NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

Yes he did. There really shouldn't be any debate on whether he existed or not.

Now, the real question should be if he is really the son of God.

i've heard many times there are Roman records stating that a man named Jesus the Nazerene was crucified around year 30, but i din't have any quotable evidence or a website. if anyone knows about this, please let us know.

Be well!:D

i've heard many times there are Roman records stating that a man named Jesus the Nazerene was crucified around year 30, but i din't have any quotable evidence or a website. if anyone knows about this, please let us know.

Be well!:D

I've never seen anything besides the bible that states Jesus lived. If someone can provide me with this evidence I would be glad to read it ^_^

Tacitus (c. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (Annals, xv.44).

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/jesusAndHistory.htm

Tacitus (c. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (Annals, xv.44).

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/jesusAndHistory.htm
I don't see Jesus in there though. It's one thing to mention Pontius Pilate but I see no evidence of the name Jesus in Roman history. Thanks...kinda.

Jesus= Christus

Tacitus (c. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (Annals, xv.44).

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/jesusAndHistory.htm

the reliability of tacitus' writings can be debated. the same with josephus'. grave knows mare about this and im sure will add his comments...

I don't see Jesus in there though. It's one thing to mention Pontius Pilate but I see no evidence of the name Jesus in Roman history. Thanks...kinda.

Of course they'd call him Christus. It means messiah. It's like calling God 'Jim
Bob' or 'Clyde' instead of his reverant title.

well, by then (60-120 AD), Jesus was refered to as "Christus," which means "the annointed one" (ie, Messiah). therefore, it's possible he would be reffered to by a different moniker.

the reliability of tacitus' writings can be debated. the same with josephus'. grave knows mare about this and im sure will add his comments...
How can it be debated? Just wondering.

well, by then (60-120 AD), Jesus was refered to as "Christus," which means "the annointed one" (ie, Messiah). therefore, it's possible he would be reffered to by a different moniker.

beat yah to it by a minute buddy ;)

*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

yeah, but i gave the english translation. most people don't know what messiah or christ mean...sad

I'm sure he existed, but he's not the son of god. his teachings seem kind of weak to me, thougj. :mp5:

How can it be debated? Just wondering.

scholars have suggested that the writings have been tampered with, perhaps even forged

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

I'm an atheist, but I've always pretty much accepted that Jesus Christ the man did exist. However, I've never accepted that he was the son of god, performed miracles, came back from the dead, etc.

There are not enough records to say whether or not Jesus was alive or whether the whole thing is a racket. I personally believe that Jesus was a man, nothing more than a great teacher. Then again, my religion has no God. It's known that a man named Paul certainly did exist and cause trouble preaching in the roman empire. I believe that the Christian religion is a noble one in the origins, but practices have become so distorted due to corruption that it is greatly deligitamized.

If records other than the bible can show that jesus/yeshua/christus/whatever existed, ill believe it. his miracles, well they're fairytales. :cool:

scholars have suggested that the writings have been tampered with, perhaps even forged

Naturally Scholars are going to say that they been trying to tell us for years he never existed and if we got proof well one to us.

I'm sure he existed, but he's not the son of god. his teachings seem kind of weak to me, thougj. :mp5:

Yeah it's ironic that more people have killed or have been killed in his name than any other person in the history of mankind. Even though he preached forgiveness and nonviolence.

How can it be debated? Just wondering.

It can be debated because it conflicts with his belief that Jesus never existed.

The fact of the matter is IF He existed, not whether or not He was the Son of God.

I challenge anyone to disprove Jesus' existence USING historical writings (since other "sources" are not credible anyway). My evidence that He DID exist? Tacticus.

I'm sure he existed, but he's not the son of god. his teachings seem kind of weak to me, thougj. :mp5:

What? Should his teachings have been more along the lines of Fundamentalist Islam?

That's a little bit stronger.

Sure Jesus exists. He mows my lawn every friday. Sarcasm

Yeah it's ironic that more people have killed or have been killed in his name than any other person in the history of mankind. Even though he preached forgiveness and nonviolence.


Well, you need to read what He actually said in terms of the religion itself...



John 15:18: If the World has hated you, keep in mind that it hated me first.


He isn't implying that there will be NO hate, He was implying that Christians do not hate others, but others WILL hate them.

Well, you need to read what He actually said in terms of the religion itself...



John 15:18: If the World has hated you, keep in mind that it hated me first.


He isn't implying that there will be NO hate, He was implying that Christians do not hate others, but others WILL hate them.

I was implying that Jesus preached something along the lines of "If you are hit on the cheek, turn the other cheek so he may hit you again". Of course it's not exactly how he said it but you get the picture.

Sure Jesus exists. He mows my lawn every friday. Sarcasm


I challenge to you logically prove your sarcastic statement using historical writings. If you can't, then shouldn't you rethink it?

Like I said, it's not about IF He was the Son of God (or even if there is a God), the fact is did He exist at all?

I personally have little doubt that Jesus actually existed. Of course exactly what he did, what he was like, and his exact significance in the grand scheme of things is another matter altogether.

At the most, he was the son of "God", at the least, he was some crazy drunk that a few people took a little too seriously. :D

I was implying that Jesus preached something along the lines of "If you are hit on the cheek, turn the other cheek so he may hit you again". Of course it's not exactly how he said it but you get the picture.


Ahh, alright. I misinterpreted it.

I challenge to you logically prove your sarcastic statement using historical writings. If you can't, then shouldn't you rethink it?
:rolleyes:

Hooray for a logical discussion about the topic I presented ^_^

I personally have little doubt that Jesus actually existed. Of course exactly what he did, what he was like, and his exact significance in the grand scheme of things is another matter altogether.

