Proof that jesus walked the earth???

BrianCalgary · 11-01-2006 08:48PM

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 · 12-01-2006 02:12PM

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 · 12-01-2006 04:05PM

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 · 14-01-2006 06:50PM

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 · 19-11-2007 04:38AM

: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 · 19-11-2007 04:42AM

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

Asiaprod · 19-11-2007 06:30AM

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 · 19-11-2007 09:41AM

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 · 19-11-2007 09:59AM

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 · 19-11-2007 10:53AM

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 · 19-11-2007 11:00AM

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 · 19-11-2007 11:09AM

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 · 19-11-2007 11:36AM

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 · 19-11-2007 11:47AM

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 · 19-11-2007 12:09PM

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 · 19-11-2007 12:41PM

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 · 19-11-2007 12:43PM

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 · 19-11-2007 01:34PM

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 · 19-11-2007 02:43PM

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 · 19-11-2007 02:48PM

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.

interestinguser · 19-11-2007 03:32PM

Whether Jesus lived or not would appear to be uncertain. It’s quite possible that he did and I think probably most people think he did, or more accurately presume he did.

Here is an article about The Jesus Project, which you guys should find interesting.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hoffmann_27_3

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_27_3

BrianCalgary · 19-11-2007 06:30PM

Hivemind, unfortunately you are showing quite an ignorance of History.

No historian questions the existence of jesus of Nazareth as a real live living person. There are writings outside of the Bible that support his life and ministry. These reports do interpret His activities differently, but support what the Bible says and reports about His activities.

To interestingguser:
The Jesus seminar has been discredited as to having any historical validity.

interestinguser · 19-11-2007 06:43PM

To interestingguser:
The Jesus seminar has been discredited as to having any historical validity.

Indeed.
However I am referring to The Jesus Project, a new initiative, which has only recently began its work.
Here is a podcast where it is discussed in detail. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=114

It seems quite interesting. In the podcast the speaker talks about how they shall try to avoid some of the mistakes made by the jesus seminar.

Zombrex · 19-11-2007 06:50PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No historian questions the existence of jesus of Nazareth as a real live living person.

That isn't true

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

PDN · 19-11-2007 07:26PM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

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.

The wikipedia article I quoted referred to "biblical scholars and historians". You keep banging on about "biblical scholars" while ignoring the "historians".

I would not go so far as Brian in stating that no historian questions the existence of Jesus as a historical person. There is a tiny minority of historians who do question his existence, just as there is a tiny minority of scientists who deny evolution.

PDN · 19-11-2007 07:28PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

infidels.org? In an academic discussion that would be the equivalent of quoting Jack Chick or Ken Hamm as an authoritative source.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-11-2007 07:52PM

Excluding the bible what evidence is there ?

If you are basing everything on the bible then how much of it has been given the public relations treatment, while a historical Jesus figure may have existed how close was he (or a composite "they") to the character described in the book ? Event today people like Michael Collins get a whitewashing by dying young / being a martyr for the cause.

PDN · 19-11-2007 08:13PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Excluding the bible what evidence is there ?

If you are basing everything on the bible then how much of it has been given the public relations treatment, while a historical Jesus figure may have existed how close was he (or a composite "they") to the character described in the book ? Event today people like Michael Collins get a whitewashing by dying young / being a martyr for the cause.

What you are asking is whether the Jesus who existed is accurately portrayed in the Bible. That has been rehashed over again and again on these boards - but I guess you could always start a new thread to discuss it. This thread is about whether Jesus actually existed at all, which, according to the vast majority of historians, he did.

Scofflaw · 19-11-2007 08:45PM

PDN wrote: »

What you are asking is whether the Jesus who existed is accurately portrayed in the Bible. That has been rehashed over again and again on these boards - but I guess you could always start a new thread to discuss it. This thread is about whether Jesus actually existed at all, which, according to the vast majority of historians, he did.

That is certainly the case, although it's a lot harder to see exactly why. The historicity of Shakespeare, Homer, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, and virtually every prominent personage from Antiquity has been questioned at some point, as has the historicity of every major epic from the Bhagavad Gita to Njal's Saga. In most cases the default assumption by modern Western historians appears to be that one needs to prove historicity starting from a default position of scepticism. Jesus and the Bible (particularly the New Testament) appear to be an exception to this rule.

If one starts from an assumption that Jesus did not exist, and needs to be proven, we do find ourself in the position that the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible. If we allow that evidence as conclusive, we have to allow the same historicity for Mohammed, Buddha, Homer, Lao Tzu, Confucius, etc etc. Further, we have no reason to exclude the Iliad, and the major personages thereof, or Njal's Saga, or any other early epic. I don't consider that an unacceptable position, mind you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Michael G · 19-11-2007 11:29PM

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???

I came to this discussion late, but: assuming he existed and the accounts of his life are true, he was a man without political power or social position in an occupied country, he was a travelling preacher and he was executed by the occupying power in a manner that was used for criminals. The Jews did not make images, either sculpted or painted. If his followers did keep objects that were associated with him, they too were people without political power or social position in an underground cult. It was 300 years before Constantine accepted Christianity. In the meantime Nero, Diocletian and others had tried to wipe Christianity out.

The only people of whom there are identifiable records and evidence from the ancient world are kings and a few other powerful people, from their living works or their monuments. Certainly there is plenty of anonymous material evidence of ordinary people but not (apart from a tiny number of cases) anything that would even give us their names. It is all anonymous. There could be somewhere in Palestine a remnant of a discarded old sandal that Jesus had worn out, but no one could tell it from any other.

So I'm afraid the OP's question was a bit pointless. The oral and written records are quite convincing, and with faith (which I realise other posters would discount) I believe them.

By the way if St John's account of the Last Supper is fiction, then he was 1,800 years ahead of Jane Austen in bringing the technique of fictional narrative of dialogue to that level.

Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Comments