Proof that jesus walked the earth???

juddd

If jesus walked the earth then would there not be evidence of it, would there not be some sort of archaeological finds in isreal or where ever or maybe even a painting or statue of some kind, I mean after all he performed miracles and cured the uncureable, surely someone from that time would have payed homage to such a great man by sculpting a statue in his image or done a painting, or what about the cross he was crucfied on, surely someone would have taken the cross or something or the table where the last supper was held, has any archaeologist found such things, is anyone even looking???

Excelsior

There is a lot of writing. There are a lot of people whose lives were transformed by this mythical man who went on to cause a lot of trouble with their love and their charity and their courage. The cross was Roman. The Last Supper, by da Vinci is not actually a 1st hand historical piece of evidence but an 1500s artistic representation of what he thought the Last Supper would look like. In fact, it probably was eaten on the ground. We have found a lot of art dedicated to him from about 50 years after his death and about 50 years after that whole buildings started to be dedicated to him as Christians were free to worship. We call those buildings churches today.

Jesus is the most studied man in history. Academic departments in every major university in the western world investigate his claims. There is no global conspiracy to keep anyone from digging or reading to find out more about him.

Vangelis

No matter if there is evidence for his existence or not, I still believe in Him.
But academics is always fun!

14jake88

the untold truth,jesus was a black.

patzer117

Eh Juddd, hate to break it to you, but there are quite a few statues of Jesus hanging round the place these days... crosses mostly. a few statues here and there, and lots of writing. i don't know of any historian alive that would claim Jesus didn't live - there is more evidence of him living (more books around the time written about him) then there is that Augustus Caeser did. The fact that there is a line of popes traceable to peter, that they have found graves with Christian symbols around that time (eg. loaves and fishes - they prayed in secret mostly, due to the fact that Christians were outlawed, so symbols signified Christian graves and whatnot), and monuments with these symbols. Most of all around 1 billion people on earth right now testify that he walked. If you're trying to debunk Christianity, start on a different road. If you're trying to just find out, well then i guess that was a good first question to ask.

patzer

Thorne

patzer117 wrote:

there is more evidence of him living (more books around the time written about him) then there is that Augustus Caeser did.

Where are people getting this from? I'm not disputing the evidence for Jesus, but I can't see how it equals the evidence for Caesar. You're the second person I have seen say this. Is there some common source for this? Mark my words though, this is nothing to do with there being very little evidence for Jesus, but rather the gigantic evidence for Caesar.

robindch

> Most of all around 1 billion people on earth right now
> testify that he walked.

And not a single one from personal experience. Instead, this belief comes from what they've been told is true, almost invariably from childhood. Backed up, of course, by a few accounts written many years after his death and some of the slightest references in Joesphus, Tacitus and elsewhere.

And who believes that mass belief reaches the truth? Chairman Mao is still something close to a deity to most chinese; Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are adored virtually as gods in North Korea, as is Sai Baba in India. I could go on, but you get the point.

Excelsior

But sadly you don't. Cult of the leader is one thing. You do what a Stalinist dictator tells you to do because he has an army that he is not afraid to use it. It completely undermines your argument (which is grounded on the scarcity of historical evidence to support a Christian faith) to make so blatant a historical mistake. Jesus had no army. Everyone agrees that all had are a few very peculiar ideas and a robust reputation built on very peculiar incidents. He had nothing to bind allegience except for the fact that people who followed him had their lives transformed.

Today, people who follow Jesus have their lives transformed. Sure, the churches are filled with religious folk who like ritual and are looking for justification for their self righteousness. But I have yet to meet someone who responds to Jesus that doesn't hear him call back.

Any attempt to relate the deification of Christ to the leadership worship in totaltarian states is, I think, spurious.

jay-me

Excelsior wrote:

Today, people who follow Jesus have their lives transformed. Sure, the churches are filled with religious folk who like ritual and are looking for justification for their self righteousness. But I have yet to meet someone who responds to Jesus that doesn't hear him call back.

Any attempt to relate the deification of Christ to the leadership worship in totaltarian states is, I think, spurious.

And how would you go about responding to jesus exactly?

seatleon2000

Excelsior wrote:

He had nothing to bind allegience except for the fact that people who followed him had their lives transformed.

...

Any attempt to relate the deification of Christ to the leadership worship in totaltarian states is, I think, spurious.

You are being dishonest.

