Last edited:
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
The highly likely existence of Jesus students, and the obvious variations (even contradictions) between various Gospels, especially from the existence of the Gospel of Mary, could be indirectly (but closely related) an valid evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Below is based on the author Esther A. de Boer of http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-gospel-of-mary-9780826480019/ :
Trying to recover his undistorted teaching herself, Mary wrote her book (Gospel of Mary) only because she realised Peter and Paul were alternating Jesus' teachings to suit their own goals.
According to the writer of apocrypha book The Gospel of Mary, Jesus, Mary only called him the Saviour, warmed she not to give rules or laws, lest one become imprisoned by them.
Last edited:
Looks like the same good reason for why Jesus didn't write any books!
Perhaps a typical reason that some great Philosophers/Buddhas did not write any books at all!
Odd Trader,
You're personal view of the situation is unclear to me. And why do you sign off LOL (Laughing Out Loud)?
So i will just state, positively, what the situation actually is/was.
The principle i advocate says that what was true for Jesus is true for all mankind, and visa versa, what is not true for Jesus is not true for mankind.
I'm not sure this principle has been so clearly laid out in any early doctrines beyond some implications, such as Paul's poetry suggesting; If he died, we died. If he lived, we live.
Also poetic, the meme "he died for us", really means he represented mankind in every way. That meaning was lost when theology evolved to make him special.
So for a long time now, Christianity has expressed cognitive dissonance as it cannot make up it's mind how to reconcile the specialness of Jesus, with the sameness of Jesus.
In it's worst expression, Jesus is made so special as to be the only one good enough to be accepted as a bloody sacrifice unto death, for the salvation of mankind.
I am emphasizing the sameness. Those who depend on the special status of Jesus to save them will vehemently disagree with me.
On the contrary, i say that it is the sameness that saves.
More specifically, specialness saves those interested in being special, and sameness saves that which has the humility to recognize a fundamental equality about the phenomenon of Christ.
Since the prime motivation of all mankind is to be special, those humans who want to preserve the essential human nature see "salvation" as something that will preserve that essential nature. A special savior preserves that status quo.
The prime motivation of Jesus, however, was to be the same as the Most High, as in, "one" with...as a matter of fact. As such, Jesus would not be different than the Most High, and so, not special.
Extending this to the historicity of Jesus, i simply say, Jesus was as historical as any other human being.
But what is a human being?
And what is history?
A mind predisposed to special status won't ask these last two questions because it will never doubt the pre-eminence of mankind and it's history.
By pre-eminent, i mean, man holds his own reality higher than the reality of Christ.
For this reason, the mainstream will always reject something it has called "Docetism", or the idea that Jesus was somehow an appearance, and not as real as other human beings.
Again, any human stuck on the stupidity of special status won't be able to see the implication. If it's true that Jesus is the same as all mankind, then, if he was an appearance, so too is all mankind an apparition.
I'm not aware of any early literature that made that connection. Perhaps it was implied in some original Docetic liturature/teaching, but was lost.
I would assure you, Jesus was an appearance. So, if stu want's to come along and say he never existed, i might be inclined to agree, so long as stu will also admit that mankind does not, did not, and never will exist.
Otherwise, stu makes the same mistake as Christians, who make Jesus special to save their own skin.
LOL
Gospel of Mary, P. Oxyrhynchus L 3525.
QUOTE
http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
(The Gospel of Mary)
Chapter 4
...
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.
28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.
UNQUOTE
imo, theology is just a man-made theory, based on the contents (of which the conical status was defined also by some special men) of the holy books within one of the faith systems.
Anyway, according to the above quotes from Mary, Jesus was the one to clarify that there is no such thing as original universal sin for all men.
Jesus actually saved the "Man" universally through this scientific/ rational/ practical way! Rather than any theological/biblical ones.
His death therefore did not have any divine significance to save others. As the mainstream theology usually says, mainly according to Paul's interpretations. Who was the only theologian/scholar among the early believers.
Virtues, yes. Vices, yes. But not Sins, especially Not original sin due to Adam/Eve and the Apple.
Wrongdoing, yes. Right-doing, yes. But nobody should be arrested or punished, physically/ psychologically/ theologically/ theoretically/ whatsoever, due to her/his original sin created by Adam/Eve onto her/him.
To be saved if going to church. Otherwise, eternal death to be burned by fire in hell!
LOL
Last edited:
The 1st mention of sin is about universal/original sin.
The 2nd mention of sin/adultery is about "Deviation" from nature - natural laws/ orders and any other natural things. Then, people get sickness, physically/ mentally/ psychologically/ etc. Sickness simply needs physicians/ professionals.
A blind or born-disabled baby is not because of its parents' sins.
A thunder causing fire destroying our house, farming or property is not because of our sins.
A person should live in a happy life. Rather than constantly in a status of fear, worrying the trouble of sins. Or daily looking for any holy ways of cleansing sins - such as talking to a priest about her/his sins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism God = the Nature
LOL
Last edited:
I don't think you made it clear enough what sin is, so we can determine what it isn't.
Original sin? What is that?
There's theology, and there's flavored theology, such as "Christian", "Jewish", and Mohammedan theology, which is the theology of one man, copied by millions, to the extent they can even understand the one man's theology.
You have theology too, especially if you are using theologically flavored sources to make points.
I don't think you've yet explained a rational way to dismiss sin, whatever it happens to be...or not be.
For different reasons, we both agree that the death of Jesus did not contain anything specific that saves anything else from death.
To me, the reason is because of the sameness principle i already mentioned. If the same, then anyone else who wishes to obtain the salvation Jesus obtained, for whatever reasons, must obtain that salvation the same way he obtained it.
Hence, "follow me", and, "he who lays down his life for my sake will save it.".
I assert that Jesus died for Christ's sake, and was saved only to the extent he identified himself with Christ.
Stated another way, Jesus made a choice to identify with what dies [man], or what lives [Christ].
Choosing against human identification is a kind of "death" that he encouraged, for the sake of Christ.
This means that salvation is for Christ, not for people.
Depending on what motivates people, they will not be able or willing to see this, or accept this as the rational solution.
People are motivated, at their very core, to be special. This is important to understand because it determines what flavor of theology will flow from various sayings.
People are interested in saving some kind of special status, and so, conflate theology toward that purpose, twisting anything to support the core intention.
There are many ways to support the status quo, which is special status, which is what humanity, and the world he seems to live in, is all about.
Here, Christians, Jews, Mohammedans and atheists join forces, to save the essence of what makes humanity human.