Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Options
1…34689…15

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Seriously. Read the thread. All of it. Then get back to us.

    Oh. Welcome to Boards by the way. Enjoy your stay in A&A.

    ;)


  • Options
    #153
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I repeat - please read the whole thread.
    endacl wrote: »
    Seriously. Read the thread. All of it. Then get back to us.

    Oh. Welcome to Boards by the way. Enjoy your stay in A&A.

    ;)

    Ah here lads, I thought that was quite a good effort. There was punctuation and stuff. ;)


  • Options
    #154
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    :D


  • Options
    #155
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Obliq wrote: »
    Ah here lads, I thought that was quite a good effort. There was punctuation and stuff. ;)

    True and much appreciated.

    I just don't want to repeat myself but am hopeful that m4smith will be back and we can have a proper debate.


  • Options
    #156
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    True and much appreciated.

    I just don't want to repeat myself but am hopeful that m4smith will be back and we can have a proper debate.

    Mmm. I'd like to see someone give you a run for your money....;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Obliq wrote: »
    Mmm. I'd like to see someone give you a run for your money....;)

    It happens - and I like it. :D


  • Options
    #158
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    True and much appreciated.

    I just don't want to repeat myself but am hopeful that m4smith will be back and we can have a proper debate.

    The debate about the existence of Jesus is pretty much exhausted. Many Atheist and Agnostic academics agree he did exist or there is a strong level of probability to his existence.

    This debate should be about who he really was. He was a Jew from a poor family who challenged the regime of the day and was condemned to death for insurrection. Now would he be the first man in history to challenge a regime and pay the price with his life?

    Also the add to the debate... Loosers were usually written out of History. He challenged Rome, he lost, It was his followers who kept his message alive.


  • Options
    #159
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    m4smith wrote: »
    The debate about the existence of Jesus is pretty much exhausted. Many Atheist and Agnostic academics agree he did exist or there is a strong level of probability to his existence.

    This debate should be about who he really was. He was a Jew from a poor family who challenged the regime of the day and was condemned to death for insurrection. Now would he be the first man in history to challenge a regime and pay the price with his life?

    Again we have only later, non-contemporary sources which tell us about Jesus nor is it made clear exactly why he was executed for treason.

    As I pointed out in my post re:Deadwood - in order to make claims regarding historical accuracy (which is what this thread is about) one must produce evidence to support each and everyone of those claims.

    The Gospels simply do perform this task according to the rules of the discipline of History because their authors are unknown, the date of their composition is uncertain but all agree that they are not contemporary with the events they describe.


  • Options
    #160
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Again we have only later, non-contemporary sources which tell us about Jesus nor is it made clear exactly why he was executed for treason.

    As I pointed out in my post re:Deadwood - in order to make claims regarding historical accuracy (which is what this thread is about) one must produce evidence to support each and everyone of those claims.

    The Gospels simply do perform this task according to the rules of the discipline of History because their authors are unknown, the date of their composition is uncertain but all agree that they are not contemporary with the events they describe.

    Again I ask.. Why are the "non-Contemporary" sources a cause for saying he did not exist. I am not saying we need to use any biblical text as proof he existed, we just need to look at the facts and make an informed conclusion.

    Josephus was not a Christian, why write about the brother of Jesus? The balance of proof gives more weight to the probability he did exist.

    But this contemporary notion of proof would have been alien to the thought of the day.


  • Options
    #161
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    m4smith wrote: »
    Again I ask.. Why are the "non-Contemporary" sources a cause for saying he did not exist. I am not saying we need to use any biblical text as proof he existed, we just need to look at the facts and make an informed conclusion.

    Josephus was not a Christian, why write about the brother of Jesus? The balance of proof gives more weight to the probability he did exist.

    But this contemporary notion of proof would have been alien to the thought of the day.

    Who said he did not exist? I certainly didn't.

    The purpose of this thread is to discuss the historical evidence, or lack thereof, surrounding the actual existence of Jesus and how - according to the rules of the discipline of History - it is impossible to say definitively that he did exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Gospels simply do perform this task according to the rules of the discipline of History because their authors are unknown, the date of their composition is uncertain but all agree that they are not contemporary with the events they describe.