At the most, he was the son of "God", at the least, he was some crazy drunk that a few people took a little too seriously. :D

Doesn't seem like a crzy drunk.

:rolleyes:


So, it looks like you CAN'T. Please, if you can't prove your opinion, you should rethink it.

Really, you don't need to believe he was what the Christians say he was. The matter is whether he actually lived on the Earth 2000 (more or less) years ago.

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

The Muslims considered him a profit so yes he did exist.

aka wikipedia

Alright thanks for the information people. Helped me out considerably. I'm glad I found this forum.

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.


Ummmmm, yes he did.

Alright thanks for the information people. Helped me out considerably. I'm glad I found this forum.

No problem, glad I could help.

So, it looks like you CAN'T. Please, if you can't prove your opinion, you should rethink it.

Really, you don't need to believe he was what the Christians say he was. The matter is whether he actually lived on the Earth 2000 (more or less) years ago.
I think we are a small bit challenged in the ways of humor. No?

I think we are a small bit challenged in the ways of humor. No?


Humor? What is humor? :confused:

Humor? What is humor? :confused:

:rolleyes:

Okay. I shall bite.

In regards to the Jesus question, non-Biblical sources centre around two sources: Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus' account has two references to a "Jesus", one in a paragraph (which many scholars believe was a later insertion because it disrupts the flow of the text) and a minor reference to "James the brother of Jesus".

Tacitus talks about mainly about the persecution of the Christians ("Christiani") under Nero, talking about the execution of "Christus" under the procurator Pontius Pilate occuring during Tiberius' reign. He gives a rather unflattering account on the Christians, calling them a "superstituous" sect. Unlike Josephus, the flow of the text is not disrupted. However, criticism of Tacitus' work here stems from the fact that Tacitus- who is known to have access to Roman archives- would have known that Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator, and, if he had indeed used Roman archives, he would have referred to Jesus by his given name, not by "Christ". Plus, the information drawn here could have been derived from a conversation with a Christian, and, while Tacitus has a reputation for being an astute researcher and historian, most Roman aristocrats like him paid little attention to Christians because they "just caused trouble".

Other accounts- such as Pliny The Younger- deal with "Christians" but not Jesus in particular.

Now, a common argument is made that because "there is no direct record of Jesus, Jesus did not exist". This is an argument from silence and therefore not the truth. The truth is that we simply don't have any records, and that's it. It does not mean that Jesus did exist or he didn't exist- it just means we don't have any records verifying his existence. A record could, presumably, turn up that affirms Jesus' existence, so to state a lack of records indicates "verifiable" proof that Jesus did not exist is a fallacy since one can show up.

There is also another few parallels I want to draw. First of all, Jesus can either be called "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus the Nazarene". "Nazarene" means "warrior" and hence "Jesus the Nazarene" could be called "Jesus the warrior" (correct me on the meaning of "Nazarene" in Hebrew because I'm not fluent in that). I state this because some believe that Nazareth itself did not exist before Queen Palmyra founded it in the 3rd century, and, while there is debate about this, there are other possibilities for the meaning of "Nazarene" other than "Nazareth".

Secondly, around Jesus' time there were many people claiming to be the Messiah, mostly because the Jews wanted to expel the Romans from Judea. Jesus, hence, could be one of those Messiah claimants (and, arguably the most successful since Christianity is the world's largest religion). Hence, the possibility exists that the Gospels are a record of Jesus' claim and that other records may exist asserting the claims of others.

(Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Other_historically_significant_Jewish_Messiah_claimants )

i've heard many times there are Roman records stating that a man named Jesus the Nazerene was crucified around year 30, but i din't have any quotable evidence or a website. if anyone knows about this, please let us know.

Be well!:D
I've heard this to, unfortunanently I also have no idea were you would look for it.

I'm a deist and I don't believe in the Bible or Jesus. Here is one of many interesting things I have learned from deist websites - namely deism.org


Answer:

-He was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
-He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
-He had 12 companions or disciples.
-His followers were promised immortality.
-He performed miracles.
-He sacrificed himself for the world.
-He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
-His resurrection was celebrated every year.
-He was called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
-He was considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Word,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
-His sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,”
-His principal festival was on what was later to become Easter.
-His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which he allegedly spoke of eating his body and drinking his blood symbolically with the eating of bread and drinking of wine.

Question: Who is Mithra? His story bore remarkable similarity to Jesus and he predated Jesus by roughly a thousand years.

Basically, so guy in the desert preached that he was the son of god and when historians wrote into books they took facts from an old Iranian god.

We also cannot definitively prove that George Washington ever existed...

Let's argue about that.

I'm a deist and I don't believe in the Bible or Jesus. Here is one of many interesting things I have learned from deist websites - namely deism.org


Answer:

-He was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
-He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
-He had 12 companions or disciples.
-His followers were promised immortality.
-He performed miracles.
-He sacrificed himself for the world.
-He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
-His resurrection was celebrated every year.
-He was called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
-He was considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Word,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
-His sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,”
-His principal festival was on what was later to become Easter.
-His religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which he allegedly spoke of eating his body and drinking his blood symbolically with the eating of bread and drinking of wine.

Question: Who is Mithra? His story bore remarkable similarity to Jesus and he predated Jesus by roughly a thousand years.

Basically, so guy in the desert preached that he was the son of god and when historians wrote into books they took facts from an old Iranian god.

That doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist- it merely provides the argument that Gospel writers were influenced by the tradition of Mithra (who was known to and revered heavily by 1st century Romans) in writing the Gospels, not an uncommon function in ancient texts. Many ancients tried to assert their legitimacy by tying themselves to revered traditions or peoples (Julius Caesar, for example, was an apparent descendant of Aeneas and Venus), and the Gospels linking Jesus to Mithra would be no exception.

I've also heard the argument that a lot of Gospel sayings are really Socratic, which is related to the Mithra/Jesus connection in that it's another attempt to legitimize Jesus by saying he was just as great as Mithra or Socrates, both of whom were well known back then.

Furthermore, most scholars who don't dispute Jesus' existence don't dispute that the Gospels have a lot of fantastic sections. Many stories- ancient or modern- contain real individuals and thus a kernel of truth can be drawn from those stories. The Gospels, therefore, are no different: under this argument, they are a depiction of a real character named Jesus, it's only that a lot of fanciful details (such as him walking on water) have been inserted in the text by the writers to assert Jesus' significance and importance.

Well, even Nietzsche believed he existed, but I'm not sure.

Jesus probably came as a hallucination to a bunch of bums in ancient Rome after eating some primitave narcotic plant or mushroom, and he told them some crazy, doped up story that they later published as the Bible.

There's my two cents.

Did Charles Darwin exist?

I'm sure he existed, but he's not the son of god. his teachings seem kind of weak to me, thougj.
His teachings seem weak??? How so?? Just because he isn't preaching the end of the world or about war doesn't mean that his arguments are weak.

Here's my opinion...
There is no documented proof of Jesus Christ that can be totally confirmed...

BUT:
For me, every day He is confirmed when I talk to Him and He responds in the happenings around me. Knowing the many times when I have really needed help, and asking for it, and receiving it, leaves very little doubt in my mind as to whether or not Jesus existed.

The thing is, you gotta find it out for yourself... you have to try... try to let Him control your life, even if just for a day. It doesn't work to have shortcomings, to view it soley as a test, just to see. You have to jump and know that you have no backup parachute, just your main one.;)

Read Bruce M. Metzger's New Testament: Its Growth, Its Background, Its Content. He offers a list with critical analysis.

There are numerous documents, both secular and religious (and reliable in the light of various aspects), that give a sound foundation for Jesus' existence.

1. Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

2. Talmud the Babylonian (wrote a hostile testimony against Jesus, defamation of sorts).

3. Pliny the Younger in a letter written to Emperor Trajan (a Roman).

4. Tacitus in Annals.

5. Suetonius in his history book The Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

6. Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

... and others.

It is largely misleading to state that "many scholars are debating the existence of Jesus." Such a great and loyal following despite extremely violent and cruel persecution, outside references, inside references, etc, lend even more credibility to the situation.

If we are to not believe Jesus Christ existed based on the historical documents presented to us, then we would be required to throw into the trash a huge heap of others figures from before his time (who we take for granted).

The debate lies not within whether he was on this planet or not, but whether he is the Son of God or man. Obviously, that simply delves into religion.

There are probably numerous scholarly (not random internet websites) sources on the subject.

And that is that. Hurray. I'm hungry. Pizza? Ftw.

Just to play Devil's Advocate (NOT a pun)

1. Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Most scholars agree his main section on Jesus are fabricated in some way or another, if not completely, because this section disrupts the flow of the text. The "James the brother of Jesus" section isn't disputed, however.

2. Talmud the Babylonian (wrote a hostile testimony against Jesus, defamation of sorts).

The Talmud contains nothing on Jesus proper (the Jewish form of the name would be "Yehoshuah"). The closest the Babylonian (not the Jerusalem version, mind you) comes is "Yeshu", which could also used for anyone who tried to convert people from Judaism.

3. Pliny the Younger in a letter written to Emperor Trajan (a Roman).

Pliny's letters deal with "Christians" not Jesus himself. Also, "Christus"- which is used in Roman accounts- does not directly mean "Jesus", it simply means "Saviour". At the time, several people were called "Christus", not just Jesus.

4. Tacitus in Annals. Same thing as above: "Christus" is just "Saviour", not Jesus. Considering he drew from Roman accounts, he also gets several details wrong (for example, he labels Pontius Pilate a "procurator" when he should have been labelled a "prefect"). His account could very well have easily come from a conversation with a Christian, hence the parallels between his account and the traditions.

5. Suetonius in his history book The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Same as Pliny and Tacitus, but with this addition: his version has a man named "Chrestus", which was a common name in Rome and Greece, and, judging by the text, he is dealing more with a person living in Rome in AD 54 than Jesus.

6. Mark, Matthew, and Luke. In the Synoptic Gospels This extends only as far as one's belief in the Bible.

... and others. State them.

It is false to state that historians are "heavily debating the existence of Jesus," as it is widely accepted.

There IS a debate, and, largely, most historians don't want to go near it because of the hype surrounding such a topic. My Roman History professor wouldn't go near it when I asked him about it, probably because he was afraid of offending me or something (I should have told him I wouldn't be, but he was in a mild hurry).

Such a great and loyal following despite extremely violent and cruel persecution, outside references, inside references, etc, lends even more credibility.

Religion isn't historical proof for the existence of anything. Nobody ever thinks that Yahweh was a historical person on Earth (although I think the proof of that may actually turn up at some point).

If we are to not believe Jesus Christ existed based on the historical documents presented to us, we would be required to throw into the trash a huge heap of others figures from before his time.

There are many "historical" figures whose existence is debated, such as the Homeric characters, Gilgamesh, etc.