The Church is better than any army at binding allegience. All Christians are BORN into the faith.. there is no choice. By the time you reach the age to vote you have been christened, had first communion and been confirmed.

Tell me do you honestly think that if the same people were born in india, they wouldn't be hindu or other?

I believe it's called indoctrination and the state/church are better at it than any army / cult.

Excelsior

Pray. Primarily. No need to get down on your knees, bow your head or clasp your hands. Simply talk to him. Ask him if he is there and tell him you want him to be in your life.

If you can manage to make this stumbling leap into the dark such that you aren't completely cynical and closeminded (a state I would have occupied for years as an atheist) he will respond. Not in a booming voice or a vision or a lotto win.

Keep praying over a period of time to show yourself that this isn't a projection that you have made because of a need for a psychological crutch. Alongside prayer, joining a community of believers in the form of a church where you can learn about, praise and serve God by serving others is another vital step.

jay-me

Cool thanx.

Excelsior

seatleon2000 wrote:

You are being dishonest.

Now that is a mighty big claim. That rachets up the conversation. I am not wrong. Instead I am dishonest?

s2000 wrote:

The Church is better than any army at binding allegience.

That is a faith claim that you have left unsupported. I fail to see how "The Church" (by which I presume you mean Roman Catholicism- what then of all the other churches?) is more effective than a gun at forcing support. Can you show me examples?

s2000 wrote:

All Christians are BORN into the faith.. there is no choice. By the time you reach the age to vote you have been christened, had first communion and been confirmed.

My wife was not born into faith. Both her parents are non Christian. She became a Christian at 14 and spent the rest of her adolescence in conflict with her family over it. I was baptised, communed and confirmed in a Christian religion but I had no belief. I spent my formative years as an angry atheistic socialist. It was only when I reached adulthood that I became a Christian, as entirely free of familial interference as it could have been.

All Christians are not born into the faith. You are not being dishonest. You just don't know enough Christians.

s2000 wrote:

Tell me do you honestly think that if the same people were born in india, they wouldn't be hindu or other?

Interesting choice of nation. I have some friends from Ireland (adult converts to Christianity by the way) who are working in India and they had a handyman who came to do a job in their house ask them to come and preach at their church in the first weeks they were there. They come across Indian Christians all the time.

If you weren't born in the western world at the cusp of the 21st Century you would not be a secular humanist. Does that make your faith in secular humanism void?

s2000 wrote:

I believe it's called indoctrination and the state/church are better at it than any army / cult.

I believe you are the one blinded by indoctrination seeing as you have vehemently argued something without any real grounding in evidence.

As a final point, you undermine your whole argument in your conclusion. (Probably not such an effective polemical device) Jesus did not have a state/church relationship to advance his message. Jesus' first followers were hated and killed by the Jewish establishment and famously reviled and massacred by the Romans. To varying degrees, one risked their life when they joined "The Way" because of the words and actions of the suppossed Christ, Jesus. There was no mechanism of homogenous indoctrination in the form of any church and state alliance.

seatleon2000

Excelsior wrote:

Now that is a mighty big claim. That rachets up the conversation. I am not wrong. Instead I am dishonest?

If something is blindingly obvious then I have to assume you are being dishonest.

Excelsior wrote:

That is a faith claim that you have left unsupported. I fail to see how "The Church" (by which I presume you mean Roman Catholicism- what then of all the other churches?) is more effective than a gun at forcing support. Can you show me examples?

I did, I told you that BEFORE we are able to vote we are christened, had first communion and have been confirmed .. do you know of any other outside influence thats allowed to do this to children??

Excelsior wrote:

My wife was not born into faith. Both her parents are non Christian. She became a Christian at 14 and spent the rest of her adolescence in conflict with her family over it. I was baptised, communed and confirmed in a Christian religion but I had no belief. I spent my formative years as an angry atheistic socialist. It was only when I reached adulthood that I became a Christian, as entirely free of familial interference as it could have been.

All Christians are not born into the faith. You are not being dishonest. You just don't know enough Christians.

* clap clap *

Ok substitute "all" for 99% .. the term *clown* springs to mind.

Excelsior wrote:

Interesting choice of nation. I have some friends from Ireland (adult converts to Christianity by the way) who are working in India and they had a handyman who came to do a job in their house ask them to come and preach at their church in the first weeks they were there. They come across Indian Christians all the time.

