Did Jesus Christ Exist as a historical person? If so, who was he?

[AmericanEvil]

Traditional Vedic dharma is the ideal ideology. It's philosophy is almost perfect.

Unfortunately, manginas and feminists have destroyed the religion. Hence, why India is going to be absolutely destroyed in the coming world war. Indians are infidels who have rejected their own religion and culture. They are lower than a dog.

[Winston]

Check out this hot Atheist girl on YouTube named Jaclyn Glenn vehemently arguing that Jesus is a lie borrowed from pagan myths. She is hot but her voice gets annoying after a while.

[bladed11]

Actually if you read the bible and take it as prophetic it clearly states Jesus is coming to cleanse the face of the Earth of both satanists and many "lukewarm christians" alike. Read it again and learn devil boy.

[Winston]

There are other sites saying the same thing about other famous religious figures.

Most religions and the events and characters in them are symbolisms. The main problem with a lot of religious believers is that they take literally what should be taken symbolically.

The religious heroes such as Jesus and the Buddha, are either totally not real or are mostly legends based on some real events which were very different but got exaggerated and distorted later because there were no good ways of recording events then. Mostly, such holy people just represent ideals and philosophies of life. When people believe in Jesus, it is basically believing in forgiveness, eternal life, the fact that faith can in fact perform miracles, and following the principles he represented. To draw a parallel with the East, his character represents being an Indian boddhisattva ( a person who sacrifices himself for others) and teaches people to be selfless and kind to others. It also teaches that life is eternal and that with faith one can expiate one's sins/bad karma earlier and one will not have to go through the agony of having to pay for every little thing one had done in the past. So, Jesus is basically a symbolic representation of a proper way of life.

There are also people who say that King David and King Solomon were just some small village chiefs but because there was no way to record things accurately in those times, the info became distorted and exaggerated.

This is a great point that makes sense. I would agree along the same lines. There are also too many parallel events and numbers between Jesus and Buddha, that you have to wonder if both their stories come from similar sources.

However, I think it's too much of a stretch to claim that they never existed. It is way too implausible that someone who never existed and was simply "made up" could spawn a religion that endured three centuries of Roman persecution, became the official mandated religion in all of Europe during the Middle Ages, and is now the world's most popular religion. Something made up, fabricated or hoaxed, could not have accomplished all that. Deep down, people can feel the difference between truth and falsehoods. This is why hoaxes don't tend to go very far. So I think this theory is far too much of a stretch and highly implausible.

Plus, claiming that someone never existed is an extreme claim, and unprovable as well. One cannot prove a negative. It is more probable that a historical Jesus existed, but that his message was subverted down the line by those wishing to use it for political control, such as Emperor Constantine, who most likely created the orthodox version of Christianity by combining Jesus' teachings with pagan rituals and Roman hierarchical structures into what became the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, the version of Jesus given by the church today is likely not the same as the historical Jesus. Most neutral objective historians hold this view as well.

[ChampionKaji]

No.

[Winston]

Bart Ehrman, a distinguished Bible scholar, historian and former Christian, made a great point in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" about why a historical Jesus existed.

He said that no one at the time was expecting a messiah that would be crucified. A crucified messiah was never part of Jewish beliefs prior to Christianity. So if someone were to make up a messiah, he would make up a great warrior or king figure that won many battles and freed many slaves, like King David or Moses. They would not make up a messiah that was executed by the Romans in the most humiliating way. That would mean that the messiah was defeated and failed. It would be a downer and would not inspire people.

So most likely there was a historical Jesus who was crucified, which left his followers confused and disillusioned. So they began looking for a way to justify a crucified messiah. They reinvented the whole theology of the Old Testament, and claimed that it was God's plan all along to have the messiah crucified to wash away our sins. In doing so, they embellished stories about Jesus, including his alleged resurrection.

This is in fact, the view that most historians hold about the historical Jesus. You can listen to Bart Ehrman's interviews about this here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... art+erhman

Furthermore, Dr. Ehrman says that the Romans did not commonly worship dying and rising pagan saviors. He says that is a myth that Atheists created that is not backed up by historical evidence. I don't know about this and have not looked into it. But if he's right, then I wonder where Archarya S got her sources.

I think that Dr. Ehrman is probably right. Plus, a hoax can only go so far. People can feel the difference between truth and falsehood at a deeper level. For example, women usually know when their partner is cheating on them, even when they have no evidence. They can sense it at an instinctual and intuitive level. Likewise, people can feel out a hoax eventually, even if they fall for it at first. It loses its power over them over time.