The debate lies not within whether he was on this planet or not, but whether he is the Son of God or man. Obviously, that simply delves into religion.

There are probably numerous scholarly (not random internet websites) sources on the subject.

The scholars are still divided, and even there, not every scholar is a good one to learn off of. Caution is still needed there (not to diminish scholarly work at all- a lot of it is useful, but a lot of it is crap too).

And that is that. Hurray. I'm hungry. Pizza? Ftw.

Pizza? I'm game. :D

Did Charles Darwin exist?

Not bad for a first post. Short and sweet, yet insightful, but probably a little too subtle for the screaming liberals that proliferate like bunnies in these forums.

My original answer to the question "Does Jesus exist?" would be.....

....ask Him yourself after you die. And hope He's in a good mood.

*ffffff* If you smoke too much *ffffff* weed *ffffff*, then, yeah, Jesus do *ffffff* exist *ffffff* ahhhhhhhh.... :D

Just to play Devil's Advocate (NOT a pun)



Most scholars agree his main section on Jesus are fabricated in some way or another, if not completely, because this section disrupts the flow of the text. The "James the brother of Jesus" section isn't disputed, however.



The Talmud contains nothing on Jesus proper (the Jewish form of the name would be "Yehoshuah"). The closest the Babylonian (not the Jerusalem version, mind you) comes is "Yeshu", which could also used for anyone who tried to convert people from Judaism.



Pliny's letters deal with "Christians" not Jesus himself. Also, "Christus"- which is used in Roman accounts- does not directly mean "Jesus", it simply means "Saviour". At the time, several people were called "Christus", not just Jesus.

Same thing as above: "Christus" is just "Saviour", not Jesus. Considering he drew from Roman accounts, he also gets several details wrong (for example, he labels Pontius Pilate a "procurator" when he should have been labelled a "prefect"). His account could very well have easily come from a conversation with a Christian, hence the parallels between his account and the traditions.

Same as Pliny and Tacitus, but with this addition: his version has a man named "Chrestus", which was a common name in Rome and Greece, and, judging by the text, he is dealing more with a person living in Rome in AD 54 than Jesus.

This extends only as far as one's belief in the Bible.

State them.



There IS a debate, and, largely, most historians don't want to go near it because of the hype surrounding such a topic. My Roman History professor wouldn't go near it when I asked him about it, probably because he was afraid of offending me or something (I should have told him I wouldn't be, but he was in a mild hurry).



Religion isn't historical proof for the existence of anything. Nobody ever thinks that Yahweh was a historical person on Earth (although I think the proof of that may actually turn up at some point).



There are many "historical" figures whose existence is debated, such as the Homeric characters, Gilgamesh, etc.



The scholars are still divided, and even there, not every scholar is a good one to learn off of. Caution is still needed there (not to diminish scholarly work at all- a lot of it is useful, but a lot of it is crap too).



Pizza? I'm game. :D

The Babylonian Talmud makes the following statements about Jesus. (1) Jesus, under the name of Ben Pandera (that is, Son of Pandera), is said to have been born out of wedlock, his mother having been seduced by a paramour named Pandera. (2) He is said to have been in Egypt where he learned magic, whereby he was able to perform many marvelous works in order to deceive the people. (3) He called himself God. (4) He was tried by the Sanhedrin as a deceiver and a teacher of apostasy. (5) He was executed on the eve of the Passover, either by crucificion or as an alternative tradition states) by being stoned and then hanged. (6) He had five disciples, whose names are given as Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah. It is generally agreed that this document adds nothing new to that of contained in the Gospels, yet it confirms early tradition by giving independent--and even hostile-- testimony that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. It reflects a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera.

Pliny states that Christians are accustomed to assemble together regularly on a certain day, and "to sing responsibely a hym to Christ as if to a god." Carmen Christo quasi deo dicere scum invecem.

When referring to Christians, Tacitus stated, "Their name comes from Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius as emperor was condemned to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate." That is in the Annals, xv. 44. There is no dispute between who he refers to. Tacitus is universally acknowledged to be one of the most reliable of Roman historians, whose passion for sober and accurate reporting was joined with a critical sense rare in his time.

Suetonius is the one who uses "Chrestus" as opposed to "Christus." He states a reference to the Jewish-Christians "who had been continually stirring up trouble under the influence of Chrestus." It is hard to imagine he was referring to an ordinary man not of Christ's stature. His misspelling is not difficult to understand considering he was a pagan who had very little interest or sympathy for the new sect.

Almost all scholars regard the shorter passage of Josephus' Antiquities where the reference to Jesus is casual and where Josephus speaks of him as the "so-called Christ" as undoubtedly genuine. It is probable that the longer passage had been expanded, yet not totally interpolated, by an overzealous Christian scribe. Recently, concerning "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ," scholarly opinion about the testimonium Flavianum has been shifting to a defense of the essential authenticity of the passage on the basis of an examination of a tenth-century Arabic version of Josephus made by Agapius, a Melchite bishop of Hierapolis in Syria. An Israeli scholar, Shlomo Pines, having compared the Arabic and Greek texts, found the following differences: (1) Agapius's version of Josephus assumes the humanity of Jesus. (2) His account does not refer to Jesus' miracles, but rather to his good conduct and virtue. (3) The appearance after three days is mentioned as a "report." (4) As a disclaimer, "perhaps," is inserted before the statement that "he was the Messiah." Such differences led Pines to conclude that the Arabic version may preserve a form of text that is close to the original, untampered text of Josephus. Other Jewish scholars (like Paul Winter, Geza Vermes, etc) that the literary style of the Greek account is altogether like that of Joseph, and that a shorter account was embroidred by a Christian scribe who added several clauses (and possible omissions of things derogatory to Jesus, taking away from historical evidence,) Again, the casual manner of the "so-called Christ" is considered purely genuine.

