Proof That Jesus Lived, But ?

[Open_Minded]

Me too! Rather than begin an entirely seperate thread, I would like to ask a question which expands upon Open_Minded's OP. (Hope you don't mind, O_M? If so, just say so and I'll take my musings elsewhere. )To wit:

 

Oh... by all means ... have at it. The follow-up questions are entirely appropriate to the spirit of the OP.

 

My only request would be to consider Mr. Grinch's question with one little adjustment ... hope you don't mind Mr. Grinch.

 

If archeological findings of bones wouldn't convince anyone to leave Christianity (which seems to be our concensus), then WHAT WOULD?

 

WHAT DISCOVERY WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE CHRISTIANS THAT (LITERALIST) CHRISTIANITY IS A SHAM?

 

I sincerely look forward to everyone's thoughts.

[Lycorth]

 

In light of 2,000 years of whittling away at Church foundations and in spite of all the glaring failures of Christianity (atrocities, wars, inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, perversities, hypocrisies, etc.), the religion has proceeded like a juggernaut zombie. For all intents and purposes dead, but inertia keeps moving it forward. People used to attend church because it was a beautiful palace. But today they go because it is a Haunted House attraction. It seems that no matter what occurs, the religion lives on.

 

So, I ask you, is there ANYTHING that would bring Christianity to a screeching halt?

 

Not necessarily so, old shoe. The Xianity of today is a far cry from what it was a thousand years ago. Ultimately forced to yield much of its power and curtail much of its classic behavior in the face of societal evolution, Xianity isn't the witch-burning blitzkrieg on humanity it once was. Today, there are more sects than ever and new ones sprouting up all the time. To me, while Xianity shall indeed always exist in some form or another, I think its size and scope will continue to weaken as it continues to fracture and divide, and more and more people will drop out of it.

 

It won't end altogether, no. There will always be some small sects of Babble-thumpers, still believing in their demongod, but in a hundred years or so I think Xianity will be a very different thing than what we see now. Half as powerful, or maybe even less powerful than that, and if current societal trends continue, it will be an increasingly ridiculed thing, and slowly turned into a big laughing stock even to the common man.

 

That's why Xianity is still a big dinosaur, the common man. The regular folks still have a huge tendency to accept Xianity, in some fashion, while it is usually the intellectually elite and those of smaller segments of society who deny it. Today, as is evidenced by this board, more and more common folks are also tossing the cross away and seeing it for the fallacy it is. Xianity has always had its strength in the common people, and the more this segment of society continues to reject Xianity, the more real strength the cult will lose. It won't lose it all, of course, but in time it will be radically reduced and no longer much of an issue.

 

Of course, that's me just being the eternal optimist

[Checkmate]

.........

My only request would be to consider Mr. Grinch's question with one little adjustment ... hope you don't mind Mr. Grinch.

..........

Not at all, O_M. In fact, I apologize for not making this distinction in the first place.

[NotBlinded]

Not to derail the thread, but what if: instead of finding the controversial bones of Jesus, they found the personal, actual writings of St. Paul? And in those writings, he describes how he planned to change xtianity to what he thought it should be. In other words, Paul pretty much cops to the whole thing.

 

Now THAT would fuck up the theology! If Paul was completely discredited by his own hand, there goes at least half of traditional xtian belief.

Maybe it's already in the basement at the Vatican??????

 

 

Me too! Rather than begin an entirely seperate thread, I would like to ask a question which expands upon Open_Minded's OP. (Hope you don't mind, O_M? If so, just say so and I'll take my musings elsewhere. )To wit:

 

Oh... by all means ... have at it. The follow-up questions are entirely appropriate to the spirit of the OP.

 

My only request would be to consider Mr. Grinch's question with one little adjustment ... hope you don't mind Mr. Grinch.

 

If archeological findings of bones wouldn't convince anyone to leave Christianity (which seems to be our concensus), then WHAT WOULD?

 

WHAT DISCOVERY WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE CHRISTIANS THAT (LITERALIST) CHRISTIANITY IS A SHAM?

 

I sincerely look forward to everyone's thoughts.

In all honesty, I will have to say that it will have to come from each and every person individually...as in !! The result would be more people like O_M and Amanda. I think it is already happening. I think there might be a strong reaction to it from the fundies, but hopefully, it would subside and people like O_M and Amanda will still be standing there.

[Checkmate]

..........