Also, a hoax does not result in millions of lives being transformed, and early Christians enduring three centuries of Roman persecution. Nor can a hoax become the world's biggest religion. A hoax does not have the power to transform lives, answer prayers (in ways that coincidences can't, which Atheists can't explain and can only dismiss) and perform real miracles (many of which are documented and attested to by multiple eyewitnesses). It just would not make sense.

Even if the Bible and Christian doctrine are not literally true, there does seem to be something very real behind the power of Christianity. Even as a non-Christian, I can see this. It's obvious. But we could say the same for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even New Age beliefs too. There seems to be something very real and transformative behind those religions as well. Most likely, they all contain kernels of truth at some level in their teachings. After all, all beliefs have some degree of truth in them, and this includes religious beliefs as well.

The problem with Christianity is that it has gotten a bad rap from fanatical literalists, and people who have done great wrong in its name (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Trials, punishment and executions of opposers to the Church, subjugation of native tribes, etc). It has also become too institutionalized and subjected to politics, power, control and money (especially with the Catholic Church). It also makes extreme claims, such as if you accept Jesus as your Savior you will go to Heaven, but if you don't, you will go to Hell.

All of this has contributed to its highly controversial reputation. But most likely, it has deviated greatly from the original teachings of its founder, Jesus, and his early disciples. So if you remove all that, it becomes not as bad, and perhaps you can then find some truth in it.

Perhaps if we learn to look at these religions more as symbolic metaphors of truth, rather than as literal truth, they would make a lot more sense to the reasoning mind. After all, taking religion too literally results in too many logical problems that cannot be resolved.

So I think that's the best way to approach this. We should see mankind's religions as ideas which point to a higher truth, and serve as archetypes of our collective consciousness. Even Buddhism and Zen teaches that their religion is like a finger pointing at the moon. The finger is not the moon itself of course, it merely points to it.

It would make a lot more sense to look at religion this way. If we did, it would end the perpetual squabbling and debate between different religious beliefs, religion and science, theism and atheism, etc. In doing so, such dualities and dichotomies would be transcended. I think this view would be far wiser and more reasonable than grappling with literal interpretations that cannot be proven or disproven one way or another.

[Jester]

listening to this right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORL124b3lU8



It made me think of Winston and other truthseekers here on HA

So I thought it would share it with you

[Moretorque]

I missed you Jester......



I thought I missed you then I hit the link and BOOM, The BBC

[Winston]

It is true that there is no historical documentation for a historical Jesus to have existed. However, I think the balance of probability is that he did exist. Let me explain why.

Firstly, the difference between the historicity of Jesus as opposed to say, Julius Caesar, is that there are plenty of official historical Roman documents attesting to the existence of Julius Caesar. In contrast, there are no historical references about Jesus until 50 years after he supposedly died on the cross. And these historical references are spurious and suspicious too. For example, the paragraph about Jesus in Josephus' writing is sudden and interrupts the flow of the text, so that it seems out of context. And it wasn't referenced until hundreds of years later. That indicates that the passage may have been a forgery or interpolation, added in by the Catholic Church many years later.

But of course, just because no historical documents existed about Jesus doesn't mean he didn't exist either. Most people that existed throughout history were not written about by historians, but that doesn't prove that they never existed. So you can't prove either way if Jesus existed just from lack of documentation alone.

Most mainstream historians and scholars do believe that Jesus existed, but that the historical Jesus was not like the one depicted in the Christian Gospels. I think they believe that Jesus existed, despite the lack of evidence and documentation, for the following reasons:

1) They don't want to appear too radical or extreme. And claiming that a central figure of history didn't exist, is indeed a radical claim.

2) Logic says that every religious movement or cult must have a founder or originator. So that's probably true in the case of Christianity too. Some may argue that Paul was the founder of Christianity, however, it is unlikely that Paul could have founded a new religion based on someone who never existed, especially right after Jesus supposedly existed and conducted his ministry for three years. It's more likely that Paul reshaped and reformed Christianity while spreading it around, making it available for the Gentiles too, not just the Jews. He popularized it for a more mainstream audience.

3) Hoaxes usually only last for a few days or a few weeks before they are exposed and come to an end. They are not usually long-lasting. They don't last for 2000 years and become a dominant world religion. So it's unlikely for Christianity to be a total fabrication. Especially since it has changed so many lives, often for the better. Hoaxes don't have the power to change lives or perform miracles, and neither does the power of belief or placebo effect alone, without something to back it up. Believing in a hoax is a form of self-delusion, and delusions do not usually change lives for the better, at least not in the millions for two millenia.