If you weren't born in the western world at the cusp of the 21st Century you would not be a secular humanist. Does that make your faith in secular humanism void?

So what! at least 90% of peope are born into their religion and don't bother to change. What does that tell you, does that make their faith VALID ?

Excelsior wrote:

I believe you are the one blinded by indoctrination seeing as you have vehemently argued something without any real grounding in evidence.

As a final point, you undermine your whole argument in your conclusion. (Probably not such an effective polemical device) Jesus did not have a state/church relationship to advance his message. Jesus' first followers were hated and killed by the Jewish establishment and famously reviled and massacred by the Romans. To varying degrees, one risked their life when they joined "The Way" because of the words and actions of the suppossed Christ, Jesus. There was no mechanism of homogenous indoctrination in the form of any church and state alliance.

You have avoided my central point - "We are born into it - there is no choice"

If the church was so sure of it's WORD then they should leave the children alone .. ask them to make an informed decision/choice when they are adults ..

Vangelis

I can only see this discussion ending up with: "It's a matter of faith."
Non-Christians can claim that God does not respond when you call to him and believe in him, that no one is transformed, and that is because they don't know what it's like to be transformed. How it affects you, your mind, you soul. They are not talking out of experience, but defiance and denial. That is in itself of no value at all.

Capt'n Midnight

juddd wrote:

If jesus walked the earth then would there not be evidence of it, would there not be some sort of archaeological finds in isreal or where ever or maybe even a painting or statue of some kind, I mean after all he performed miracles and cured the uncureable, surely someone from that time would have payed homage to such a great man by sculpting a statue in his image or done a painting, or what about the cross he was crucfied on, surely someone would have taken the cross or something or the table where the last supper was held, has any archaeologist found such things, is anyone even looking???

Just like all the other relics of all the other prophets and saints that did the same. That and the underground nature of christianity for the first three centuries, makes it very hard to sift the wheat from the chaff.

It was said that if all the fragments of the true cross were assembeled you could build an Arc. Relics were big business back then, it got the tourists in.

robindch

> You do what a Stalinist dictator tells you to do because he has
> an army that he is not afraid to use it. It completely undermines
> your argument to make so blatant a historical mistake. Jesus had
> no army.

From around 1,500 years from 330, (with the exception of the Mongol invasions), the christians of western Europe had many of the strongest armies and frequently used them to subjugate other less militarily-able cultures. It's unexpectedly silly of you to say that the spread of christianity has nothing in common with totalitarianism - Cortes, Richard Lionheart, Charles V, and many more had large armies and they were not afraid to use them to spread christianity by force.

Excelsior

Sadly it is to be expected that you would not read my argument with care before seeking to dismiss it. I argued that Jesus is quite unlike Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler in that he had no force to exert on people. They followed him because of who he was.

For the first 300 years millions joined this "cult of the leader", risking the wrath of a military backed empire and in the first instances, the shunning of their families and wider ethnic group instead of the cases you cite where people declared faith to join in the wrath and the shunning.

I am by belief and declaration a dissenter. I recognise so fully the error of the institutional church's power politics that I have joined a movement initially formed to limit the insatiable human lust to pervert the Gospel and turn it into a weapon. Arguing that Charles V is comparable to Stalin might be pushing it but at least it has some shape to it. Unlike comparing paedo-baptism to indoctrination or more preposterously, comparing Jesus of Nazareth to a political ruler of any kind, never mind a Maoist.

Vangelis

seatleon2000 wrote:

* clap clap *

Ok substitute "all" for 99% .. the term *clown* springs to mind.

Sarcasm and patronization will get you nowhere. It must be possible for possible for anyone to tell their life story without being called a clown.

Dades

seatleon2000 wrote:

If the church was so sure of it's WORD then they should leave the children alone .. ask them to make an informed decision/choice when they are adults ..

The church doesn't bring children to those sacraments - their parents do. Ultimately it's up to them to raise their children in their religion or not.

You seemed to have survived indoctrination with little more than angst to show for it.

Standard Toaster

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/index.html

Interesting court case. Wonder how it will pan out.

robindch

> Sadly it is to be expected that you would not read my
> argument with care before seeking to dismiss it.

I did read and understand your message, and I would say that you are still dramatically missing *my* point that it's got little to do with the guy at the top, and far, far more to do with how large groups of people create and maintain totalitarian political systems based upon the image of leader who is said to be absolutely inerrant by those in power.

