It's easy for people to imagine the typical blonde-haired blue-eyed fantasy that so many images portray, helping to make him a fictional character, and in a way, more likely to be overlooked by those who look in from outside. A man, who having experienced so much pain and suffering, for preaching love and forgiveness, at his moment of death, asks God to forgive them because they didn't understand what they were doing, ends a life that sets in motion something, unfortunately corrupted by man once he realised the power it had to control, that still exists, and is felt and believed by millions today. We can debate whether he really lived, what the message really was, or whether he was who people think he was, etc, etc, but in a way, none of it matters. Perhaps those who hold the Christian faith hold very specific views about it all, but for me, the crux of it is about becoming more than we know ourselves to be, knowing the divinity within, and the difference this makes when we do. No need for stories, dogma, or repeating rituals and words by rote week after week. No need to attend grand buildings fronted by people in fancy dress. The reason the OP states 'Jesus is your best friend', I think, seeing as how he hasn't come back to clarify it himself, is that to love who this man was that much, as one might love a brother who is here now, creates something real within. Those who imagine 'what would Jesus do' when unsure, and mean it, opens them to something else, and in allowing it, lets it feel as if it is real, and real or not historically, makes it become real in a way that those who feel it are in no doubt of the difference it makes in their lives. If you think about someone you really love and respect, who you've never met, and when they speak or do something, you always pay attention, always open to what that might be, trusting it, feeling good about it, because it feels good to do so. Perhaps this starts to approach the feeling that might make someone feel Jesus is their best friend.
No hate. Just no proof. There are no books written by contemporary historians about "Jesus". The only "evidence" that supports his existence is contained within the Gospels, the "greatest story ever told".
Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,<sup>[7]</sup><sup>[8]</sup><sup>[9]</sup><sup>[10]</sup> although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.<sup>[11]</sup><sup>[12]</sup><sup>[13]</sup><sup>[14]</sup> <sup>^^^^ </sup> <sup>Historically speaking, YES this man existed..</sup> Reading Gnostic gospels and finding the mystical things about this man, Yeshua... I realize now he was liberating mankind but this happens with conciousness.. I see lots of Christians but they're all too busy running around condeming people over the bible. They think all those words in there are the word of God when all they are, are men who have met God. Who spoke with God. That was their interpretation. though it is not infallble.. Hebrew folks have a better grasp of all of that usually because it is in their language.. There's a smoke screen on the english language and King James Bible is tripe... Anyway, the people who say they LOVE jesus yet condem gay people or anyone else for having tattoos, pre marital sex, or any lifestyle choice, FORGET that they are casting stones when they are not without sin, and leaving out parts about unclean foods and breaking every rule they stand for whilst simultaneously keeping score on someone else... HYPOCRITESSSSS hahah But yeah historically I finally understand, after a strange half Jewish upbringing and a lot of experiences.. out of body ones at that Read the Gospel of Thomas.... no esoteric work is more capable of changing your life or understanding of "Jesus"
Interesting. From the very same wiki' article that you posted... There is no physical or archeological evidence for Jesus, and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[33] In conjunction with Biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[34] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[34][35] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[36][37] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[38][39][40][41] Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[42] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[43] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[44] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[43][45][46][47][48][49][49][50][51] There are no history books written about Jesus...
@waktoo Yeah I read the full article... But I believe the archeological discoveries that unearthed all the ancient writings of these "gnostic" texts are valuable.. If only from a philosophical stand point. I do not do fundmentalism.
The reason I quoted that article was to show that most in academia regard the historical Jesus to be a character OUTSIDE of the Christain faith and their version of his life. It doesn't account for the miracles and mystical teachings of course. But it is regarded that the man existed, outside of this... Interesting thing for your to want me to see though? haha
Jim Jones is my friend too I like to throw house parties with Jesus, Jim, Muhammad, Aphrodite, and of course the lovely Athena. Sometimes Marduk shows up with Tiamat but I don't really hang out with them very much anymore ever since they starting rolling with Krishna and Apollo's crew. Its cool when Jesus shows up though because he can turn pretty much anything into alcohol but he gets kinda weird and just sorta disappears when the orgies start.
Bert Erhman would disagree with you, along with just about every other expert in the field (except Richard Carrier). We must assume you really dont know what you are talking about, or that you have only exposed yourself to the few experts that even question the historicity of Jesus.
I was under the impression that it is widely accepted by Christians that there are no contemporary historical sources? They wrote about him later and historians agree he existed, but no one wrote about him until generations after he was dead I did a(n admittedly) quick google search about it and came up bupkus, no contemporary historical sources for jesus Read the wiki too Edit: This Bart (its with an A) Ehrman guy seems to disagree with your statements about him (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_Jesus_research_methods) "Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.<sup>[136]</sup><sup>[137]</sup> On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.<sup>[138]"</sup>
You are probably right wakoo was talking about THEN contemporary historians, i thought he meant NOW contemporary. My bad, I misunderstood his use of the word.
Btw your source specifies 'scarcity' not absence, but that wasnt the point I was making so thats irrelevant. I thought wakoo was saying no current historians are writting books about Jesus. Thats why I assumed he had no idea what he was talking about, but as I said I misunderstood him (which is why I mentioned a living historian lol)
I think so. We should discuss who Jesus likely was. If Jesus was real, starting a movent (not a religion) that lead to Christianity is pretty interesting. I would think a cultural movement against authority (which appears to me what he was doing) would be a huge threat to the powers at that time (religions, kingdoms, bankers). Having said that, i would think those powers did everything they could to counter this movement. Well we still have bankers, religions and 'kingdoms'/nation and an obviously delegitimized cultural movement now called Christianity, so it seems the powers won that one. Its sad most Christians dont understand this. The Bible and religions seem to try to paint Jesus as someone he was not. The Bible has been changed or designed to say that Jesus actually supported the powers. It is like the movement was absorbed and crafted into a religion that worships a God of war and debt. Its easy to see why this concept is present... but if you compare even what the Bible says about Jesus, it contradicts itself. Jesus was about no authority, the God Yahweh is nothing but an authority. This is a clear contradiction to me. I think Jesus may have been referring to Infinity, but definitely not the Yahweh character. I think Yahweh was inserted as the Infinity Jesus was represening, a deliberate strategy of the powers I mentioned. What do you think of that as a possibility? It seems pretty clear to me Christians dont actually represent the person they think they are, so something happened.
That raises another question, were texts actually recorded by contemporaries and hunted down and destroyed by the church? So now the Bible is the only text that remains about who he really was. This is unfortunate because I bet the true story would be interesting. Hell we know some books were removed, interestingly called the 'psuedepigrapha' (psuedo/false, grapha/text. Anyone have any insight on this?