Therefore, despite the lack of historical documentation of Jesus' existence, the balance of probability rests on the side that he did exist. So I agree with mainstream scholars on this. But whether or not the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels are the same, is another matter and can't be proven one way or another.

However, it is obvious that the Gospel writers did have an agenda and bias, which is evident from their writings, and that was to convert new people to the Christian faith. Biased people usually cherry pick their info of course. But what's suspicious is that none of the authors of the Four Gospels ever revealed who they were so that the sources could be checked. That is very auspicious and virtually makes the authors anonymous. And anonymous sources do not carry much credibility, as we all know.

Now it is true that the Romans took Christianity and subverted it for their own political purposes, as Emperor Constantine did. But that doesn't mean that the Romans totally made up Christianity - as Joseph Atwill claims in his documentary "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus" and Acharya S (DM Murdock) claims in her book "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold". It's more likely that the Romans took a pre-existing movement and subverted it and infiltrated it, much like how the powers that be do today with movements that go against them. The Romans also mixed in elements of Roman Pagan religions as well, to create Roman Catholicism.

This guy explains it well:

http://montalk.net/notes/on-the-historicity-of-jesus

"It’s a lot easier to hijack something than to fabricate it. Instead of inventing a totally non-existent character of Jesus Christ and selling that product to the masses, it makes more sense that the authorities would consolidate already existing paradigms into a single system. The purpose of such a system would be to portray these authorities as divinely sanctioned.

Assimilated paradigms included Mithraism, Greek Neo-Platonism, and Judaism. For instance, the solar/zodiacal elements in Christianity came from Mithraism and related pagan systems. But these are just auxiliary additions, not the core nucleus of Christianity. The nucleus is the original Christian system, which existed alongside the other elements prior to their combined assimilation into an organized religion."

Hope that makes sense and gives you the big picture view of things. For more reasons on why Jesus Christ probably existed, see Bart Erhman's book, "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and his interviews/lectures on YouTube:


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... art+erhman

Bart Erhman's latest new book also seems interesting:

Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

[Hero]

It is true that there is no historical documentation for a historical Jesus to have existed.

The Roman historian Flavius Josephus recorded the existence of Jesus. And he's a totally unbiased source. He was by no means a Christian, so he had no reason to lie.

[Winston]

It is true that there is no historical documentation for a historical Jesus to have existed.

The Roman historian Flavius Josephus recorded the existence of Jesus. And he's a totally unbiased source. He was by no means a Christian, so he had no reason to lie.

Not true. Josephus was on the payroll of the Roman Emperor. So of course he had to write what the emperor wanted. He was their propagandist. He was also a Jew, and Jews would never say that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. That would be blasphemy. Plus the passage he wrote about Jesus was sudden and out of context. It didn't flow with the rest of the text before and after it. Also, that Josephus passage was never referenced by Christian theologians until a few hundred years later. This suggests that is was an interpolation, added in by Christians many years after Josephus lived. Finally, Josephus lived many years after Jesus did. He wasn't there at the time that Jesus was, and so if he really wrote that, he was quoting 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay about Jesus, not firsthand accounts of those who knew or met Jesus.

[The_Adventurer]

However, I think it's too much of a stretch to claim that they never existed. It is way too implausible that someone who never existed and was simply "made up" could spawn a religion that endured three centuries of Roman persecution,...

Let's wait and see what people say about Batman centuries down the road...

[Hero]

https://warrenkramer.quora.com/On-Histo ... -Standards

[Winston]

In the podcast below, Ralph Ellis explains why Jesus is missing from the historical record. He has an unusual theory that Mr S says makes a lot of sense and explains all the anomalies about the historicity of Jesus. The theory has connections to the King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table legend too. If interested, see below.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb3lsE6Xhmw[/youtube]

[Winston]

Check this out. Researcher and author Ralph Ellis has done a lot of historical digging and found out who the real historical Jesus was. His conclusions are very shocking and unusual, but people say his work is very scholarly. Apparently, Ellis traced the historical Jesus to a political King who led a revolt in the Roman Empire and tried to become Emperor of Rome in 70 AD. So Jesus lived in 70 AD, not 0 to 33 AD. That's why you don't find Jesus in any historical records of 30 to 33 AD, but you do find him in historical records of 70 AD and after.

Ralph Ellis' books on Amazon.com:
https://www.amazon.com/Ralph-Ellis/e/B0034PJHIE/

Ralph Ellis' podcast interviews on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... alph+ellis

Here are excerpts from his website below.

http://www.edfu-books.com/index.html

2013 ... King Jesus

Yet another year or so goes by and yet another startling revelation has been uncovered in the gospel stories. In fact, one could go as far as saying that this is the book that the Catholic Church has been dreading for the last 1700 years - this is the book that will end Christianity as we know it. And this is not advertising hyperbole, this really is the end of the Christian fairytale that Jesus was a mere pauper artisan.