Do you see my point more clearly now?

> Unlike comparing paedo-baptism to indoctrination or more
> preposterously, comparing Jesus of Nazareth to a political
> ruler of any kind, never mind a Maoist.

I don't believe for one second that the figure of Christ portrayed in the NT is similar in anyway to Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest of that hideous and murderous lot. What I do believe is that the same group psychology applies to what happens in an inerrant leader's name, either with, or without, their imprimatur or direction.

> I have joined a movement initially formed to limit the insatiable
> human lust to pervert the Gospel and turn it into a weapon.

In this case, it seems that we agree with each other.

To reiterate -- I am not slagging off the figure of Christ, but what people have done using him as justification, for a very long time indeed.

Does this make sense?

Morbert

patzer117 wrote:

i don't know of any historian alive that would claim Jesus didn't live - there is more evidence of him living (more books around the time written about him) then there is that Augustus Caeser did

What?

Where?

References?

BrianCalgary

Tacitus, Roman Historian late first century:
"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."
The only pagan writer to have ever mentioned Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata, latter 2nd century:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account..."

Suetonius, Roman Historian at the time of Hadrian:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Christus..."

Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia AD 112
"when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god.."

Thalius Circa. AD50
Phlegon
Both of the above were quoted by Julius Africanus in the third century and Phlegon by Origen as well.

What we know about Jesus by sources outside the Bible:
1) Jewish Rabbi
2) Performed healings and exorcisms
3)Rejected by Jewish leaders
4)Crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.
5)His followers spread, even to Rome.
6)He was worshipped as God.

CodeMonkey

Excelsior wrote:

Sadly it is to be expected that you would not read my argument with care before seeking to dismiss it. I argued that Jesus is quite unlike Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler in that he had no force to exert on people. They followed him because of who he was.

...Unlike comparing paedo-baptism to indoctrination or more preposterously, comparing Jesus of Nazareth to a political ruler of any kind, never mind a Maoist.

The initial core group of followers of those historical leaders weren't forced into following. They believed in the idealogy being presented by their respective leaders. Force was only used after they had gained enough power to coerced the rest of the population into following. The difference is jesus never obtained this kind of power though I am not suggestion he would use it in the same way even if he did.

Mao was only able to start the cultural revolution in the 60s because he had a generation of youths indoctrinated by the little red book behind him. Granted not all the chinese youths followed the little red book willingly but is the peer pressure applied to those youths that different to the traditional christian threat of eternal damnation?

I think those political leaders are more similar to Jesus than you'd like to admit. As a christian you obviously don't want to associate jesus with those "evil" men but like seatleon2000 said that's just being dishonest.

Thorne

BrianCalgary, thats evidence for Jesus. It still doesn't show that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar.

Morbert

BrianCalgary wrote:

Tacitus, Roman Historian late first century:
"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."
The only pagan writer to have ever mentioned Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata, latter 2nd century:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account..."

Suetonius, Roman Historian at the time of Hadrian:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Christus..."

Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia AD 112
"when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god.."

Thalius Circa. AD50
Phlegon
Both of the above were quoted by Julius Africanus in the third century and Phlegon by Origen as well.

What we know about Jesus by sources outside the Bible:
1) Jewish Rabbi
2) Performed healings and exorcisms
3)Rejected by Jewish leaders
4)Crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.
5)His followers spread, even to Rome.
6)He was worshipped as God.

heh... You're way off. We have an immense amount of evidence for Caesar, as he was the author of many works. The evidence for Jesus does not have such veracity, as he was merely the subject of works, which is vulnerable to the distortion of truth over the many many years. It's all about the authorship.

Yes, the Bible and a select few of extra-biblical sources provides evidence that a man named Jesus once walked the earth, but that's it. To claim the evidence for Jesus amounts to more than the evidence for Julius therefore couldn't be further from the truth. And that's before we start addressing the claims of miracles.

BrianCalgary

Morbert wrote:

heh... You're way off. We have an immense amount of evidence for Caesar, as he was the author of many works. The evidence for Jesus does not have such veracity, as he was merely the subject of works, which is vulnerable to the distortion of truth over the many many years. It's all about the authorship.

Yes, the Bible and a select few of extra-biblical sources provides evidence that a man named Jesus once walked the earth, but that's it. To claim the evidence for Jesus amounts to more than the evidence for Julius therefore couldn't be further from the truth. And that's before we start addressing the claims of miracles.

