Proof that jesus walked the earth???

juddd · 07-01-2006 08:43AM #1

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 · 07-01-2006 11:31AM

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 · 07-01-2006 03:37PM

No matter if there is evidence for his existence or not, I still believe in Him.

But academics is always fun!

14jake88 · 07-01-2006 03:45PM

the untold truth,jesus was a black.

patzer117 · 07-01-2006 06:19PM

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 · 07-01-2006 08:12PM

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 · 07-01-2006 10:03PM

> 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 · 08-01-2006 10:22AM

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 · 08-01-2006 10:27AM

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 · 08-01-2006 10:45AM

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 · 08-01-2006 10:45AM

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 · 08-01-2006 10:48AM

Cool thanx.

Excelsior · 08-01-2006 10:55AM

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 · 08-01-2006 12:08PM

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 · 08-01-2006 04:28PM

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 · 08-01-2006 04:51PM

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 · 08-01-2006 05:51PM

> 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 · 08-01-2006 07:28PM

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 · 08-01-2006 10:16PM

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 · 09-01-2006 12:39PM

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 · 09-01-2006 02:26PM

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

Interesting court case. Wonder how it will pan out.

robindch · 09-01-2006 02:30PM

> 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 · 09-01-2006 10:13PM

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 · 10-01-2006 05:22AM

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 · 10-01-2006 01:31PM

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 · 10-01-2006 02:44PM

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

Morbert · 10-01-2006 04:02PM

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 · 10-01-2006 04:29PM

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 · 10-01-2006 04:53PM

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 · 10-01-2006 05:15PM

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 · 11-01-2006 08:23PM

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.

Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Comments