The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

... where's the proof that Jesus existed?  or Socrates?

Socrates comes down pretty much to Plato's writings.  Jesus has multiple writings, multiple viewpoints, all kinds of stuff.

Well... It's debatable how many texts there are that refer to him, outside of the gospels. Potentially none - although it does depend on how you view Josephus and whether you think he was tampered with post-Christianity. And then on whether you think the gospels can be considered relive testimony, especially in light of other writing in the Bible. But that's about all my expertise extends to. My point, though, is that this is really widely debated and certainly not a closed case.

Heck, as far as religion goes, if he DIDN'T actually exist that makes the /religion/ more plausible to me, because THAT would be a miracle!  That none of it happened, and yet people saw/believed/shared etc?  That would be pretty damn interesting, wouldn't it?

Yes! You have no idea how much this question consumes me. What the hell happened in that community?! It's sociologically and personally *fascinating*.

Okay I do consider myself at least part Christian and I respect Jesus Christ but I've came across some sources on the net that have argued that he didn't actually exist and there's little historical evidence of it. I've also heard arguments out there that supposedly there's more sources other than the New Testament that prove he was a historical figure. One source I looked up even said, he was basically an inspiration based off of earlier gods such as Mithras.

So what is the truth?

The worship of Jesus (not to mention his Blessed Mother) did take on a lot of the symbolism and ritual of other deities worshiped in Mediterranean mystery cults, especially the ones worshiped in Rome, but I think this only happened after it became the official religion of the Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church was established. It absorbed the competition, which was a pretty smart thing to do.  I doubt early Christianity incorporated solar symbolism when it came to Jesus, or venerated Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Star of the Sea, but I'm not an expert.
 

... where's the proof that Jesus existed?  or Socrates?

Socrates comes down pretty much to Plato's writings.  Jesus has multiple writings, multiple viewpoints, all kinds of stuff.

The difference is that Plato was Socrates' student and contemporary, and a historical figure himself, a much more reliable source than the authors of the Gospels. They were written in Greek despite Jesus coming from Aramaic-speaking Palestine, and decades after the fact by unknown authors. The narratives from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew derive from Mark, though each were also informed by other sources, as well as a common source called "Q" by scholars. These were hardly firsthand accounts, as they came from pre-existing oral and written traditions, so it's hard to determine how much historical fact is actually contained in them. Things get added and embellished over time.

I think of him in about the same way I think of King Arthur, historically speaking: there may well have been a guy, or multiple guys being conflated, who inspired the story, but it's picked up a lot of accretions from surrounding mythologies and from later writers spinning tall tales.

 
That's pretty much my view also.

But anyway back to the topic, the issue with Jesus is that supposedly we've found his burial site but due to the myth that his body and spirit as a whole went up to heaven forever (eventually) cases problems. Supposedly archeologists have found Buddha's and Mohammed's remains at their burial sites but not Jesus'. I don't know about the other prophets you mentioned. Technically according to many Christians if you see Jesus more as a prophet than god (like I sort of do) you aren't really a Christian, you are more likely a Jew or Muslim. Technically speaking Jesus is a minor prophet in both religions.

I hadn't heard anything recently about supposedly finding Jesus's burial site, but if it's anything like the James ossuary thing, I have my doubts.  I have no idea what could conclusively point to it being Jesus of Nazareth's burial place.  Jesus (or Yeshua or Joshua) was not exactly an uncommon name.  Not to mention in all probability if Jesus was crucified the Romans would not have let his body be removed.  Crucifixion was used as a deterrent.  Bodies were typical left to rot.

Jews don't view Jesus as a prophet.  I don't believe he's seen in such in any mainstream Jewish movement.   I suppose there might be a couple individual Jews who do, but by in large Jews don't view Jesus any differently then any of the other Messiah claimants (there were a lot of them).

But anyway back to the topic, the issue with Jesus is that supposedly we've found his burial site but due to the myth that his body and spirit as a whole went up to heaven forever (eventually) cases problems.

Only some Christians believe this.

Supposedly archeologists have found Buddha's and Mohammed's remains at their burial sites but not Jesus'.

Why wouldn't they?  Buddhists don't teach that the Buddha had some kind of bodily resurrection or that his body should be missing or that he's a deity of some kind.  Muslims absolutely do not teach that Muhammad was in any way divine or anything but a mortal man granted the gift of prophecy, and have kept track of where his body is.

Technically according to many Christians if you see Jesus more as a prophet than god (like I sort of do) you aren't really a Christian, you are more likely a Jew or Muslim.

A lot of (minority) schools of Christian thought, like Unitarianism and Socinianism, teach this.  It's a valid, established Christian position.  The divinity of Jesus is not the only thing separating Christians from Jews or Muslims.

