Could you elaborate please? Because there appear to be several instances of Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. Or at least leading His followers to believe that. And editing? Elaboration also needed please.
Yes, two of them, like I said. Seriously? I don't think I need to explain that the Bible was edited and changed and altered repeatedly, that's common knowledge. As for the specifics related to the example above regarding Jesus' claims, I'll post about it later tonight when I have the specific material in front of me. I don't remember the details offhand.
Ok well here are three offhand... 1) Jesus affirmed Peter's claim that he was the Messiah. 2) Jesus told the woman at the well that was the Messiah 3) Jesus affirmed to the High Priest when he was being questioned that he was the Messiah.. And no it is not common knowledge. So yes since you are making the claim I would think that you would need proof. The common knowledge you might be speaking of are the thousands of errors between manuscripts, most of which can be attributed to transposed words, or a misspelling... in other words, copyist errors. Unfortunately for your argument, none of these errors have anything to do with major Christian doctrine. And because of the vast array of manuscripts that we have, we can reliably construct what the originals said. And it is certainly not editing. And the parts of the Bible that seem to have been added later, ie. the adulterous woman or the last bit of the Gospel of Mark, are shown in most translations as being disputed as original. The New Testament has more manuscripts available than any other document of antiquity.
This question needs to be broken down into two parts. Was a there an actual historical figure called "Jesus" who existed in Judea at the time, had a religious following and was executed by the Romans and their vassal Herod? Was there a person named "Jesus" who was a miraculous figure who is the son of God? The first is one for history and science while the second one is for faith. I think answering the first is an interesting historical question but one that I don't think is critical to faith. Consider that it is known for a fact that Joseph Smith but there is no way of proving the miraculous nature of the revelation that he received and there are many Mormons themselves who will agree with how unlikely and even nonsensical the story of him finding (and later losing) the golden tablets are. To Mormons it is an issue of faith. Joseph Smith lived less than 200 years ago and there is a lot of debate around him. Jesus lived 2000 years ago and since then human civilization has gone through many upheavals including the collapse of the Roman Empire, burning of Alexandria and European Dark Ages. I don't think its any surprise then that there is little and unclear historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Even with that I don't think that matters that much to the faith.
Individually, your reality is whatever you believe. Millions of neurons interconnecting, differences in genetics, differences in nurturing and socialization and differences in life experiences mean we as a species have billions individual realities. Societies organize around generally agreed upon versions of truth; by logic, by need, by tradition, by dictation from more powerful entity.
Yes, Jesus existed. But when I say that I say it in a more abstract kind of way. Someone came up with the ideas and philosophies that were credited to Jesus. His name might have been Jesus, or it might have been Bertrand. It really doesn't matter because whoever came up with the ideas and philosophy behind it was in essence Jesus. It seems likely there was also a real person that inspired some of the stories that were written, but even if it wasn't someone came up with all the great ideas from the sermon on the mount etc. That was the real Jesus, and the important one. Whether or not his mother was even named Mary or any of the other little details isn't so important. The message was the important thing, and somebody created that message. So yes that person existed.
North America according to LDS. There are several places that claim that Jesus visited after he was resurrected. In Sri Lanka there is a footprint shaped impression at the top that various religions consider to be either a footprint of Sakyamuni Buddha, Mohammed, Adam or Jesus.
Ok, well it's common knowledge to those who have approached it critically and researched the subject. I don't mean that to be rude, but categorically denying this aspect of the bible's historical roots reeks of bias, and I have no desire to get in a pissing match with someone "convinced" of that which they want to believe true. If this is the case, just tell me now so I can excuse myself from this debate without wasting my time. Some are, but most are not. As it is, however, I'll be sure to point out a few this evening when I have some references available. Maybe it'll change your mind, maybe not. Good grief this is wrong. You can trace major rifts in the various sects as the bible is developed, from the Johannine followers to those who followed the purview of the apostles, to those who preached the gentile "mahayama" christology of Paul, the gnostics, Matthew's torah-centric view, etc etc etc. As the mythos surrounding christ grew and expanded, the sects basically rewrote sections to attempt to "prove" rival groups' biblical heresy. Again, this is common knowledge to those not confused by pre-conceived notions emphasized in church dogma.