We now know exactly who Jesus was, and he was far removed from the stereotype pauper imagery we have been told (or sold). Readers can now visit his city, see the ruins of his citadel, gaze upon his statue, and even handle his coins. In reality, Jesus was a son of King Abgarus of Edessa, a king with a small realm, a large treasury, and even bigger ambitions. Thus Jesus' true history undermines much of the biblical fairy-story that the gospel authors crafted, and so Christianity will never be the same again.

The jacket image shows Jesus wearing his Crown of Thorns, the ceremonial crown of the Edessan monarchy.

We suggest that readers start with the books Cleopatra to Christ and then King Jesus. The anticipation before arriving at the last episode in the trilogy will be worthwhile enduring, for if a book could be valued on its 'eureka moments' then this book would be priceless.

http://www.edfu-books.com/books.html

The Grail Cypher -- Released 24th September 2015

The Grail Cypher

• The history of King Arthur was modeled upon the life of Jesus.
• Jesus-Arthur had 12 disciple-knights of Round (Last Supper) Table.

Are you willing to have your view of Arthurian, British and Christian history challenged? Are you ready to accept the esoteric mysteries and heresies of the Knights Templar? Once we understand that Jesus and Arthur shared a common history, the rest of Arthurian legend starts to fall into place. So join Ralph on an extraordinary tour of Arthurian history, much of which you did not even know existed:

    • Jesus' son was the king of Palmyra
    • St. Peter was the Guardian of the Holy Grail
    • Pompey the Great and the pirates of Gibraltar
    • Secrets of Mithras and the bull of Taurus
    • King Arthur's battle with Vespasian
    • The Roman creation of Christianity
    • The Holy Grail was brought to Earth by aliens
    • Sir Galahad dressed as a woman
    • The burial of Jesus-Arthur at Stonehenge

These are all elements of the Arthurian chronicles that have remained unexplored and unexplained until now. Yet how can we comprehend the true history of King Arthur, if we have not considered the entire corpus of this labyrinthine story? But if we bring all these many diverse strands together and decipher their true meaning, they explain a great deal about the history of Europe, Britain and Christianity.

The King Jesus Trilogy includes the following books:

(1) Cleopatra to Christ
The biblical family was descended from a daughter of Queen Cleopatra, who became the queen of Parthia.
  • Amazon Kindle tablet: Cleopatra to Christ.
  • Createspace paperback: Cleopatra to Christ.

(2) King Jesus
St. Paul (Saul) was Josephus Flavius the historian. But this means that the biblical Jesus MUST be Jesus of Gamala, the leader of the Jewish Revolt. This rebel prince was then exiled to Dewa, a prison fortress in Britain.
  • Amazon Kindle tablet: King Jesus.
  • Createspace paperback: King Jesus.

(3) Jesus, King of Edessa
The history of Jesus of Gamala is further refined, and he has been identified as King Izas-Jesus of Edessa. King Izas led the Jewish Revolt, but was captured and crucified while wearing the Edessan ceremonial Crown of Thorns.
  • Amazon Kindle tablet: Jesus, King of Edessa.
  • Createspace paperback: Jesus, King of Edessa.

** and now **

(4) The Grail Cypher
Arthurian history was derived from the same history as the biblical story of the Jewish Revolt. Thus the history of King Arthur was based upon the history of King Jesus-Izas.
  • Amazon Kindle tablet: The Grail Cypher.
  • Createspace paperback: The Grail Cypher.

Jesus, King of Edessa

Edessa - cover image

Full release 6th March 2013 - on iBooks, Nook, Kindle and in paperback.

The biblical Jesus - discovered in the historical record.
Contemporary coins and statue of Jesus discovered in Syria.

Why is Jesus missing from the historical record? Jesus was an influential king (the King of the Jews) and probably the most famous monarch of the last two millennia, so why cannot we find archaeological evidence for his life? The answer is that we have been looking in the wrong location.

Following 25 years of research, Ralph Ellis has discovered that Jesus was a prince of Edessa in northern Syria. The Edessan monarchs were Nazarene Jews who helped build the Temple of Jerusalem and saved Judaea from starvation during a great famine. But, just like Jesus, they were also religious and political revolutionaries who tried to take control of Judaea, but were thwarted by the Roman Army. Thus there are many links and similarities between the biblical accounts and the princes and kings of Edessa.