    The Gospels were not written as a historical blog ... They were written to tell a truth. Their style of writing is in line with other writing's of the day. Most certainly they were written from the stories that were told by people who knew the apostles or who's parents had known Jesus.

    But to say they are based on a made up figure who never even existed simply is not possible.


  • Options
    #163
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    m4smith wrote: »
    But this contemporary notion of proof would have been alien to the thought of the day.
    The point is though, that we live in this day and not that day.

    How come there is sooooooo much other, and often entirely insignificant stuff, that we can verify from those times and earlier, using 'modern' standards of inquiry?


  • Options
    #164
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    m4smith wrote: »
    The Gospels were not written as a historical blog ... They were written to tell a truth. Their style of writing is in line with other writing's of the day. Most certainly they were written from the stories that were told by people who knew the apostles or who's parents had known Jesus.

    But to say they are based on a made up figure who never even existed simply is not possible.

    I repeat - who said Jesus definitely did not exist or was a made up figure? :confused:

    Few documents from any period are written as 'historical blogs' - whatever they are. Even fewer documents are 'truth' - they are an expression of what the authors wish to convey/ the authors interpretation of events.
    In the case of the Gospels - the authors expression/interpretation of events in the past which they may or not not have personally witnessed.


  • Options
    #165
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    endacl wrote: »
    The point is though, that we live in this day and not that day.

    How come there is sooooooo much other, and often entirely insignificant stuff, that we can verify from those times and earlier, using 'modern' standards of inquiry?

    Jesus came from one of the lowest levels of society and owned practically nothing. We know Herod existed because we can see what he built. Jesus was no ruler, he was a poor illiterate peasant who challenged the regime for 3 years. When he died he would have had a couple of hundred followers in Israel. It was St.Paul who brought Jesus outside of Israel.

    Jesus used a non violent message it would seem, and as such was seen as a soft guy, weak. It was only later as his followers grew that he came to the attention of the Jews in Power who had him killed.


  • Options
    #166
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    m4smith wrote: »
    Jesus came from one of the lowest levels of society and owned practically nothing.
    Spartacus, anybody?


  • Options
    #167
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    m4smith wrote: »
    Jesus came from one of the lowest levels of society and owned practically nothing. We know Herod existed because we can see what he built. Jesus was no ruler, he was a poor illiterate peasant who challenged the regime for 3 years. When he died he would have had a couple of hundred followers in Israel. It was St.Paul who brought Jesus outside of Israel.

    Jesus used a non violent message it would seem, and as such was seen as a soft guy, weak. It was only later as his followers grew that he came to the attention of the Jews in Power who had him killed.

    If he had been killed by these 'Jews in power' he would have been stoned to death not crucified.

    Only Romans crucified and only for treason.


  • Options
    #168
    Jose1
    Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭Jose1


    Jose1 wrote: »
    Intrigued and having read through most of the posts on this topic it's pretty clear that proving Jesus Christ's existence is tough to say the least. Right now I'm on the fence on this one!

    This may have already been mentioned, sorry if that is the case, but if indeed 'JESUS CHRIST SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED, AND WAS BURIED' as gospels would suggest, then surely detailed historical Roman records were kept of his arrest and subsequent trail, thus proving or disproving his actual existence around that time.

    Were records of this or similar events ever written and if so do, or should they they currently exist?

    Which come around nicely to my earlier post;)


  • Options
    #169
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If he had been killed by these 'Jews in power' he would have been stoned to death not crucified.

    Only Romans crucified and only for treason.

    Precisely.. The reason they killed him was because he was called King of the Jews.. and this ran against the King they had put in place. Herod was Romes client-king, Jesus challenged indirectly the authority of Rome..


  • Options
    #170
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    m4smith wrote: »
    Precisely.. The reason they killed him was because he was called King of the Jews.. and this ran against the King they had put in place. Herod was Romes client-king, Jesus challenged indirectly the authority of Rome..

    You don't seem to be grasping the point I am making. To use the Gospels as 'proof' of the accuracy of the Gospels is classic circular logic.

    There are no independent sources which confirm or deny the contents of the Gospels - which let's face it are the 'authorised and official version' - the Orthodoxy which must be adhered to on pain of death -which grew out of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.


  • Options
    #171
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You don't seem to be grasping the point I am making. To use the Gospels as 'proof' of the accuracy of the Gospels is classic circular logic.