Etc. Other sources are Paul, whose knowledge of Jesus was not limited to the bare fact that Jesus had lived upon the Earth, but who had a definite idea of the story of his life, and was careful to distinguish between pronouncements made by Jesus on ethical problems and his own pronouncements, etc. Paul's letters contain a large number of allusions to sayings of Jesus. Some scholars think it likely that Paul had in his hands a collection of Jesus' sayings, considering he used so many of them. And others.

I did not claim there was not a debate; I claimed that it is misleading to suggest the debate is at all fierce or highly polar-- it is the very opposite of such. The high majority of learned scholars will not deny the existence of Jesus. The non-Christian testiomonies concerning Jesus, even without taking into account the evidence contained in the New Testament, is sufficient to prove that he was a historical figure who lived in Palestine, gathered a group of followers about himself, and was condemned to death under Pontius Pilate. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus (supported by Robert E. Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence... scholars are in agreement). Instead, they strike at the religious topic of whether he was man or Son of God (and the miracles he performed, etc).

Have a slice. I'm stuffed. :(

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

Time Magazine's cover story from Dec 18, 1995 noted that there was a Jesus of Nazareth living at the time of Christ, that historical evidence proves this. Obviously for those who do not believe in Christ they might note that this was not truly the Christ and even if it was there is no proof that he did the miracles the bible says he did. Either way however history does show a Jesus of Nazareth living at around 0AD to 33AD approx and if you know your history, whether believer of Christ or not you will know that that is factual information.

Time Magazine's cover story from Dec 18, 1995 noted that there was a Jesus of Nazareth living at the time of Christ, that historical evidence proves this. Obviously for those who do not believe in Christ they might note that this was not truly the Christ and even if it was there is no proof that he did the miracles the bible says he did. Either way however history does show a Jesus of Nazareth living at around 0AD to 33AD approx and if you know your history, whether believer of Christ or not you will know that that is factual information.

Correct. There is no riot over the existence but of the deed.

Arrgh put the Idiots back in the cage!

We also cannot definitively prove that George Washington ever existed...

Let's argue about that.
The contemporary, primary, evidence for the existence of George Washington is so plentiful and clear-cut that to dispute his existence is tantamount to disputing the existence of history itself.

The contemporary, primary, evidence for the existence of Jesus is zero. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but we have no proof that he did.

The contemporary, primary, evidence for the existence of George Washington is so plentiful and clear-cut that to dispute his existence is tantamount to disputing the existence of history itself.

The contemporary, primary, evidence for the existence of Jesus is zero. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but we have no proof that he did.
What do you mean? All of the evidence showing George Washington comes from American archives; they're quite clearly not contemporary sources since they have an agenda to prove.

What do you mean? All of the evidence showing George Washington comes from American archives; they're quite clearly not contemporary sources since they have an agenda to prove.
"Contemporary" means "of the same time as". Therefore, contemporary evidence about George Washington means evidence which dates from his own lifetime.

Not all such evidence exists in American archives. The British of the time had a thing or two to say about him too, although they would have preferred that he didn't exist!

"Contemporary" means "of the same time as". Therefore, contemporary evidence about George Washington means evidence which dates from his own lifetime.

Not all such evidence exists in American archives. The British of the time had a thing or two to say about him too, although they would have preferred that he didn't exist!
Biblical accounts are contemporary in that sense, yeah?

And these Roman historical records? Probably the same thing as the British records on George.

My point is that you can question any evidence if you feel it to have an obvious slant in proving your opponent's point. Such questioning is often not in any way useful. It's like the whole Evolution/ID debate; IDers will reject any notion of evolutionary evidence on the sole ground that it's evolutionary evidence and therefore biased in favour of the Evolution proponants.

Now I personally don't doubt in George's existence. Why should I? But someone could apply the same reasoning that they do in doubting Jesus's existence to George's if they really felt that George Washington's existence was threatening to their ideas.

The thing is, there really isn't any reason to assume that someone who at least vaguely resembles the idea of Jesus didn't exist around the Roman era. Whether or not his name was even Jesus doesn't really matter that much. There's plenty of reason to doubt claims made about him, such as virgin conception, resurrection and Godhood. But a guy who came along, claimed to be God, said some smart stuff then got executed by the state? Is that really so completely unbelievable?

Has anyone brought up the James Ossuary yet?, that seems like proof that he existed.

Biblical accounts are contemporary in that sense, yeah?

And these Roman historical records? Probably the same thing as the British records on George.
No, the Biblical accounts are not contemporary. The earliest mention of Jesus comes from Paul in c.49 AD, 20 years after the crucifixion; and Paul says that he never met Jesus, so even if his account was contemporary, it wouldn't be primary evidence. He shows little interest in, and tells us next to nothing about, Jesus the man, which leads some scholars to doubt that he was talking about a man who preached in the 20s AD at all.

The earliest accounts of Jesus's life are the gospels, the first of which was probably written around 70 AD, over 40 years after the crucifixion. That's a long way from being contemporary, and we have no real evidence about who the authors were or whether the authors were eye-witnesses of Jesus's life.

The earliest non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus, who wrote in the 90s AD, over 60 years after the events.

