• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Jesus

P

Portillo

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
1,924
Location
Sydney
There are people that believe that Jesus' life and resurrection are mythological, but for those that believe it is a historical event, which of the following points can be proven by biblical or nonbiblical sources? Can any of them be proven?

1. That Jesus died by crucifixion
2. He was buried
3. His death caused the disciples to despair
4. The tomb was empty
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed was the appearances of a risen Jesus
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to proclaimers
7. The resurrection was their central message
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem
9. The church was born and grew
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus made Sunday their primary day of worship
11. James was converted when he saw the resurrected Jesus
12. Paul was converted

I hope this can be a great discussion!
 
Last edited:
perhaps - in a world of 'latitude and longitude', there is a horizon, and whats above and bellow, when earth and sky and the sub-thought and higher-mind meet - there is/was an Event Horizon: the Birth of Christ on the Cross.

"hyperbolic" parallel-lines, do meet in infinite as-well, and this also seems to be a 'sacred crossing point'.
 
i know that the gospel of judas doesnt even mention the crucifixion
it seems as if they did not think it was a important part of his message
or maybe they never heard about the resurrection
 
maybe they knew he didnt actually exist, and Jesus was an allegorical statement to the knowledge/light that is inhabitable by any man/woman, and through his eyes and words, explain their vision of the creation of many things, mostly the earth and universe; only in ridicules sounding metaphors
- lol -
"all ducks are made of wood!"
- holy grail: the adventures of.

;)
 
This vexing question reminds me of a book I read titled “The structure of scientific revolutions’ by Thomas S. Kuhn. In it he shows that, just like religion, the sciences (all of them) are founded on epistemologies. Put simply, this means that sciences are founded on belief systems.

For example, there was a time when astronomy was founded on the belief that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around us. Likewise, academics of geography once believed that the world was flat.

It wasn’t until Copernicus found evidence suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around, science was heading on a much different pathway. Similarly, if it wasn’t for Magellan to circumnavigate around the world, we would still think that we can fall off the edge of the earth.

I guess what I am trying to say is that ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is dependent on your belief structure, scientific or religious.

Allow me to indulge myself once more. Say you had a sore throat. If you went to a medical practitioner, they might give you something to reduce the soreness in your throat. If you saw a naturopath, they might tell you what food/drink to avoid. A witch doctor in some third world might tell you to wear a garlic necklace around your neck to ward off evil spirits. A priest might tell you to go home and say 10 ‘hail Mary’s). Now, say you went away and did one of those things. You would come back and say, “Wow, that naturopath knows his/her stuff”, or “Damn, that garlic necklace really works”. The question then becomes, “Who’s right?” The doctor, naturopath, witch doctor or priest?

It comes down to your own belief system.

In other words, your question about whether can any “be proven” is dependent on your starting point, on your belief system. If you wore a garlic necklace and then got better, would you wearing the garlic necklace be 'proof' that it helped you get better? Or, having got better after saying 10 'hail Mary's' be 'proof' that it works?

On a more serious note, though, the only way to prove that Jesus ever existed is through DNA. But if you have ever watched the Da Vinci Code, you will see that none of his DNA exists anymore:D

Please note, this is my postmodernist opinion. While I recognise my own reality I will never be certain of the reality of others. This doesn't stop me from respecting them, though:)
 
Last edited:
I never considered myself a Christian, but I always felt that Yeshua/ Heyzeus came here with a message, was killed for that message, and then got the message itself hijacked. The new message was that he died. Then Saul call me Paul comes along to tell us JC wanted us to obey the government (Book of Romans, NT).
That Zeitgeist movie presented me with some concepts I had never looked at before, but I have to consider the possibility that he represents an entity that manifests itself in similar manners again and again. Or the face value interpretation.
 
mebalzitch said:
I never considered myself a Christian, but I always felt that Yeshua/ Heyzeus came here with a message, was killed for that message, and then got the message itself hijacked. The new message was that he died. Then Saul call me Paul comes along to tell us JC wanted us to obey the government (Book of Romans, NT).
That Zeitgeist movie presented me with some concepts I had never looked at before, but I have to consider the possibility that he represents an entity that manifests itself in similar manners again and again. Or the face value interpretation.
Click to expand...