    There are no independent sources which confirm or deny the contents of the Gospels - which let's face it are the 'authorised and official version' - the Orthodoxy which must be adhered to on pain of death -which grew out of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.


    The Romans crucified thousands of people who challenged their rule. So its well within the boundaries of probability that Jesus's death on the cross did happen. He did challenge the status quo. As with any historical enquiry you need to weigh up the arguments. Its the same argument we could be having on Buddha.

    The Gospel of Mark was written around 70-71. So 40 years give or take after his death, well within the time limits that people who knew Jesus were still alive and after the destruction of Jerusalem that would have displaced many Jews and before the Capture of Masada. Jews of the day challenged Jesus's message and his legacy, but they never challenged his existence because it was evident to them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    m4smith wrote: »
    The Romans crucified thousands of people who challenged their rule. So its well within the boundaries of probability that Jesus's death on the cross did happen.

    Nobody has denied the possibility.


  • Options
    #173
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    m4smith wrote: »
    The Gospel of Mark was written around 70-71. So 40 years give or take after his death, well within the time limits that people who knew Jesus were still alive and after the destruction of Jerusalem that would have displaced many Jews and before the Capture of Masada.
    Now you're applying modern standards. Average life expectancy at the time was 50-55. Anybody who was old enough at the time of Jesus to provide a coherent account would have been well past their sell-by 40 years later. Unless you'd take the 40 year old memory of a Jesus-contemporary ten year old as 'gospel'.


  • Options
    #174
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Nobody has denied the possibility.

    Then once you have arrived at the conclusion that he probably did exist given the balance of evidence available then you can begin to build a more accurate picture of Jesus.. Because we have a mountain of knowledge about the era of Jesus.


  • Options
    #175
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    endacl wrote: »
    Now you're applying modern standards. Average life expectancy at the time was 50-55. Anybody who was old enough at the time of Jesus to provide a coherent account would have been well past their sell-by 40 years later. Unless you'd take the 40 year old memory of a Jesus-contemporary ten year old as 'gospel'.

    Not really Paul and Peter were dead in Rome by year 66. Its not beyond possibility that those who were not put to death lived to recount the life of Christ, Esp the women followers of Jesus.


  • Options
    #176
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    m4smith wrote: »
    Not really Paul and Peter were dead in Rome by year 66. Its not beyond possibility that those who were not put to death lived to recount the life of Christ, Esp the women followers of Jesus.
    Its not beyond possibility, but it is speculation, and therefore not 'evidence'.


  • Options
    #177
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    endacl wrote: »
    Its not beyond possibility, but it is speculation, and therefore not 'evidence'.

    You need to judge the facts that we know in the context of the age and arrive at a conclusion. You are never going to find the evidence you are looking for.

    Personally I am surprised we have anything at all from the first century. Usually the victors don't leave much place in history for the defeated. And Christians were very much persecuted in the first century.

    If you don't believe what is written about Jesus then you have to ask why not? If its invented then what is the motive? Did writers of the age think like that? No they didn't.


  • Options
    #178
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    m4smith wrote: »
    If its invented then what is the motive?
    Oh man, that's a whole 'nother thread...

    :D


  • Options
    #179
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    m4smith wrote: »
    Then once you have arrived at the conclusion that he probably did exist given the balance of evidence available then you can begin to build a more accurate picture of Jesus.. Because we have a mountain of knowledge about the era of Jesus.

    But this thread is about proof, evidence, of a specific claim. You could build a statistical model describing the average person at different levels of society based on historical knowledge of that era. For instance, statistically, if Jesus existed this is probably roughly what he looked like:

    face-of-jesus-01-0312-de.jpg

    However without specific proof, you cannot nail down more individual facts.


  • Options
    #180
    Aineoil
    Registered Users Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Aineoil


    I'm not as well read or as educated as all of you on on the boards, but Reza Aslan has a book about Jesus. He did exist, I think. Jesus was no gandhi. He was more like che guevaria


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    m4smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭m4smith


    endacl wrote: »
    Oh man, that's a whole 'nother thread...

    :D

    No its not, Its this one. The mind of the people of the day was not to invent a character out of nowhere, it simply would not have happened. Jesus was very much a real person.

    The question really is around was he the same person as described in the new testament?


Advertisement