed, not because their are records in Jerusalem or accounts of the trials he presided over. For one thing, Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 79AD after a Jewish rebellion. The Romans undoubtedly kept local records of their trials, but there are no primary records of anyone's trials. (By primary records, I mean actual trial transcripts, such as exist for Joan of Arc, not something like Josephus' history)

If you've ever done any serious work in pre-modern history, you'll know how many things we will never know, barring new discoveries. My work was in medieval Japanese language and literature, and the gaps in information that should exist are extremely frustrating.

So no, there are no records proving that Jesus existed (he was not famous outside a tiny area of an obscure Roman province in his lifetime). But you'd be hard pressed to prove that ANYONE of his low social standing existed in that time of place.

You can't prove that Jesus existed. But that is no reason to say that he could never have existed. By that standard of proof, only about a hundred people existed in first-century Judaea.

[PassingFair]

41. "You can't prove that Jesus existed. But that is..

no reason to say that he could never have existed."

Now where have I heard THIS argument before...

Something about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Reminds me of the old pink dragon in my garage...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Suit yourself

:shrug:

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. The story of "Jesus that is the Christ" is a total allegory, not a fact

certainly not a factual, historical person. The entire story of Jesus's life is little more than an allegorical tale of the movements of the sun and stars through the heavens. There are literally dozens of god-men that share similar stories or have similar traits that predate jesus by millenia. Almost every single aspect of the story of the life and actions of jesus are little more than stories meant to relate a motif describing celestial events. All this can be discovered by using Google. Enter "Jesus Myth" or "Savior Myths".

The concept of a god sent to save the world that is born of a virgin or a maiden in a cave or manger on or about the winter solstice is prevalent throughout history. The ancient Mexicans had a similar god, well removed from the middle east. It is all about the sun, NOT "THE SON" On December 25th the sun appears to rise at a slightly more southern point, when viewed from north of the equator, than it did for the previous 3 days thus the "Birth of the savior" and the "Light of the world". His crucifixion and death occur on or about the Spring Equinox when the the sun has risen to it's fullest height in the sky for the year thus the "He is risen" reflection. The numbers 3, 7, 30, 33, 40 and 72 are repeated over and over again in the bible and all of them have significance in middle eastern society and celestial observations. 3, for instance is the number of days the sun dwells at the solstices and the equinoxes. 40 is roughly the number of days it takes a seed of grain to burst through the surface after planting, thus the number 40 is always....ALWAYS used when referring to a time of uncertainty or despair. You plant then you have to wait 40 days to see if you are going to eat.

The short answer is no, there is not one single shred of verifiable evidence that supports the notion that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in the Levant on or near the time of his supposed advent. Not one.

If jesus existed, then so did Apollo, Mithra, Horus, Set, Hercules, Athena, Zeus, Krishna and the hundreds of other gods mankind has invented.

[InaneAnanity]

37. No proof

Jesus is just as real as Dionysus.

[catbert836]

45. Why the f*%^ should it matter?

As long as his followers have faith that he did, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Nikia]

54. New Testemant, Other early Christian writings

Although some of these were written 50-100 years after the fact, we must remember that it doesn't mean that they weren't written by people who were knowledgeable of the events, even if they weren't first hand. Most common people weren't literate. Oral history had a greater importance in society than it does today. Even in present day society, there are people who could write accounts of the Civil War era from first, second, or third hand oral histories. These stories from their relatives still shape the attitudes of many people in the South, both black and white. People impacted by events over 100 years ago, still remember today. It was more true in a society where people often did not rely on written records for their history.
I don't know if we can say that everything was accurate in those writings as people often judge the past in the eye of the present or add or subtract details. I do believe that they were written in good faith though, not with the purpose of deceiving people.

[Zhade]

55. Nope.

If there was, I'd still be a Christian.

But there isn't, so I'm not.

[shrike]

59. Physical, scientific evidence, no

But, putting any claims aside of who or what he was, why should there be?

The Romans crucified lots of people, and they were good at it. Crucified bodies were disposed of, and if you don't buy the notion that Jesus rose from the dead, then his body rotted away like anybody else's. (And if he did, rise from the dead, then why would anything be left of him on this earth? He ascended into heaven, right?)

I saw a (very respectful) documentary on Discovery which speculated on the life of Jesus. One individual interviewed theorized that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Sounds very unlikely, I know, but this guy says there are reliable historical accounts of a few who were crucified and lived to tell about it. Still, if he had survived, surely his followers would have considered it a miracle. At least IMO.

[Popol Vuh]

60. Am I the only one

Who finds it rather curious that there’s not one word mentioned about a man named Jesus who was crucified by Ponchas Pilot in the Roman records? Moses is mentioned in Egyptian records, and I give a lot more credit to the Romans for keeping records of such things as the crucifixion of a man who caused so much turmoil in one of their empire states.