My point is that you can question any evidence if you feel it to have an obvious slant in proving your opponent's point. Such questioning is often not in any way useful. It's like the whole Evolution/ID debate; IDers will reject any notion of evolutionary evidence on the sole ground that it's evolutionary evidence and therefore biased in favour of the Evolution proponants.
The questioning of evidence isn't only useful, it's absolutely essential, regardless of whether or not you want to put a slant on it. Only a fool (or someone who wants create fictitious history) would take evidence at face value without trying to verify its date and authenticity.

Now I personally don't doubt in George's existence. Why should I? But someone could apply the same reasoning that they do in doubting Jesus's existence to George's if they really felt that George Washington's existence was threatening to their ideas.
They would find it extremely difficult to realisitically question Washington's existence, since the evidence is so abundant.

Those who admit that there is no firm evidence of Jesus's life including Christian scholars (who'd love such evidence to exist), as well as non-believers like myself to whom it doesn't really matter whether he existed or not, because his mere existence wouldn't validate the supernatural claims made about him. If he existed and claimed to be the Son of God, then there would still need to be evidence to corroborate his claims. Without it, he's likely to have been just another one of the many self-deluded so-called prophets of his time.

The thing is, there really isn't any reason to assume that someone who at least vaguely resembles the idea of Jesus didn't exist around the Roman era.
That's right ... there's no reason to assume as fact that he didn't exist, but knowledge isn't about what we don't know : it's about what we do know. As the evidence stands at the moment, there's no reason to make a firm assumption that he did exist. To assume something because of the lack of disproof is a logical fallacy.

Has anyone brought up the James Ossuary yet?, that seems like proof that he existed.
It's already been proven to be a fake. The original Ossary is genuine, but the reference to "brother of Jesus" in the inscription was added in the last few years. The perpetrator has been found and charged with forgery.

I think that all religions are ideas of human thinking. People needed to believe in something, so they ivented a fiction out of their mind. Religions are ideas of human minds and they brought a lot of pain and wars in lifetime, because human beeings never have been able to accept their different cultures and to leave in peace.
I believe that Jesus was real, and that his messages came out of a very religious heart and soul. Many people call theirselves religious, even go to church on Sunday,...but...in reality they are far away from being religious.
Also to be fanatic nothing has to do with beeing religous. To be religous is to take care for yourself and for the community and especially for the nature, is to act in sympathy.
We all are guests on this planet and wise people like Jesus have been trying to sow the most universal language on earth...called love.

Does it matter, those who 'follow' him will do so unless god says "Jesus did not exist, (X) is the true religion" and even then there would be arguments.
What is of more concern is the amount of Christians who are actually Bibleians, they follow the Bible not Christ.
Big difference.

Does it matter, those who 'follow' him will do so unless god says "Jesus did not exist, (X) is the true religion" and even then there would be arguments.
What is of more concern is the amount of Christians who are actually Bibleians, they follow the Bible not Christ.
Big difference.

Actually I'd say more Christians are Preachians than Bibleians. Follow their preacher over the bible.

Actually I'd say more Christians are Preachians than Bibleians. Follow their preacher over the bible.
Depends if you factor in Catholicism. Anyone who can not see the difference between the teachings of Christ and Christians is blind

Hmmm, Jesus... "What do you get the man who has everything? Might I suggest a gravesone enscribed with the words: so what?".

Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence for
the LIFE, DEATH, and
RESURRECTION of JESUS


ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES


Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."



Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."



Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)



Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]



Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.



Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."



Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.



The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]



Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."



Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."



GNOSTICS SOURCES


The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."



The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:

"It happened one day when John, the brother of James,--who are the sons of Zebedee--went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, `Where is your master whom you followed?' And he said to him, 'He has gone to the place from which he came.' The Pharisee said to him, 'This Nazarene deceived you with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers.'"



The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:

Contain many references to and alleged quotations of Jesus.



The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."

"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."

"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."

"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."

". . . already you have the resurrection ... why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?" Rheginos was thus encouraged not to "continue as if you are to die."



LOST WORKS QUOTED IN OTHER SOURCES


Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."



Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.



ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
(extra-biblical)


Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."



Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."



Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):

"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection."

"For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.' And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them."



Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):

"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope."



Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."



(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:

"He must needs be manifested in the flesh. ... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. ... But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree."



Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:

After referring to Jesus's birth of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and that His physical line of descent came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse, Justin wrote, "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea."

"Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles."



Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:

"For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land."

"For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot."

"Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead ... yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that 'a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.'"

"For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."

The Bible is more than enough proof that he is the Son of God. More and more historians and scientists that try to prove the Bible wrong end up finding out it is correct. The Bible has never been proven wrong ever.

I don't want to be called a flamer or troller or anything, but there is pretty much irrefutable documented evidence from several non-biblical sources over a period of some thirty-odd years that he was alive, and from several different places. The chronological life of Jesus as documented in the bible is fact, and verified from several different sources. Wheather or not he did the miracles the bible claims, and wheather or not he is the son of God is the debate here. I'm sorry, but as much as you want Jesus to have not existed, he did exist. Now, decide for yourself wheather or not the man was a loon or a genius from divinity.

I posted the Non-Biblical Evidence above if anyone cares to read it.

Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence for
the LIFE, DEATH, and
RESURRECTION of JESUS


ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES


Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."



Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."



Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)



Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]



Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.



Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."



Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.



The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]



Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."



Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."



GNOSTICS SOURCES


The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."



The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:

"It happened one day when John, the brother of James,--who are the sons of Zebedee--went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, `Where is your master whom you followed?' And he said to him, 'He has gone to the place from which he came.' The Pharisee said to him, 'This Nazarene deceived you with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers.'"