... all paths.

it is interesting to consider 'Jesus and Sophia' or 'Shiva and Shakti'. or Isis/Ishtar being born upon an individuals conception of Christ/Sophia, and Ishta Devata with Shiva/Shakti - all Western Christian based and Eastern Hindu based "deities" do lead to one source of attainment, which ordinarily leads to the self.
*;-)
 
freehugs said:
Didn't he die before the crucifixion?
Click to expand...

the gospels didnt have title
we gave them title afterward
but originally they mostly were anonymous (All four canonical gospels are anonymous)
the gospel of judas probably was written by followers, not judas himself
just like the gospel of john is believe to have being written by followers not by john himself
the gospel of mark is seen by scholar as the most faithful, and the first one written
some scholars believed it was written by mark
the gospel of Matthew is believe to have being influence by the gospel of mark, the authorship is believe to be form a mix of a "highly educated Jew" and possibly matthew himself
as for the gospel of luke some scholars said that it wasnt impossible that it was from him, tho the author is unknown

the thing is that there is different gospel because there was different community interested in that story but all wanted their own version that reflected their own interpretation
some of the gnostic gospel not included in the bible had more pagan influence to them so they did not please the church own interpretation
personally i find it more interesting to put the more mystical version unto the more historical version to create context on who were those people, so you can learn more about the culture of that time and inevitably jesus was from that culture and trying to talk to every one of those people so in some way all the gospels are right in there own way, they all ad a dimension to jesus, jesus was all those things, excluding some gospel was done mostly for political reason, for the sake of having a unified church
so in some way they cared more about the church then the message but they cared about the church for the sake of propagating the message
so they half did it right half did it wrong
today i can get both, i can read about jesus because the church survived and i can read about the gnostic text because the message of jesus survive thanks to the church despite being a lot thinner than it should if you only go for the church version of the bible
so the only looser are imo those who discard the extra text as heresy or not worth it
i dont think that jesus was one version more than another, i think his message is between the lines, i think that he is every version, because he is everything, and so is god
if someone doesnt recognize jesus in all those version, if they cant recognize him in everyone of us, in our Christ nature, in our divine nature, then how are they gonna recognize him when theyll die, when theyll try to reach for the kingdom of heaven ?
 
Are you talking about the apocrypha? The New Testament gospels are more reliable than the apocrypha.
 
wiki : "Gospel are...primarily used in reference to the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, the term is also used to refer to the Apocryphal gospels, the Non-canonical gospels, the Jewish gospels and the Gnostic gospels."

personally i mostly meant the gnostic gospel :
- Gospel of Mary
- Gospel of Thomas
- Gospel of Truth
- Gospel of Philip
- Gospel of Judas

as for being more reliable yes the canonical gospel of mark, Matthew and luke are the more historically accurate
but then what about john, his gospel as a lot of gnostic influence which imo makes it the most interesting one

you can view jesus from a objective reality point of view where the story is more accurate
and you can view it from a more subjective reality point of view where you witness the inner working of the psyche of those people from that era, you understand how they saw jesus and what he meant to them, how they interpreted meaning into his message

what the church is saying about jesus is just one of many interpretation of what jesus was trying to make us understand
but the thing is jesus did not write it down, when he perfectly could have done so, but no he left it open for people to interpret from there own heart what it meant
for instance if you get 12 disciple well youll get 12 different story
because it aint only about what he did on a physical level its also what he did on a subjective level, how he moved people, how people saw different meaning to him
like for instance the division between Judaism and Christianity
jews did not saw him as a prophet, doesnt mean they disagree with the historical version of the bible, tho they might disagree with the resurrection part
but jesus has being many things to many people
and if you believe in jesus miracle and super natural power than it gets hard to trace a line between objective and subjective, for instance sometimes he would appear as a child but not to everyone, not everyone would recognize him, so some people would see someone that is not jesus and others would see jesus because they did not see with their eyes but with their heart

in john : post resurrection mary saw a gardener until she realize it was actually jesus
but in luke none of that happen, instead its 2 follower seeing someone that they eventually recognize as jesus when they finally have a meal with him to then disappear, then they come back to jerusalem to tell everyone but once there the disciple say that he appeared to peter as well

as for the "Gospel of Mark (16:1-20)

The oldest known manuscripts of this gospel don't describe any post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Partly for this reason, many scholars believe that this gospel's original ending has been lost. Whatever the case, these oldest manuscripts stop abruptly at verse 16:8, right after the discovery of the empty tomb. In the last two verses Mary Magdalene and two other women are told that Jesus has risen and is on his way to Galilee, and that his followers can see him there. Thus, if the original ending was lost, the missing part most likely described at least one appearance in Galilee but none in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Later scribes who made copies of this gospel realized that the original ending may have been lost, and several new endings were eventually invented to take its place. The ending chosen for most modern bibles consists of twelve verses (16:9-20) known as the "Longer Ending" or "Apocryphal Addition". This ending says that the risen Jesus made his first appearance to Mary Magdalene. But this was probably copied from John's account and thus is unlikely to be an independent source of information.

The possible loss of Mark's original ending is especially unfortunate, because many scholars think that it was the first New Testament gospel to be written."

so we end up in a situation where you have to choose which version you believe or take every version as part of a greater truth
because those gospel all have being written after his death, for the most part by people who did not witness the events so its hard to go for a accurate version, it obviously is gonna have a strong bias on what actually happens, but as i said it aint as much as what happen on a objective level as it is about what happens on a subjective level insides peoples heart
its one of those rare instance where what you believed happened might be more important then what actually happened
and the church doesnt have a monopoly on either one of those
 
Last edited:
My brother studied history in college, and we've talked about this before. He says that using historiography (a modified scientific method used by historians), the textual evidence suggests that there likely was at least one real person upon whom Jesus as we know him was based. He says this based on similar studies of other legendary persons mentioned in multiple ancient writings, for whom a piece or two of hard evidence (artifacts) were ultimately found. He says that much of what we see of Jesus in writings today fits the pattern of 'extraordinary men of olden times' -- a core of true history with many inexorable layers of folk legend caked upon it.

It'll be interesting to see if historians and archeologists ever unearth any artifacts linked undeniably to a man strongly fitting Jesus' description, from the time and place where he lived. It'll surely be a source of controversy for people of the Abrahamic faiths. Then again, the lack of such artifacts thusfar is equally as controversial.
 
^^you brought up something i often think abuot MDAO, and that is how Jesus didnt write very much...seems he would of been a rather effective writer.

why do you feel he might of chosen not to do so?


;)
 
Portillo said:
There are people that believe that Jesus' life and resurrection are mythological, but for those that believe it is a historical event, which of the following points can be proven by biblical or nonbiblical sources? Can any of them be proven?

1. That Jesus died by crucifixion
2. He was buried
3. His death caused the disciples to despair
4. The tomb was empty
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed was the appearances of a risen Jesus
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to proclaimers
7. The resurrection was their central message
8. They preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem
9. The church was born and grew
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus made Sunday their primary day of worship
11. James was converted when he saw the resurrected Jesus
12. Paul was converted

I hope this can be a great discussion!
Click to expand...
I recon once he died his disciples would have been concerned that their following might fall away now their almighty is rotting in the ground. Realising they were on to a pretty good deal here, I'd say they promptly stole the corpse and dissolved it in concentrated hydrochloric acid - or done whatever was fashionable and expedient in corpse disposal at that time.

After a long night of desecrating gods grave, they would have ventured out grainy eyed the next morning singing Hallelujah the body is gone so he obviously ascended to heaven. In fact, I saw him myself! Did you see him too? Did you witness the glorious ascent of our lord? You did! Well blessed are you. Now about those tithes...

Its what any self respecting disciple would have done anyway.
 
A scene in The Last Temptation of Christ perfectly exemplifies my attitude toward Jesus.

It takes place during the dream sequence on the Cross, when he--after "saving himself"--encounters St. Paul some years after his supposed Crucifixion. Paul is spouting all sorts of pious lies about him in a city square, and Jesus calls him on the carpet about it, saying that he was never executed, that he escaped and is living a normal life. St. Paul tells him in so many words that as the "real" Jesus, He's unimportant; as the Son of God, He's everything. In other words, the myth of Jesus as the Messiah is far more important than his historical personage. If they found a letter buried in Jerusalem tomorrow that basically said "This is Jesus, and I think it's high time I cleared up a few things about my life and teachings...", it would matter not at all; you're going to see only what you want to see.
 
Whether or not there was actually a historical figure identifiable as Jesus of Nazareth is of no current religious consequence.

ebola
 
Belisarius and ebola?, I agree with you guys. Even if there was no one man who could be identified as the historical Jesus, the legend has endured, inspired, and resonated with people for a reason. I like to take the esoteric interpretation of the Jesus story -- the object is to search for the Christ within, not the Christ without.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top