In all honesty, I will have to say that it will have to come from each and every person individually...as in !! The result would be more people like O_M and Amanda. I think it is already happening. I think there might be a strong reaction to it from the fundies, but hopefully, it would subside and people like O_M and Amanda will still be standing there.

"Last Christian Standing", eh? Amen to that!

 

I think it is funny and revealing that most Xian visitors to this site don't understand that the ONLY thing we truly want is for Xians to quit fucking with us. We're NOT seeking to destroy their "faith", or their religion. We just wish they'd be so kind as to not be so rude, obnoxious and narrow-minded in their behavior to the rest of the world!

 

I could not give a rat's ass if the entire WORLD believes in "god", Christian or otherwise. I don't care! Just LEAVE ME ALONE IN MY UNBELIEF! I ain't doing anyone any harm, sitting here watching porn and playing with my genitalia.

 

Is it TOO much to ask, for Christians to mind their own business? You're nice people sometimes, Xians, you're just too god damned NOSEY!

 

There's a quote somewhere (I'm too lazy to look for it right now) that says, "We don't want Christian forgiveness. We would just like it for Christians to live in such a way that WE don't have to forgive THEM."

 

In other words, "Stop being dickheads, Christians!"

 

Okay. Sorry about the rant. I just felt it had to be said. I'll get back on topic next post.

[Checkmate]

Today, as is evidenced by this board, more and more common folks are also tossing the cross away and seeing it for the fallacy it is.

Thank you for the lead in.

 

Okay. While I don’t believe any one discovery or argument will act as a stake through the heart of Christianity, thus killing it overnight, I DO believe that non-believers should continue to present a solid case against the religion, thus making things HOT for them.

 

Remember Aesop’s Fable of the Sun and the Wind?

 

One day the Sun and the Wind were arguing over which of them was the strongest. Weary of the argument, the Sun proposed a contest to decide once and for all who was stronger. Spotting a man wearing a cloak walking beneath them, the Sun wagered with the Wind saying, “Whichever one of us can remove that man’s cloak from him is the strongest.” The Wind agreed. The Sun allowed Wind to go first.

 

The Wind proceeded to blow and blow with all of his might, seeking to rip the cloak off of the man. He blew with such force that he virtually stopped the man in his tracks, nearly bowling him over. Yet the man clung ever tighter to his cloak wrapping it about himself. Finally spent, the Wind yielded his efforts. He had failed.

 

Next, the Sun proceeded to beam wave after wave of intense heat down upon the man. Soon the man was sweating profusely in the suffocating heat. After a few minutes of this, the man abruptly removed his cloak to fold and carry it in his arms. The Sun had emerged victorious.

 

What has this got to do with Christianity? Only this: The more you attempt to FORCE someone to give something up, the more desperately they cling to it. In order for someone to quit something they must believe it is THEIR idea and their choice to do so. Else they will resist out of sheer obstinacy.

 

Think about it.

 

How many of US EX-Cs were convinced into apostasy by external arguments while we were Christians? Probably NONE. When we were Christians we clung just as tenaciously to our cherished Fundy beliefs as Christians do today. We refused to listen to any criticisms. We even believed that we were under attack.

 

We maintained this position until the heat of reason and rational thought made us swelteringly uncomfortable under our cloak of self-righteousness and we REMOVED IT OF OUR OWN VOLITION.

 

Woo-hoo!

 

And THAT is why I say that no external prodding or discovery will act as a Magic Bullet to kill Literalist Christianity/religion. In the end, Christians will only abandon their faith when THEY decide that they are fed up with it. And not one second before that.

 

We just need to turn up the thermostat and make it decidedly uncomfortable for them to ignore the Truth. Slowly, but surely, mankind WILL shed himself of his oppressive religious cloaks. We'll either have NO religions, or something more tolerable and universally acceptable. It'll take time, but it will happen. It is inevitable.

 

In this, I also, am optimistic.

 

"But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

[Amanda]

I think eventually Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and all these philosophies will be part of the same thing. They virtually say the same thing now, in different ways.... it's just some people are more mature/knowledgeable in their perspectives than others.

 

IMO, the problem with some people is that they already think they KNOW the total and complete Truth. I was wondering if their lack of considering they may be wrong in SOMETHING shows their fear, or not ready for such a dramatic shift, or maybe a personality disorder?