The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:

Contain many references to and alleged quotations of Jesus.



The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."

"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."

"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."

"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."

". . . already you have the resurrection ... why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?" Rheginos was thus encouraged not to "continue as if you are to die."



LOST WORKS QUOTED IN OTHER SOURCES


Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."



Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.



ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
(extra-biblical)


Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."



Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."



Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):

"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection."

"For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.' And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them."



Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):

"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope."



Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."



(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:

"He must needs be manifested in the flesh. ... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. ... But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree."



Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:

After referring to Jesus's birth of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and that His physical line of descent came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse, Justin wrote, "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea."

"Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles."



Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:

"For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land."

"For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot."

"Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead ... yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that 'a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.'"

"For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."

Anyone interested in exploring this from a modern, archaelogical point of view, as opposed to relying on written accounts of dubious reliability, ought to check out Excavating Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616342/102-0673975-1233755?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance).

The Bible is more than enough proof that he is the Son of God. More and more historians and scientists that try to prove the Bible wrong end up finding out it is correct. The Bible has never been proven wrong ever.
That's not necessarily true in many ways. All biblical accounts are human in origin; you need to factor that in when considering it as a source. Anyway, not even a factual resurrection is proof that Jesus was the son of Jehova. Merely that some divine power saw fit to confirm Jesus's teachings.

Now, decide for yourself wheather or not the man was a loon or a genius from divinity.
False dilemma!

What you're suggesting is something akin to the 3-L idea of CS Lewis. And it's been shown often on these boards that that is similarly a false Trilemma.

Perhaps God genuinely told him to do everything and then left him in the lurch?
Perhaps Jesus falsely attributed things one God told him to the Jewish God, but that other God saw fit to confirm Jesus's life anyway?
Perhaps Jesus didn't attribute things to the Jewish God at all, but those who followed him misinterpreted his words to insinuate that he did?
Perhaps Jesus was just a thinker with ideas that were unlike anything his world had ever seen?

There're so many other things he could have been.

Perhaps Jesus was just a thinker with ideas that were unlike anything his world had ever seen?
That could be the case, except that most of Jesus's teachings were at essence the same as those that came from older eastern religions, most notably Hinduism. That's not to say that he was a Hindu--it's very possible that he came to the same conclusions independently--but he certainly wasn't the first with his worldview.

That could be the case, except that most of Jesus's teachings were at essence the same as those that came from older eastern religions, most notably Hinduism. That's not to say that he was a Hindu--it's very possible that he came to the same conclusions independently--but he certainly wasn't the first with his worldview.
Well, okay, not first in The world. First in Israel though? Possibly?

Well, okay, not first in The world. First in Israel though? Possibly?Sure. Likely even, although who knows what he would have been exposed to thanks to the influence of the Greek and Roman empires. Nazareth at the time of Jesus was a hamlet, about 400 people with an estimated literacy rate of about 3% (according to the book I referenced on the last page), but it was only about an hour from a major city, and if Jesus had been curious, he could have been influenced by people from all over the world.

Sure. Likely even, although who knows what he would have been exposed to thanks to the influence of the Greek and Roman empires. Nazareth at the time of Jesus was a hamlet, about 400 people with an estimated literacy rate of about 3% (according to the book I referenced on the last page), but it was only about an hour from a major city, and if Jesus had been curious, he could have been influenced by people from all over the world.
I was under the impression the Jewish community was pretty segregated at the time, though. Not that that would stop him, but he would certainly have got some flak from his peers over mixing with "the outsiders".

Jesus the Sophist? That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

That could be the case, except that most of Jesus's teachings were at essence the same as those that came from older eastern religions, most notably Hinduism. That's not to say that he was a Hindu--it's very possible that he came to the same conclusions independently--but he certainly wasn't the first with his worldview.

India had direct contact with the Roman Empire at the time, and that region was more or less one of the hubs of east-west trade. It is very likely that Jesus may have even traveled from that region; he could have been a Buddhist also, especially since the religion had been spreading fairly rapidly during that period.

First of all, the bible is writings from others who supposedly knew what Jesus said and Mark and so on.. What I can't get my mind around is that who would have traveled all those years with Jesus to know what happened and wrote every single word down?!

Second, the Vatican has journals that have been "missing" from Jesus' life, about 18 years worth. They have not let those years of his life become public knowledge because I will bet that he was sowing his oats and having all of the sinful pleasures in life. They don't want us to think that if he did it it must be ok.

In my opinion, it's all brainwashing and nothing more. Giving money to churches, when Jesus never asked for money.

Why would God (if there is one) give us "free will". If we are not supposed to enjoy sex unless you are "married" and not tell lies and so on, then why did he give us free will? To be frank, he should have made us like drones so we would not deviate from his beliefs.

Also, Jesus always travelled with men, never women....makes you wonder about his gender preferences?:rolleyes:

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.
No. I've yet to see any evidence that he ever existed, and certaintly none that he might have been a demigod. He was, at best, a character created for parables.

No. I've yet to see any evidence that he ever existed, and certaintly none that he might have been a demigod. He was, at best, a character created for parables.


I agree, it seems that it was all a play production and over the years people elaborated on subject.

Im an Athiest but i think Jesus existed. I dont think he was the Son of God, or that he preformed miracles. I just think he was an exceptionally good person.

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

The individual WITHOUT A DOUBT, existed at one time. He is mentioned not only in the bible, but is mentioned in various texts by jewish scholars, and is referenced in the works of Islamic historians as well. And the Freemasons also make reference to the man in their period works.