It's interesting that you start off insinuating no evidence for a historical Jesus and now you state that Ok He did exist but you question miracles. Give me a couple of days to go through my references and we will quote non-Christian writers and what they had to say about miracles. The point is that what was recorded in the New Testament has been corroborated by writings outside the Bible. I would like to know what truth distortions you are referring to?

Thorne wrote:

BrianCalgary, thats evidence for Jesus. It still doesn't show that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar..

I never claimed that there was more evidence for Caesar than Jesus. I just claim the evidence for Jesus.

Thorne

Thats fair enough. I've just started seeing the claim that there is more evidence for Christ than Caesar all over the net recently and I don't understand where it's coming from.

BrianCalgary

Thorne wrote:

Thats fair enough. I've just started seeing the claim that there is more evidence for Christ than Caesar all over the net recently and I don't understand where it's coming from.

Thanks. Although it would be an interesting study. How much is Caesar mentioned in writings. I have the Essentil Writings of Josephus. I think I'll check what Josephus had to say about Julius Caesar.

juddd

I never meant this to turn into a holy war.
I was just wondering about it because I saw a program on t.v about an archaeologist who went around isreal and other places looking for evidence of jesus and he found some interesting stuff but none of it seemed authentic, there was a slab in some church which was said to be the table that jesus lay on after his death to prepare him for the tomb but he said it was the slab because people wanted to beleive it was the slab and never questioned the fact, they just wanted to beleive it was where jesus lay, did anyone run tests to see if any DNA could be recovered, or if any trace of blood could be found in small cracks or minute holes,maybe all traces of such things were lost to the ages?
ALso there is a place in isreal I think that is said to be the place where jesus was crucified, you have to climb up a good few stairs, indicating that back in the day this was the hill on top of which the cross was erected, hence all the steps upto the room, and all those who gathered in the room where overcome with emotion and song, but all he had to go by was that he was told this was the place the crucifixcion happened and that there was no real evidence to support this claim.
I am not trying to say that jesus did not walk the earth, I am just wondering if there is any actual proof he did, apart from the billion or so beleivers, and if the proof is there then why do we not hear about it or see it, if there is solid evidence that jesus walked among us then this should be made known to all, it would surely help alot of beleivers and non-beleivers to know for a fact that jesus actually without a shadow of a doubt walked among us and did all these amazing things.
I for one want it to be true but find it hard to beleive what is written due to the many translations the bible has gone through over the last 2006 years, im no expert in this field so please be gentle, and try not to bite each others heads off when qouting anothers beleifs, if serves no purpose.

BrianCalgary

juddd wrote:

I am not trying to say that jesus did not walk the earth, I am just wondering if there is any actual proof he did, apart from the billion or so beleivers, and if the proof is there then why do we not hear about it or see it, if there is solid evidence that jesus walked among us then this should be made known to all, it would surely help alot of beleivers and non-beleivers to know for a fact that jesus actually without a shadow of a doubt walked among us and did all these amazing things.
I for one want it to be true but find it hard to beleive what is written due to the many translations the bible has gone through over the last 2006 years, im no expert in this field so please be gentle, and try not to bite each others heads off when qouting anothers beleifs, if serves no purpose.

For there to be proof of someones past existence you have to look at biographical evidence. That is writings that tell of someones existence, of which there is to support that Jesus did indeed live at the time the Bible says.

I don't think you will ever find an object that was actually used by Jesus as then the object would become the object of worship, a relic. As for the slab, I question it and would say that it is similar to all the obejects in Ireland that are reported to have an association to St. Patrick. (I saw his footprint at Skerries a few years back).

As for the translations of the Bible, there are many. The good ones are translated from teh Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic transcripts. The reason for the many translations is to reflect the change in the English language; and to represent word for word translations vs. idea for idea translations. Both are valid and help in obtaining the authors origianl meaning.

Translate 'go raith maith agat' into English:

word for word: may there be blessings at you.
idea: Thank You

Which is the better understood translation?

Morbert

BrianCalgary wrote:

It's interesting that you start off insinuating no evidence for a historical Jesus and now you state that Ok He did exist but you question miracles. Give me a couple of days to go through my references and we will quote non-Christian writers and what they had to say about miracles. The point is that what was recorded in the New Testament has been corroborated by writings outside the Bible. I would like to know what truth distortions you are referring to?