 

I'll admit that it is very difficult for me to even just imagine there is no God! I don't know why either. However, my view of this "God" concept has evolved a lot recently.

[zfunkman]

A most intriguing subject for Christians to ponder. Open_Minded, I'm more curious as to the responses in your meditation group. (Also, why not post this on ChristianForums.com? I would LOVE to read what the Real Christian response would be. )

 

However, since you asked for our speculations, I'll play along with the gag.

 

My first cynical thought is that Christians would squeal like stuck pigs and deny these archeological finds, and denounce them as frauds. The acheologists' character would be attacked, ad hominems would flow like a river of blood and the Inquisition would be brought back just to kill these heretics.

 

(I'm being SLIGHTLY facecious, however... ?)

 

I know my Christians. Any such findings would be ignored as the work of Satan's agents and the church would continue unabated, like nothing ever happened. ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!")

 

Meanwhile, those of us who already don't believe, and those on the fence, would say "A-ha! Told you so! Chocolate and beer for all my friends!" (Don't ask. It just sounded funny at the time I thought it up. )

 

In short, yes, the church would take a hit, resulting in a loss of followers, but I don't think it would shake church foundations any more than pedophile priests and diamond mine owning evangelists already have. (Which is to say, not at all.) Priests and Pastors would quickly concoct a "reasonable explanation" (Conspiracy Theory) and the sheep would dutifully eat it up.

 

Christianity is composed of gullible and foolish people. Facts and Truth carry almost zero weight in the face of blind Faith and the "Fear of God". People believe because they WANT to believe, AND because they are intimidated to believe.

 

You hit the nail right on the head !

[Open_Minded]

And THAT is why I say that no external prodding or discovery will act as a Magic Bullet to kill Literalist Christianity/religion. In the end, Christians will only abandon their faith when THEY decide that they are fed up with it. And not one second before that.

 

We just need to turn up the thermostat and make it decidedly uncomfortable for them to ignore the Truth. Slowly, but surely, mankind WILL shed himself of his oppressive religious cloaks. We'll either have NO religions, or something more tolerable and universally acceptable. It'll take time, but it will happen. It is inevitable.

 

In this, I also, am optimistic.

 

I think you are right Mr. Grinch. I think humanity is feeling increasing pressure to look for answers that are universal in nature. Just in my own congregation I see a major shift in this area since 9/11.

 

For years I have been concerned about these issues - and I shared my concerns with those I trusted. Some of these people were ministers. Before 9/11 people - including ministers - were hesitent to talk about these issues in public. The risk was too great. Now I see that resistence ebbing - at least in the area I live in.

 

Last week, our group had a booth at a local Wellness Expo. We were the only church group there. This was a big step - think about it from a traditional Christian perspective.

 

This wellness expo had booths from alternative health practitioners. There were acupuncturists, massage therapists, healing touch practioners, homeopathic practioners, in other words the expo featured non-traditional approaches to healing. In the midst of all that was a booth from a traditonal 150 year-old lutheran congregation advertising the Whole Healing Ministry (A Healing Journey - Exploring Spiritual Interconnectedness). All this in a very public venu - so out of normal expectations, was our booth, that the local paper stopped by to interview me. And - most wonderfully - we are doing this WITH the support of our congregation.

 

The maturing we all seek is taking place, just rather slowly.

 

I think eventually Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and all these philosophies will be part of the same thing. They virtually say the same thing now, in different ways.... it's just some people are more mature/knowledgeable in their perspectives than others.

 

Amanda ... I think there is much merit in what you say. I'm not sure they will be part of the same "religion". But, I do believe all religions emerge from the same source and I do believe that as time goes on more and more people will recognize and honor this reality.

[spamandham]

What if we discovered that when things are thrown up, they don't in fact fall back down? How would this discovery impact your position on gravity?

 

The question is obviously absurd. No-one would give it more than whimsical consideration because we know it can't be true. We only give serious consideration to questions that we don't already know the answers to.

 

You willingness to seriously consider the question you posed should be telling you something about your faith.

[Open_Minded]

You willingness to seriously consider the question you posed should be telling you something about your faith.

 

OK.... I'll bite (for a little while).

 

What exactly should my willingness to seriously consider the question tell me about my faith?

[nick5]

I'd say, so what? We have proof that Santa Claus existed too ( http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=38 ), but that doesn't mean he was riding around on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeers and lived at the north pole.