Here’s a few recommended books:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

“We have seen that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Christian founder, that the earliest Christian proponents were as a whole either utterly credulous or astoundingly deceitful, and that said "defenders of the faith" were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions. It has also been demonstrated that the world into which Christianity was born was filled with assorted gods and goddesses, as opposed to a monotheistic vacuum. In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that "Jesus Christ" is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and whose dramas were regularly played out by ancient people long before the Christian era....”













http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html

”The traditional history of Christianity is hopelessly inadequate to the facts. From our research into ancient spirituality it has become obvious that we must fundamentally revise our understanding of Christian origins in the most shocking of ways. Our conclusion, supported by a considerable body of evidence in our book, The Jesus Mysteries, is that Christianity was not a new revelation. It was a continuation of Paganism by another name. The gospel story of Jesus is not the biography of an historical Messiah. It is a Jewish reworking of ancient Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting Godman Osiris-Dionysus, which had been popular for centuries throughout the ancient Mediterranean.”

“The stories told about Osiris-Dionysus will no doubt sound familiar. He is the Son of God who is born to a virgin on the 25th of December before three shepherds. He is a prophet who offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism. He is a wonderworker who raises the dead and miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. He is God incarnate who dies at Easter, sometimes through crucifixion, but who resurrects on the third day. He is a savior who offers his followers redemption through partaking in a meal of bread and wine, symbolic of his body and blood. The Jesus story is a synthesis of the Jewish myth of the Messiah Joshua (in Greek Jesus) with these Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting Godman.”

(Link to site where you can read this book online for free)

http://media.isnet.org/off/XXtian/critic/16/16.html

[Popol Vuh]

61. An excerpt

From the above book: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

Address to the Clergy:

FRIENDS and brethren -- teachers of the Christian faith: Will you believe us when we tell you the divine claims of your religion are gone -- all swept away by the "logic of history," and nullified by the demonstrations of science?

The recently opened fountains of historic law, many of whose potent facts will be found interspersed through the pages of this work, sweep away the last inch of ground on which can be predicated the least show for either the divine origin of the Christian religion, or the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[shrike]

62. Source, please, for the mention of Moses

in Egyptian records.

Skimmed through your Saviors book, and at first glance his analogies appear to be a bit of a stretch.

Even the atheists on this board seem to agree that Mohammed was a real person, since he is referred to in historical records. Also, he died of a fever, I believe.

I've read Norse literature and don't recall any crucifixion involving Odin. He is killed in the last great battle of the Gods, but by a Divine Wolf, and not in any manner resembling a crucifixion, at least according to my (at times) faulty memory.

Odin is probably more comparable to Zeus and Athena, the Goddess of wisdom. Odin's son, Balder, is a Christ-like figure in some regards but, interestingly, he dies in a manner similar to Achilles -- he is killed by the one thing in the world (mistletoe) which can harm him.

[htuttle]

63. Odin wasn't exactly crucified

But he did find himself wounded and bleeding hanging upside down from Yggdrasil, the World Tree, for nine days or so. In the process, he managed to see the Runes and gave humankind an alphabet.

Odin managed to get himself out of that one, though, ie., he didn't die.

[shrike]

64. Sort of, I guess

Still a bit of a stretch.

Still think Balder is closer to a christ-like figure, but the death doesn't fit.

The Norse were an interesting people: their Gods died, in a final battle where good can't vanquish evil.

[catbert836]

65. Isn't the message more important than the messenger?

I think that Jesus existed. But if he didn't, why should it matter? As long as we follow his teachings, so to make the world a better place, why should it matter if he was God, if he will come back, or even if he existed? If someone wrote Jesus into existence, they were a very wise soul and I applaud them. And believers, this shouldn't matter as long as you have faith.

[charlie]

66. For you, yes

For the grim self-appointed enforcers of the Most Important Man in Human History, no. If doubting his existence gets the Fundopaths stirred up, well, I'm not going to do any handwringing over the propriety of the question :)

[catbert836]

67. Go for it then!

:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

68. I'm an Atheist, but I dfo think Jesus was a real person.

It's just that he got mixed up with the Mithras cults and Neo-Platonic mysticism when non-Jews, especially Greeks, started converting.

[libhill]

69. Nope

The closest things I've found to a "historical Jesus" are a mention in the Dead Sea Scrolls about a "Teacher of Righteousness", who some people think may have been an inspiration for the Jesus character. The Jewish Talmud mentions something about a Jeshua person who was perceived to be a magician or sorcerer, and who was "Hanged from a tree on the Eve of Passover". But this guy died around 100 BCE. To my knowledge, there is no contemporary 1st Century mentioning of a Jesus of Nazareth. At least from the first half of the 1st Century, when Jesus allegedly existed. And even theologians admit that the Epistles of Paul predate the Gospels. Which is interesting, because Paul in all of his writings, shows no knowledge of a flesh and blood, historical Jesus figure. His Christ Jesus was a purely spiritual entity. By the way, I don't see that it makes a rats ass where you post a thread. Just my humble opinion.