Please explicitly show where I insinuated no evidence for a historical Jesus. I specifically addressed the claim regarding Caesar.

Nevertheless, if you wish to have a discussion regarding the authenticity of miracles then I'd be happy to oblige.

BrianCalgary

Morbert wrote:

Please explicitly show where I insinuated no evidence for a historical Jesus. I specifically addressed the claim regarding Caesar..

My apologies. I reread your post and saw where I misread one.

Morbert wrote:

Nevertheless, if you wish to have a discussion regarding the authenticity of miracles then I'd be happy to oblige.

That would be some research. Maybe I'll start a thread when I'm informed adequately.

smidgy

As already stated you'll have to rely on the written word as evidence since there were no cameras back then.

But just out of interest, what exactly could an archeologist actually find that would prove that Jesus walked the earth - what about an autographed and dated portrait of Jesus from the year 0030 -- but I guess that could be forged too.

That archeologist sounds like he was just on holiday.

virginmari1

:Djesus is real.
hes one of my besties.
i see him everyday.
he goes to hug high school.
and is name is dan arther nelson the 2nd aka jesus christ.
and his name has 666 in it.
kinda weird eh?
and hes emo. :]
and hes my son.
and hes 3 years older than me. :]
and yea.
so now i know hes real.
and ima go smack him. :]
you dont need any proof hookuh faces,
because he has a myspace and that should be nuff.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=12225942&MyToken=0f7eda4d-f6af-481a-b224-68cb13d42144

Nerin

lol
that was so snuck in because the mods are asleep.

Asiaprod

nerin wrote: »

lol
that was so snuck in because the mods are asleep.

Far from it.

virginmari1, you get only one warning, dont do it again
Asia

Hivemind187

I usually get myself into trouble for things like this but, are y'all nuts?

The vague ramblings and metaphorical proselitzing of religious figures 200 years after the supposed death of the Jesus do not count as evidence for his existance! By that rational, 50 years after the death of Dr. seuss we should be looking for physical, archaeological evidence of the cat in the hat.

There is a grand total of zero physical evidence for the existance of Christ, further, the circumstantial evidence, speculation and hearsay is almost entirely self contradictory and certainly flies in the face of the mechanics of reality as we can measure it.

Now if someone can point to Gods-Fossil then there might be a bit more of a discussion on this, hell, I'll even treat a skelleton or some such purported to be Jesus' as reason for further investigation but if you cant show me it, why should we except it as a fact?

I'm not saying dont believe in Christ, believe what you want to even if it is irrational and illogical, just be honest enough to say that you cant proove it and you believe it because it is preferable to the alternative (we live in a cold, uncaring and non-human-centric universe, there is no god and the only immortality is the procreation of ones genetics).

PDN

Not quite sure why someone chose to resurrect a nearly 2 year old thread.

You cannot 'prove' 100% that Jesus existed anymore than you can 'prove' that any historical figure existed. Whatever historical figure you choose to mention someone can claim that they didn't really exist, that any contemporaries who wrote of them may have been lying, that the statues are really of somebody else or a product of someone's imagination etc.

However, while you cannot prove (with mathematical certainty) that any ancient figure existed, there are different amounts of evidence for their existence. In Jesus' case we have eye-witness reports, and thousands of people willing to embrace Christianity and risk execution on the basis of those eye-witness reports. That, in my opinion, is strong historical evidence. It is certainly greater evidence than for any other historical figure of comparable circumstances (ie not royalty or a political leader) from 2000 years ago.

We read about people in our history books for whom there is much less evidence of their existence than there is for Jesus, yet I never hear a clamour over whether they existed or not. This would suggest that those who argue against the existence of Jesus are doing so on ideological grounds rather than out of any desire for historical accuracy.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

In Jesus' case we have eye-witness reports, and thousands of people willing to embrace Christianity and risk execution on the basis of those eye-witness reports. That, in my opinion, is strong historical evidence. It is certainly greater evidence than for any other historical figure of comparable circumstances (ie not royalty or a political leader) from 2000 years ago.

We read about people in our history books for whom there is much less evidence of their existence than there is for Jesus, yet I never hear a clamour over whether they existed or not. This would suggest that those who argue against the existence of Jesus are doing so on ideological grounds rather than out of any desire for historical accuracy.

Oh for crying out loud, how many times must this topic come up

1 - We do not have "eye witness" report. We have reports from the religion that the religion claim are eye witnesses. Big difference. The Scientologists have that as well for all their wonderful alien stories, just remember that the next time you don't give thanks L. Ron Hubbard over dinner for saving your soul from a volcano. Religious propaganda is largely ignored as a source by historians unless it can be confirmed with other sources. The Bible is not a reliable source for anything, particularly eye witness reports of Jesus or what he did.

2 - The fact that people embrace a religion means nothing from a historical point of view. People embrace all sorts of nonsense, just look at UFOs

3 - There is far far stronger historical evidence for a whole rake of people from that era, mostly Roman officials. The idea that the evidence for Jesus is as good as anyone else is historical nonsense.

4 - Historians "clamor" over whether or not historical figures actually existed all the time. For example Homer the poet. The issue is that people aren't forming religions that require Homer to be a real person, so it doesn't really matter that much if Homer was a real person or not.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

Not quite sure why someone chose to resurrect a nearly 2 year old thread.

You cannot 'prove' 100% that Jesus existed anymore than you can 'prove' that any historical figure existed. Whatever historical figure you choose to mention someone can claim that they didn't really exist, that any contemporaries who wrote of them may have been lying, that the statues are really of somebody else or a product of someone's imagination etc.

However, while you cannot prove (with mathematical certainty) that any ancient figure existed, there are different amounts of evidence for their existence. In Jesus' case we have eye-witness reports, and thousands of people willing to embrace Christianity and risk execution on the basis of those eye-witness reports. That, in my opinion, is strong historical evidence. It is certainly greater evidence than for any other historical figure of comparable circumstances (ie not royalty or a political leader) from 2000 years ago.

We read about people in our history books for whom there is much less evidence of their existence than there is for Jesus, yet I never hear a clamour over whether they existed or not. This would suggest that those who argue against the existence of Jesus are doing so on ideological grounds rather than out of any desire for historical accuracy.

Find me Christs fossil, then we'll talk.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

We do not have "eye witness" report. We have reports from the religion that the religion claim are eye witnesses. ... There is far far stronger historical evidence for a whole rake of people from that era, mostly Roman officials. The idea that the evidence for Jesus is as good as anyone else is historical nonsense.

The evidence you have for Roman officials are not from eye-witnesses, they are reports from the Romans that the Romans claim are eye-witnesses.

Historians "clamor" over whether or not historical figures actually existed all the time.

There is no clamour among historians as to whether Jesus existed - the clamour is from non-historians with an axe to grind.

PDN

While not endorsing Wikipedia as an impeccable source, I think they've summed this up pretty fairly:

wikipedia wrote:

Jesus as myth

Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis
Further information: Jesus Christ and comparative mythology

A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are biblical scholar Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).

The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.

Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

The non-historicity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Hivemind187

Biblical scholars and Historians = people studying a book of myth, fables, hyperbole and retrospective prophecy (come on PDN, you didnt really think anyone was going to miss that did you?).

In most cases these "scholars" are people who are approcahing the subject from the position that it is a viable historical document (they have an agenda or are theologically involved in the subject) and not, as an objective individual might claim, as a text which is about as accurate as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Thing is that in no way does the academic study of such a book qualify it as a repository of anything other than its contents i.e myths, legends, metaphors etc. It is as much a historical text as the Lord of the Rings.

Akrasia

Excelsior wrote: »

As a final point, you undermine your whole argument in your conclusion. (Probably not such an effective polemical device) Jesus did not have a state/church relationship to advance his message. Jesus' first followers were hated and killed by the Jewish establishment and famously reviled and massacred by the Romans. To varying degrees, one risked their life when they joined "The Way" because of the words and actions of the suppossed Christ, Jesus. There was no mechanism of homogenous indoctrination in the form of any church and state alliance.

There were countless cults and schools operating in the greek and hellenistic world at that time. Many of those cults were persecuted just like the christians were. Of those persecuted, many were killed for refusing to recant their faith. Devotion to one particular faith is no evidence of its truth.