 

Likewise, proof that jesus lived is different from proof that he walked on water, healed sick people with his magic, turned water into wine, and all that kind of shit.

[Amanda]

What if we discovered that when things are thrown up, they don't in fact fall back down? How would this discovery impact your position on gravity?

 

The question is obviously absurd. No-one would give it more than whimsical consideration because we know it can't be true. We only give serious consideration to questions that we don't already know the answers to.

 

Spamandham, I don't see the correlation here. It is impossible to throw things up and they don't come down unless we're in outer space.

 

However.... why do you say it is impossible that bones could be found that marks the grave of Jesus? It may be extremely difficult to prove they were his bones, yet maybe there is other evidence buried with him, that may so strongly suggest it to be true, we may accept it... such as we do with other science theories. Unless YOU think Jesus physically rose and went to heaven and could NOT have left bones behind to mark his grave!

 

 

 

 

[Mythra]

Or, he could think that Jesus never had any bones to begin with. Myths are boneless.

 

Gotcha, Amanda.

 

[Amethyst]

Hello everyone,

 

A few weeks ago we got into a pretty interesting conversation in my meditation group. We entertained the question:

 

What would happen to Christianity as a religion, and what would happen to our own personal faith, if some archealogist somewhere found an ossuary with the inscription - "Jesus of Nazerth - King of the Jews" - inscribed on it (filled with bones).

 

Interesting idea. I would think that Christianity would become recognized as one of many philosophies, and not something that people have to believe in. But I strongly suspect that the fundies will all cry "Hoax! Scam! Satan posessed them!" and other such nonsense.

 

I think that Jesus was a literary character, perhaps loosely based off a real person or perhaps not, and over time, the character became enmeshed with various pagan deities as people gained power in the early church and they tried to convert the pagans to the new religion.

 

But a small part of me suspects that maybe there is an ossuary or crypt somewhere and one of the secret religious groups knows where it is, and isn't telling the rest of us because they think the world might go up in flames or something.

 

Not to derail the thread, but what if: instead of finding the controversial bones of Jesus, they found the personal, actual writings of St. Paul? And in those writings, he describes how he planned to change xtianity to what he thought it should be. In other words, Paul pretty much cops to the whole thing.

 

Now THAT would fuck up the theology! If Paul was completely discredited by his own hand, there goes at least half of traditional xtian belief.

 

In other words, what if they found the ancient version of Paul's blog on MySpace? Heh...probably, though some would also deny the science behind that as well.

 

So, I ask you, is there ANYTHING that would bring Christianity to a screeching halt?

 

The only thing I can think of is some new, uber-popular cult, but it would take centuries for it to gain as much popularity as Christianity did.

 

Either that, or a nuclear holocaust or something like that.

[Amanda]

Or, he could think that Jesus never had any bones to begin with. Myths are boneless.

 

Gotcha, Amanda.

 

 

Mythra, you mean like Santa Claus St. Nicholas?

 

 

 

 

 

[spamandham]

You willingness to seriously consider the question you posed should be telling you something about your faith.

 

OK.... I'll bite (for a little while).

 

What exactly should my willingness to seriously consider the question tell me about my faith?

 

...that you don't have any. If you truly believed, the question would be just as rediculous as the gravity question to you.

 

 

Spamandham, I don't see the correlation here. It is impossible to throw things up and they don't come down unless we're in outer space.

 

You say it's impossible because you know it. The question is rediculous because you know it makes no sense. It isn't logically impossible, but it defies your experience. We don't give serious consideration to positions that violate what we know. We have to be shown that gravity does not always work before we would be willing to consider it.

 

However.... why do you say it is impossible that bones could be found that marks the grave of Jesus?

 

No. I'm saying that to someone who actually has the faith they think they have, such a question would not be given serious consideration, just as the gravity question wouldn't be. A willingess to make such consideration shows that the belief is not based on faith, but rather, is just ordinary belief. Ordinary belief can be challenged with reason and evidence.

[Open_Minded]

You willingness to seriously consider the question you posed should be telling you something about your faith.

OK.... I'll bite (for a little while).

 

What exactly should my willingness to seriously consider the question tell me about my faith?

...that you don't have any. If you truly believed, the question would be just as rediculous as the gravity question to you.

 

Not sure what you mean when you write, "your faith". You are definitely speaking of something that is personal to me, as you used the word "your". I'm stumping up on the word "faith" here.