Technically speaking Jesus is a minor prophet in both religions.

Technically speaking, Jesus is either a very minor or entirely irrelevant prophet in Judaism, and Jesus is a major prophet in Islam, second only to Muhammad (because Muhammad came last and batted clean-up for the team) and considered the Messiah, to be seated at the right hand of God on the Day of Judgment.  So, no.

Weeeeeeell I don't think anyone on that list except Jesus and arguably the Buddha were deified at death.  Jews and Muslims alike would be horrified at the notion that Moses or Muhammad was deified.  It's true there were a jillion prophets running around, though.

 
The Shakyamuni wasn't deified at death. Theravadans hold that he entered Nirvana and is in no way a god. Mahayana practitioners such as myself hold that he was always an emanation of the cosmic Buddha. Mahayana, by the way, distinguishes between gods and Buddhas. I'd also like to point out that the Mahayana view, which is closer to the idea of deification, evolved a few centuries after the historical Buddha's lifetime.

Exactly!  Hence my "arguably."  You have to play really fast-and-loose with the definitions of "deity" to say he was deified.  Thank you for going into more explicit detail about it for everyone's benefit--I was in a rush earlier and knew I'd slip up if I started tossing claims out without fact-checking the specifics.  

People have some really funny ideas about Buddhism and what a Buddha is and what the role of deities is in Buddhist cosmology, largely, I think, projected from other religious systems.  (I hear a lot of claims about Buddhism having no deities in its cosmology, for instance, just because they don't look much like the God of Abraham or, I don't know, Zeus.)

Except that those who want to argue about it are just wrong. :p Haha.

And yes, I get SO pissed off when people start projecting Western assumptions onto Buddhism. There are gods in Buddhism. Their role varies according to the tradition, but they exist.

Don't get me started on the "Buddhism is not a religion" folk. It's a f*cking RELIGION jackwad!!! We have temples and sacred texts and relics and a clergy. Just like AN ORGANIZED RELIGION DOES.

Don't get me started on the "Buddhism is not a religion" folk. It's a f*cking RELIGION jackwad!!! We have temples and sacred texts and relics and a clergy. Just like AN ORGANIZED RELIGION DOES.

(a. That is not a very Buddhist form of expression.
(b. It very much depends on the type of Buddhism being discussed, and the context in which it is being discussed; and is not, I think, a universal truth. Strong cases can be made for (specific forms of) Buddhism as more philosophy than religion, or as more religion than philosophy.

Also, I find the assertion made in this thread that it doesn't actually matter as much whether he actually existed to be... flawed, at best. Approaching from a Catholic standpoint over a more general one, it is obviously the position of the Church that Jesus was a real, historical person and that his life occurred as generally outlined in the New Testament. The Crucifixion is as historical an event as the Allied bombing of Dresden or what you had for breakfast last Tuesday; or at least as far as the Church (and to be fair, most non-Catholic sects and denominations as well) is concerned. But this is very important, IMO, in the scheme of Catholic/Christian theology.

First, the Mass. In one of my favourite talks by him, +Fulton Sheen described the action of the Mass as a singular event, throughout time, as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Wherever the Mass is celebrated be it in Boston, Rio, or Tokyo we are reaching through time and planting the Cross on the altar. If Christ never actually existed but was, say, merely a figure who evolved alongside a number of teachings to provide a basis -- however fictional -- for Christianity, than whose sacrifice would be celebrated at the altar? At the consecration, is it the body and blood of Christ or no? Whose is it? Am I just drinking some random Palestinian's blood? Is it just wine? Without Christ having actually existed, the theology and raison d'être of the Mass is undermined.

Then is raised the question of what the Crucifixion itself means in a theological context if Jesus is fictional. In his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which is an excellent book despite my issues with the author (and has an enlightening point of view concerning the 'negative soteriology' of Buddhism to boot!), John Paul II vividly explains the importance of the Paschal Mystery and the importance, specifically, of the deicidal act. Not of the deicide traditionally wrought by the Jews, but how Christ who is both fully human and fully divine sacrificed himself, of course, so that we may have eternal life. God killed himself for man etc. etc. While I personally don't think this would be entirely negated if it happened in a fictional context, it would certainly complicate the nature of Christ's Covenant with us; if there was no Christ on earth to begin with.

So, in summary, while for those observing Christianity in the historical/social sense of its development or the validity of Christian practice, belief, and worship in the modern day; to dismiss the question of Christ actually having existed as irrelevant or simply less important than the effects which the Christ figure has had on the world, is rather misguided. Many of the most important theological principles of the Christian religion are necessarily predicated upon his historical existence, which is why the people who try to prove or disprove his existence have such a vested interest in what they find or don't find.

Also, lovely post Valentine :lub: