Crosswords2 mins ago
Did Jesus Actually Exist?
74 Answers
I realise that the facts surrounding his birth and death are open to debate, however did he ever exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pretty_snowdrop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
A good book. Really?
Bushby simply did not prove his case. The majority of his evidence is based on speculation, linguistic games, bogus
references, and terribly misquoted sources. Bushby has not sufficiently provided any kind of sound proof that should cause us to dismiss
known history and accept his claims. A pope never admitted to Christ being a fable, the Jesus twins never existed, and Christianity was not
based on pagan myths.
Bushby simply did not prove his case. The majority of his evidence is based on speculation, linguistic games, bogus
references, and terribly misquoted sources. Bushby has not sufficiently provided any kind of sound proof that should cause us to dismiss
known history and accept his claims. A pope never admitted to Christ being a fable, the Jesus twins never existed, and Christianity was not
based on pagan myths.
He was only 'known ' for ' about 2 years from the age of thirty but he impressed enough people that a few establised a group who passed it on orally to others some of whom 30 or 40 years later started to make notes.
Only one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples Peter, several years later. All the rest was hearsay. copying Mark and generally embelishing, what little they heard and trying to make it fit
OT prophesies.
Only one author of the gospels Mark actually spoke to one of the disciples Peter, several years later. All the rest was hearsay. copying Mark and generally embelishing, what little they heard and trying to make it fit
OT prophesies.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
That is one of those questions which can only be responded to with the answer "it is purely academic".
I find the possibility of his existence -virtually indistinguishable- from the possibility of his non-existence, on the basis that the amount of physical evidence amenable to present-day analysis is identical in both cases.
That amount is, approximately, nil. To the best of my understanding.
If I recall rightly, the Romans believed that a potential rebellion was afoot and that the leader needed to be not merely executed but any possible post-mortem rallying point obliterated: - tomb, bones, robes, spouse & offspring (if applicable), household, handiwork, letters (if he was even literate).
If it took 40+ years for a 'movement' concerning his life to get underway (and the business of putting two and two together to make things fit with OT prophecy), then their efforts to recover traces could only ever be retro-active. The gospels describe how his body was spirited away and entombed at a location unknown to the Roman occupiers. How very convenient. ;-)
I would argue that the Romans would have patrolled the crucifixion site, knowing how many days it usually took for prisoners to die and that they wouldn't have let this would-be-King's body out of their sight, for as long as it took to complete the task of desecrating and/or incinerating it.
It's grotesque, I know, but the idea is to put on an exhibition for any other aspiring rebel leaders to get the message.
I find the possibility of his existence -virtually indistinguishable- from the possibility of his non-existence, on the basis that the amount of physical evidence amenable to present-day analysis is identical in both cases.
That amount is, approximately, nil. To the best of my understanding.
If I recall rightly, the Romans believed that a potential rebellion was afoot and that the leader needed to be not merely executed but any possible post-mortem rallying point obliterated: - tomb, bones, robes, spouse & offspring (if applicable), household, handiwork, letters (if he was even literate).
If it took 40+ years for a 'movement' concerning his life to get underway (and the business of putting two and two together to make things fit with OT prophecy), then their efforts to recover traces could only ever be retro-active. The gospels describe how his body was spirited away and entombed at a location unknown to the Roman occupiers. How very convenient. ;-)
I would argue that the Romans would have patrolled the crucifixion site, knowing how many days it usually took for prisoners to die and that they wouldn't have let this would-be-King's body out of their sight, for as long as it took to complete the task of desecrating and/or incinerating it.
It's grotesque, I know, but the idea is to put on an exhibition for any other aspiring rebel leaders to get the message.
That the man existed seems beyond doubt; there would be no need to invent some fictional character to create stories around, a place him a hundred years or so in the past. You'd use a real person and exaggerate his powers, tell stories about him.
I think that he was a Jewish Luther. He was against much of the practice and belief of established Judaism, which was bound to make him unpopular. The rest, and the myths, followed.
I think that he was a Jewish Luther. He was against much of the practice and belief of established Judaism, which was bound to make him unpopular. The rest, and the myths, followed.
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life10 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.