 

If you mean faith as a blind adherance to a set doctrine or dogma, you would be correct ... I have no "faith" and never have.

 

If you mean faith as in my belief in a Sacred Oneness that is in all, through, all and beyond all (in the sense that the ALL is more than its parts) then I would say - the question has absolutely no bearing on my "faith". My faith is not, and never has been dependent upon the physical (flesh and bones) resurrection of Jesus.

 

However.... why do you say it is impossible that bones could be found that marks the grave of Jesus?

 

No. I'm saying that to someone who actually has the faith they think they have, such a question would not be given serious consideration, just as the gravity question wouldn't be. A willingess to make such consideration shows that the belief is not based on faith, but rather, is just ordinary belief. Ordinary belief can be challenged with reason and evidence.

 

Ok... what's your point ...

 

Still willing to bite ... for just a bit longer.

[Amanda]

No. I'm saying that to someone who actually has the faith they think they have, such a question would not be given serious consideration, just as the gravity question wouldn't be. A willingess to make such consideration shows that the belief is not based on faith, but rather, is just ordinary belief. Ordinary belief can be challenged with reason and evidence.

Spamandham, my influence of my beliefs are not contingent on Jesus being a real person, and I think Open Minded feels the same way. However, I do think that some guy referred to by the name Jesus was a real man... just a normal person like ALL of us, no supernatural anything... just wise beliefs in spiritual teachings. Based on my tested faith, which is in these teachings... not the person, and yet I do think at this time the person probably did exist. I wasn't aware of all the mythology involved till Mythra and others pointed out undeniable resources that seem to point to a lot of myths on this matter, yet I believe them to be superimposed on this man like we did with Saint Nicholas. I was rather shocked to discover through debates on this site that there really is no SOLID evidence of his existence as of yet. But according to MY present beliefs... it is still possible to find the grave of Jesus. I surely don't think his physical body ascended into the sky, so it would have to be here on the earth! The problem is that it would be difficult to know it beyond a reasonable doubt that it was truly him. I guess I do have just an ordinary belief.

[Ziggy]

What would happen to Christianity as a religion, and what would happen to our own personal faith, if some archealogist somewhere found an ossuary with the inscription - "Jesus of Nazerth - King of the Jews" - inscribed on it (filled with bones).

 

I mean think about it, Christianity would have proof Jesus existed, but it's also proof that the resurrection did not involve the physical body of Jesus. My questions to the Christians who frequent this board are:

1. What would happen to your personal faith?
   
2. Is your faith based on something other than the literal interpretation of the Bible?
   

 

Hi OM As you know I am on a path seeking spiritual meaning among the debris of literal christianity.

You have made me think .. and if you'll permit me I'll write wayward thoughts down

I too have meetings in our church similar to yours so this is interesting

 

My thoughts on an Alternative Christian perspective

 

What did Christ come to save us from? Death or hell? Obviously not death (ie end of physical human life) because that assumes no afterlife and .. well .. everyone dies without exception so if he was trying to save us from that it didn't work!.

 

So its clear he was supposed to save us from hell - to ensure our enternal souls safety.

 

So...WHY did he have to die a human physical death at all? If his death on the cross had not happened he would have died a physical death anyway - of old age or illness. Same outcome but less dramatic and painful - and crucially could not be seen as a sacrifice. By dying on on the cross all he did physically was sacrifice 30 years of physical life - not a nice thing but not exactly the grandiose sacrifice for all mankind we have been taught

 

And more to the point (in this thread anyway) what was the point in a Physical resurrection? There is no need for bones in heaven so why take them? If there were no bones ... how does that PROVE that he has was able to save you IN THE AFTERLIFE?

 

So ...It makes no sense to take make too much of the physical death;

If there were bones found it would not detract from the story because a physical death is Human and of no consequence. He could still have done what he was supposed to have done without picking up his bones afterwards

If there were no bones found ... how does that PROVE that he has was able to save you IN THE AFTERLIFE anyway? Even if Physically he did come back from the dead you would still need faith in the unseen to believe that he was able to save all mankind from eternal hell.

 

Which takes us back to the Cross being symbolic ..