You claim that there was no mechanism for homogenous indoctrination in the early years, and you're right, that's why there was so much dispute about the basic principles of christianity, But that all changed when the roman empire suddenly adopted christianity as its official religion. It is at that point that christianity took off. It went from being just one cult amongst many, to being officially supported by the mighty roman empire. Without constantine, it is arguable that christianity would have died out along with all the other mystery cults and the schools of greek philosophy

With that change, it became simultaniously easier to be a christian, and harder to be a non christian (or a christian who didn't accept the official version) and many of the competing cults were suppressed and wiped out.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Of those persecuted, many were killed for refusing to recant their faith. Devotion to one particular faith is no evidence of its truth.

This, yet again, represents a subtle twisting of the Christian position to create a straw man. We do not argue that the multitude of Christians willing to die for their faith throughout history is a reason to view that faith as true. What we do argue is that the willingness of the original eyewitnesses to the resurrection to die, rather than to admit they were telling porkie pies, is a testimony to the fact that they were sincere in their testimony. This, in my opinion, makes it highly unlikely that these eye-witnesses were dishonest. You may, of course, still argue some half-baked theory of mass hallucination, or that Jesus was a devious illusionist who faked his own death and resurrection.

Without constantine, it is arguable that christianity would have died out along with all the other mystery cults and the schools of greek philosophy

Anything is 'arguable', as evidenced by the fact that there are always those on these boards who will argue for anything, no matter how unlikely. It is extremely unlikely, however, that Christianity would have died out without Constantine's disastrous intervention. Historians believe that Christians numbered between 5 and 7 million at that time. Given that the entire population of the Roman Empire amounted to 60 million, then that means this religion had, without any official recognition other than persecution, grown from zero to 10% of the Empire's population within less than 3 centuries. Indeed, I think there is a strong case for asserting that Christianity would have continued to grow as a vibrant force much more successfully without Constantine's hijacking of the faith. Constantine paved the way for Roman Catholicism, the crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of witches.

With that change, it became simultaniously easier to be a christian, and harder to be a non christian (or a christian who didn't accept the official version) and many of the competing cults were suppressed and wiped out.

It did indeed become easier to become a Christian. Church history shows that some of the greatest church growth occurs when it is hardest to be a Christian. The most rapid growth ever in Church history has occurred in China in the last 50 years. This is because such conditions weed out the hypocrities and the power-hungry politicians, making Christianity more committed and less prone to compromise with the world.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Biblical scholars and Historians = people studying a book of myth, fables, hyperbole and retrospective prophecy (come on PDN, you didnt really think anyone was going to miss that did you?).

If that is how you view historians and the academic field of history then it makes it easier to understand why you post some of the stuff you do.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The evidence you have for Roman officials are not from eye-witnesses

I didn't claim they were

PDN wrote: »

There is no clamour among historians as to whether Jesus existed - the clamour is from non-historians with an axe to grind.

My only "axe" to grind is with people pretending that there is strong historical evidence Jesus, as described in the Bible, existed.

Not because I care either way if he did, but because it is distorting historical standards for a religious reason.

And to be honest theists are doing enough of that with scientific standards already, without starting in on history as well

Asiaprod

We have been over these issues time and time again. Wicknight pointed that out. in #41 Either this thread finds a new aspect to debate, in a friendlier manner imo, or I close it.

I do see merit, and interest, in the following extracts

Wicknight wrote: »

Not because I care either way if he did, but because it is distorting historical standards for a religious reason.

And to be honest theists are doing enough of that with scientific standards already, without starting in on history as well

Not because I care either way if he did, but because it is distorting historical standards for a religious reason.

but not here.

It is an issue best suited next door in A&A,
Thanks,
Asia

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

If that is how you view historians and the academic field of history then it makes it easier to understand why you post some of the stuff you do.

Very clever PDN, but you are omitting the first word of that sentence ("biblical") in the process of your retort.

I do not consider the so-called "biblical" scolars to be anything other than well versed in the Bible and some of the history surrounding it. I do not doubt their intellect (as a group) nor do i call into question the wealth of knowledge they have about their subject. I do, however, question the validity of that knowledge and whether it really constitutes a higher kind of learning than, say, a Tolkein scholar or a scholar of middle english.

It is my opinion, supported by the fact that the bible is not the grand respository of all knowledge nor the direct word of god as it has been claimed to be, that such scholarship of the subject is inherently flawed in that it focusses on a number of ficticious accounts and a vast quantity of hearsay, conjecture and spurious "eye-witness" accounts.

I apologise if this offends "biblical-scholars" but I cant change my sincere feeling that you are wasting your life devoting more than a hobbyist study to such a book.