However, in addition to this, Ralph Ellis has discovered that one of the princes of Edessa had the same names as Jesus. Jesus was called (King) Jesus Emmanuel, while one of the Edessan monarchs was called King Izas Manu(el). Equally interesting, is the fact that all of the Edessan monarchs wore a plaited Crown of Thorns. The biblical Jesus was crucified wearing this same plaited Crown of Thorns because he was this very same prince and king of Edessa.

Thus we now know who Jesus was, where he lived, and who his family were. Visit his city, see the ruins of his citadel, gaze upon his statue, handle his coins. In reality, Jesus was a son of King Abgarus au Kama of Edessa, a minor princeling with a small realm, a large treasury, and even bigger ambitions. But the so-called Wise Prince of northern Syria came up against an intractable Rome, and his many plans crumbled to dust. The historical records then indicate that this revolutionary prince of Edessa was crucified outside Jerusalem, along with two other leaders of the revolt, but he was reprieved and taken down from the cross by a man called Joseph(us). And yes, this familiar-sounding account is from the historical record, and not from the gospels.

Readers might imagine that the true history of this region might undermine much of the biblical story that the gospel authors have crafted. But in reality the gospels always did say that Jesus was a Nazarene (Mat 2:23) and a king (Luk 23:38), and so this new analysis changes very little in the gospel story. The only real difference is that the true history of the region indicates that the strategies and goals of King Izas (King Jesus) were much more far-reaching than the gospel accounts like to admit. In reality, the goal of King Izas and the Edessan monarchy was to use their newly united Kingdom of Judaeo-Syria as a springboard to take over the throne of Rome. Yes, King Izas (King Jesus) wanted to become Emperor of Rome - which is why he was so closely linked to the Roman 'Star Prophesy' (the eastern star at his birth), and why he suffered a Roman rather than a Jewish form of punishment.

This is a scholarly study of all the available historical evidence, including the Tanakh, Talmud, Josephus Flavius, the Roman historians, and venerable Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene and Yohannes Drasxanakertci.

We suggest that readers start with 'Cleopatra to Christ' and then 'King Jesus'. The wait before arriving at the last episode in the trilogy will be worthwhile, for if a book could be valued on its 'eureka moments' then this final book would be priceless.

Available on iBook, Nook and Kindle tablets.
Paperback copies available from Adventures Unlimited.

King Jesus, from Kam (Egypt) to Camelot

King Jesus of Judaea was King Arthur of England.

King Jesus - cover image

This book resolves the greatest mystery and international conspiracy of all time, the true origins of Christianity.

The original objective was to confirm that St Paul (Saul) was actually Josephus Flavius. However, this novel identification exposed new perspectives on the life of Jesus, who was actually a king.

"Priests and kings were anointed ...
hence the title 'christ' or 'messiah'
often signified the same as 'king'."
Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke 1832.

Contrary to orthodox perceptions, King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in Syrio-Judaea. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'.

This identification of Jesus as a wealthy, royal, warrior-hero of first century Judaea may sound bizarre, but that is what the texts say. All research and quotations are from original sources, including the New Testament, Tanakh, Talmud, Josephus, Origen, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Herodian, Suetonius, Tacitus, Clement and many others besides. This is a secret history that has been deliberately concealed from us for two millennia - for those feet, in ancient times, did indeed walk upon England's mountains green!

Cleopatra to Christ

Jesus Was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra VII.

&

Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots

Ireland and Scotland Were First Settled by the Descendants of an Egyptian Pharaoh and His Queen.

Book I - Cleopatra to Christ
Why was the birth of a poor 'carpenter' in the first century AD visited by the Magi: the Persian king-makers? Why was Jesus later known as the 'King of the Jews'? There is a great deal of evidence within the New Testament, which demonstrates that Jesus was actually of royal blood. But if this is so, then from which royal family was he descended? Using many strands of contemporary evidence, Ralph Ellis has pieced together a historical jigsaw puzzle, which demonstrates that the biblical Jesus was directly descended from Cleopatra VII, the most famous queen of Egypt. But this is not all, for in piecing this story together it would seem that Jesus also had an aristocratic Roman and royal Persian ancestry too; and it is the latter bloodline element that explains the appearance of Persian Magi at his birth. But why should the New Testament authors obscure the ancestry of such an illustrious prince? Well, the gospel writers were looking for an ideal family as their role model, but this particular royal family hid a dark, unmentionable secret. Join Ralph on the incredible untold story of a king and queen who were exiled to Judaea in 4AD - just a couple of years before the Roman taxation of Judaea, when Jesus is said to have been born.