[Open_Minded]

I wasn't aware of all the mythology involved till Mythra and others pointed out undeniable resources that seem to point to a lot of myths on this matter, yet I believe them to be superimposed on this man like we did with Saint Nicholas. I was rather shocked to discover through debates on this site that there really is no SOLID evidence of his existence as of yet. But according to MY present beliefs... it is still possible to find the grave of Jesus. I surely don't think his physical body ascended into the sky, so it would have to be here on the earth! The problem is that it would be difficult to know it beyond a reasonable doubt that it was truly him. I guess I do have just an ordinary belief.

 

Hello Amanda:

 

There is a lot of mythology around the New Testament documents. That can not be argued, nor would I argue it. But let's keep things in perspective shall we. Just because the New Testament contains a lot of mythology that is common for the time and place the books were written in, does not mean that Jesus himself was a myth. See the following article:

 

http://www.wikimirror.com/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

Jesus as myth

Main article: Jesus-Myth

Some scholars argue that Jesus may never have existed outside of the mythological realm at all; in support of this claim, they cite a lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers, insufficient physical evidence, and similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts. Perhaps most prolific of these Biblical scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is the professor of German George Albert Wells. However, currently the position that Jesus never existed is a minority view among scholars.

 

Simply put ... the scholars are (and have been) arguing about this for decades. They will continue to argue and at this point in time it is not possible to prove either way.

 

On a personal level - I have not always considered myself Christian. I am the daughter of a man who had books all over the house about the "Jesus Myth" as I was coming of age. For years I was a skeptic ... on that count. I do not consider myself a skeptic anymore - regarding whether Jesus lived (or not). To me - the multiple writings - from different pens - about this one life just grew too fast and spread too far in a time period before the press and modern communication to be mere "myth".

 

Finding the historical Jesus is about impossible - but ... I do believe he existed and that he had such an impact on people that those writings grew and distributed at a rate that even the skeptics can not wash away.

 

On a side note: As I just stated scholars have been arguing about this for a long time, with no difinitive answer - so please don't ask for a debate from me. You'll find I'm not willing to participate. When all is said and done, my faith is dependent upon the WORD, the LOGOS, the infinite eternal I AM, the ALPHA and OMEGA. If someone came along tomorrow and proved Jesus was in fact a myth, it would not stop my search for the things that my faith IS dependent on.

 

.... So ...It makes no sense to take make too much of the physical death;

If there were bones found it would not detract from the story because a physical death is Human and of no consequence. He could still have done what he was supposed to have done without picking up his bones afterwards

If there were no bones found ... how does that PROVE that he has was able to save you IN THE AFTERLIFE anyway? Even if Physically he did come back from the dead you would still need faith in the unseen to believe that he was able to save all mankind from eternal hell.

 

Which takes us back to the Cross being symbolic ..

 

Hello Robert - you make some good points. Objectively speaking I know that followers of Jesus had to make sense out of his death and that it stands to reason they would do so in ways that were familiar to them - ie. a blood sacrifice.

 

But, what troubles me is that in the 2006 so many are still holding onto this. They are not willing to look beyond the words on a page to discover what underlies it all. I suppose it's just too much work to go deeper.

[NotBlinded]

What did Christ come to save us from? Death or hell? Obviously not death (ie end of physical human life) because that assumes no afterlife and .. well .. everyone dies without exception so if he was trying to save us from that it didn't work!.

 

So its clear he was supposed to save us from hell - to ensure our enternal souls safety.

I believe this 'hell' is the egoic part of the mind that is spoken of in the old testament about being 'double minded'. There are several references to this in the NT, but I am being lazy today!

 

So...WHY did he have to die a human physical death at all? If his death on the cross had not happened he would have died a physical death anyway - of old age or illness. Same outcome but less dramatic and painful - and crucially could not be seen as a sacrifice. By dying on on the cross all he did physically was sacrifice 30 years of physical life - not a nice thing but not exactly the grandiose sacrifice for all mankind we have been taught

I think the suffering on the cross has to to with the awakening that can occur through suffering.

 

And more to the point (in this thread anyway) what was the point in a Physical resurrection? There is no need for bones in heaven so why take them? If there were no bones ... how does that PROVE that he has was able to save you IN THE AFTERLIFE?

I don't think Jesus was ever addressing the afterlife. Only the here and now (or then and there), which is still applicable to today. The physical resurrection had to do with the death of the ego and being 'reborn' into a pure state of consciousness (or eternal life).

 

If there were no bones found ... how does that PROVE that he has was able to save you IN THE AFTERLIFE anyway? Even if Physically he did come back from the dead you would still need faith in the unseen to believe that he was able to save all mankind from eternal hell.