????? What would you call the New Testament? The New Testament is 27 separate books/letters that are eye witness reports for Jesus and who he is. These 27 books/letters were compiled together to make the New Testament. Jesus did exist as a person, there is no doubt about that. Believing he is the son of God is another thing. I have no doubts that Jesus is exactly who he says he is. As for non-biblical sources for his existence: http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html JEWISH SOURCES ON JESUS Flavius Josephus, Antiquties of the Jews written about 94 A.D. He (Annas the Younger) convened a judicial session of the Sanhedrin and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ -- James by name -- and some others, whom he charged with breaking the law and handed over to be stoned to death. - Antiquities 20.200 Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again at the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct at this day. - Antiquities 18.63-64 (Greek) Epitome from Church History of Agapius (Arabic) At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning who the prophets have recounted wonders. Babylonian Talmud On the eve of Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution a herald went forth and cried, "He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover. - Sanhedrin 43a ROMAN (PAGAN) SOURCES ON JESUS Gaius Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars written about 100-125 A.D. He expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus. - Claudius 25.4 Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition. - Nero 16.2 Cornelius Tacitus, Annals written in the 2nd century A.D. But neither the aid of men, nor the emperor's bounty, nor propitiatory offerings to the gods, could remove the grim suspicion that the fire had been started by Nero's order. To put an end to this rumor, he shifted the charge on to others, and inflicted the most cruel tortures upon a group of people detested for their abominations, and popularly known as "Christians". Their name came from one Christus, who was put to death in the principate of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. Though checked for a time, the destructive superstition broke out again, not in Judaea only, where its mischief began, but even in Rome, where every abominable and shameful iniquity, from all the world, pours in and finds a welcome. - Annals 15.44 Mara bar Serapion, Letter to Son Serapion What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given. Pliny the Younger, Letters to Trajan It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. For who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. I have hesitated a great deal on the question whether there should be any distinction of ages; whether the weak should have the same treatment as the most robust; whether those who recant should be pardoned, or whether a man who has ever been a Christian should gain nothing by ceasing to be such; whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death ... All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image ... and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do. Others named by the informer first said they were Christians and then denied it, declaring that they had been but were no longer, some having recanted three years or more before and one or two as long ago as twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food: but it was ordinary and harmless food, and they had ceased this practice after my edict in which, in accordance with your orders, I had forbidden secret societies. I though it more necessary, therefore, to find out what truth there was in this by applying torture to two maidservants, who were called deaconesses. But I found nothing but a depraved and extravagant superstition, and I therefore postponed my examination and had recourse to you for consultation. - Letters 10.96 ibid., Trajan's Reply The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not, that is by adoring our gods, he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Information without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age. - Letters 10.97
I believe he did exist but a lot of the stuff about him may have been created to support the figurehead some religious leaders wanted him to become. That's because the OP's name is not AroundTheWorld.
Everything you just said sounds like it is biased in some sort as well. So because different sects emerged out of differing interpretations of the Bible, it has been rewritten several times? I would love to have some sort of proof of this. There are many theories out there about how the New Testament has been passed down. And yes it is common knowledge that there have been many sects of Christianity throughout history. I still don't see how they could somehow rewrite the Bible, and then somehow get every other sect to accept their rewritten translation. And then have other sects do this several times over. The vast array of manuscripts that are present from different areas of the world that agree with each other, minus theses copyist errors, seem to make this scenario an impossibility. It seems to me that the manuscripts we have today have been compared with each other, and the "errors" that are in them have been sifted through, and a general consensus has be made as to what the autographs say. I honestly have no idea how what you are saying has happened could have happened with the evidence that is present. Not to be rude, but about the pissing match comment... that is fine. If you consider a debate about a topic a pissing match and you don't want to be a part of it, then you probably should not have written your third paragraph, as all the differing sects you mention reek of a "pissing match" mentality. And if you are implying that I am the only one who is biased here, or that I have not researched the subject, then I don't know what to say...
Jewish Historian Josephus and Roman Historian Tacitus both document the historical existence of Jesus.
just because you don't see how it could happen, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I find it amusing that you think something like this is impossible to believe(even though there is historical evidence) yet it's far more probable than some dood being born of a virgin, living a perfect life and then rising from the dead.
The OP's question was "Did Jesus exist as a person?" to which the answer is yes. Do you dispute that Jesus was a real person or just that he is the son of God? Like I said in other post, it does take a leap of faith to believe he is the son of God. I pray that one day your eyes will be opened.
Amazing what happens when you have messenger that tries to engage in a rational discussion and earns credibility.
Ok, how about I start the thread "Did Mohammed really exist?" with the same wording as in txppratt's original post. I can already see the ****storm happening .