 

Which takes us back to the Cross being symbolic ..

Symbolic indeed, IMO. Jesus was speaking of the split minds of people. One being of Satan (ego) and the other of God (peace, joy, love).

 

Sorry I'm so short today...I have to really work at work today!

[Antlerman]

On a personal level - I have not always considered myself Christian. I am the daughter of a man who had books all over the house about the "Jesus Myth" as I was coming of age. For years I was a skeptic ... on that count. I do not consider myself a skeptic anymore - regarding whether Jesus lived (or not). To me - the multiple writings - from different pens - about this one life just grew too fast and spread too far in a time period before the press and modern communication to be mere "myth".

 

Finding the historical Jesus is about impossible - but ... I do believe he existed and that he had such an impact on people that those writings grew and distributed at a rate that even the skeptics can not wash away.

Well.... I hate to challenge you on this point, but that last comment about the distribution rate is something the skeptics cannot wash away? Actually, it can be taken as an indication of it not being based around a historical personage:

 

Where and how did Christianity begin? The traditional view, of course, is that it began in Jerusalem among the Twelve Apostles in response to Jesus' death and resurrection. But this is untenable, and not just because of a lack of any historical Jesus.

 

Within a handful of years of Jesus' supposed death, we find Christian communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, their founders unknown. Rome had Jewish Christians no later than the 40s, and a later churchman ("Ambrosiaster" in the 4th century) remarked that the Romans had believed in Christ even without benefit of preaching by the Apostles. Paul could not possibly account for all the Christian centers across the Empire; many were in existence before he got there. Nor does he convey much sense of a vigorous and widespread missionary activity on the part of the Jerusalem circle around Peter and James. (That comes only with Acts.)

 

A form of Christian faith later declared heretical, Gnosticism, preceded the establishment of orthodox beliefs and churches in whole areas like northern Syria and Egypt. Indeed,

the sheer variety of Christian expression and competitiveness in the first century, as revealed in documents both inside and outside the New Testament, is inexplicable if it all proceeded from a single missionary movement beginning from a single source

. We find a profusion of radically different rituals, doctrines and interpretations of Jesus and his redeeming role; some even have a Jesus who does not undergo death and resurrection.

 

Paul meets rivals at every turn who are interfering with his work, whose views he is trying to combat. The "false apostles" he rails against in 2 Corinthians 10 and 11 are "proclaiming another Jesus" and they are certainly not from Peter's group (See Supplementary Article No. 1: Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate). Where do they all come from and where do they get their ideas?

 

The answer seems inevitable: Christianity was born in a thousand places, in the broad fertile soil of Hellenistic Judaism. It sprang up in many independent communities and sects, expressing itself in a great variety of doctrines. We see this variety in everything from Paul to the writings of the so-called community of John, from the unique Epistle to the Hebrews to non-canonical documents like the Odes of Solomon and a profusion of gnostic texts.

It was all an expression of the new religious philosophy of the Son, and it generated an apostolic movement fueled by visionary inspiration and a study of scripture

, impelled by the conviction that God's Kingdom was at hand.

 

<snip>

 

This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying. This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark.

By rights, our sources should be numerous. Christian missionaries, supposedly led by the Twelve Apostles, fanned out across the empire; oral transmission, we are told, kept alive and constantly revitalized the story of Jesus' words and deeds. Written versions of that story should have sprung up in many centres, truly independent and notably divergent. Yet when Matthew comes to write his own version of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, all he can do is slavishly copy some document he has inherited

, adding a few minor details of his own, such as the guard at the tomb. Luke does little more.

 

My point is, that even this point about the causes for the growth rate is far from a compelling argument. I do agree though, that it can never be proven either way that he existed or didn't exist. Back full circle, do we need a historical basis for faith?

[Amethyst]

I would say you do need a historical basis, but then the faith should change into more of a philosophy than a religion, and people shouldn't be required to worship Jesus any more than they are required to worship Socrates.

[NotBlinded]

I would say you do need a historical basis, but then the faith should change into more of a philosophy than a religion, and people shouldn't be required to worship Jesus any more than they are required to worship Socrates.

 

I think worshiping the 'man' or the 'form' of Jesus is a mistake. IMO, it goes against the message he was trying to get across and that message can be found elsewhere. It's the message that's important, not the man.