What I STRONGLY suspect to have happened, is that various sources have distorted the legend of what Jesus was reputed to be, in service to their pwn agenda. I would say this likely started with the Apostle Paul, as it was found that by controlling the legend of what jesus was reputed to be, you could control the masses that had become Jesus' following.

So easy to be able to tell 3rd parties what Jesus would expect of them, and if they follow the instruction, you in effect have control over those individuals 'in the name of god'


Jesus' brother, James never made mention of Jesus having claimed to be supernatural, and you'd think that if an individual truly believed they were, they would confide same in their closest brother,...wouldn't you?

Most of the claims of supernatural Jesus came into being hundreds of years after he was deceased, by people who wanted their target audience to follow their interpretation of what a supernatural being expected of them...

my 2 cents, anyway

Well to begin with, Consiglioni, your point has no support whatsoever. Honestly, you simply postulate wihtout any sort of back up. Until you support your ideas with evidence, or even logic, I will ignore your points completely.

The actual existance of a Jesus figure in my opinion is difficult to doubt. There is more documentation on this Christus figure then some major Roman emporers of similar time periods, yet we do not doubt their existance for a second. The secular (Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Tacitus, and Suetonius) and non-secular sources (Jewish Talmud and histories, Christian historical information) agree upon time frames and specific personification of the Christ figure. To disagree on his existance is similar to debating the existance of Augustus, or another major emperor in history.

As for the question of the originality of his ideas, yes, some of them are not the most original of the time period. However, the idea of deific sacrifice is rather unique. The ideas of loving one another and the interconnection of humanity and existance are not that different. However, the distinguishing theological differences between Christianity and other major world religions still clearly exist in my opinion. I hope this helps.
- Hannah Dew
Religion Student, Tyslan High

Yes he did. There really shouldn't be any debate on whether he existed or not.

Now, the real question should be if he is really the son of God.
Thank you for replying so quickly. Jesus exhisted--- the entire New Testament isn't a hoax. However, there is the question of whether HALF of it is a hoax.

Jesus was a Jewish freedom fighter fighting against the imperalistic Romans. Judas Escariot was part of his freedom fighting team. Escari means freedom fighter.

What it basically comes down to, is what you NEED by way of evidence.

For me to accept that there is a man of a certain description, I'd like to have independent, contemporary evidence.

Thus - if I were to hear that there was, today, a man that could lift an 18-wheeler over his head... I'd want independent evidence, that could be reliably traced to the scene of such an alleged happening.

Is there ANY contemporary evidence of 'Jesus'?

While the name Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua, etc) may have been fairly common at the time, there is NO contemporary account that describes the existence of this particular 'Jesus'. Nothing written AT the time.

The FIRST evidence doesn't appear until decades AFTER the alleged crucifixion, and ALL of that evidence is written by acolytes of the cult, or by their scribes or associates.

So - we have NOTHING contemporary. And, all the NEAREST (temporally) evidence, is FAR FROM independent.

The NEXT nearest source we have, is arguably INDEPENDENT, since Josephus was not even BORN at the time of the alleged crucifixion, and had spent only a short time touring in the holy land area. So, while Josephus IS independent, he is CERTAINLY NOT contemporary.

Add to which, the bulk of 'Jesus' related material in Josephus seems to have been added later... as evidenced by the fact that many Christian commentators of the time fail to draw upon as reliable a source as Josepghus should have been.

But - would Josephus be reliable, even if it WERE the accurate work of that person? Why would we believe a testimony that MUST be based entirely on hearsay? We KNOW that Josephus wasn't 'there' at the time. Indeed, it is unlikely Josephus would have even MET ANYONE who might have been 'there' at the time.


But - all this aside - does this mean that Jesus did NOT exist?

No - it just means that there is no verifiable evidence that he DID.

Personally... given similarities between the 'Jesus' story and the early Buddhist stories in the area, and the Mithraic stories... etc... it seems likely that MOST of the 'story' we attribute to Jesus is 'mythical accumulation'.

What it basically comes down to, is what you NEED by way of evidence.

For me to accept that there is a man of a certain description, I'd like to have independent, contemporary evidence.

Thus - if I were to hear that there was, today, a man that could lift an 18-wheeler over his head... I'd want independent evidence, that could be reliably traced to the scene of such an alleged happening.

Is there ANY contemporary evidence of 'Jesus'?

While the name Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua, etc) may have been fairly common at the time, there is NO contemporary account that describes the existence of this particular 'Jesus'. Nothing written AT the time.

The FIRST evidence doesn't appear until decades AFTER the alleged crucifixion, and ALL of that evidence is written by acolytes of the cult, or by their scribes or associates.

So - we have NOTHING contemporary. And, all the NEAREST (temporally) evidence, is FAR FROM independent.

The NEXT nearest source we have, is arguably INDEPENDENT, since Josephus was not even BORN at the time of the alleged crucifixion, and had spent only a short time touring in the holy land area. So, while Josephus IS independent, he is CERTAINLY NOT contemporary.

Add to which, the bulk of 'Jesus' related material in Josephus seems to have been added later... as evidenced by the fact that many Christian commentators of the time fail to draw upon as reliable a source as Josepghus should have been.

But - would Josephus be reliable, even if it WERE the accurate work of that person? Why would we believe a testimony that MUST be based entirely on hearsay? We KNOW that Josephus wasn't 'there' at the time. Indeed, it is unlikely Josephus would have even MET ANYONE who might have been 'there' at the time.


But - all this aside - does this mean that Jesus did NOT exist?

No - it just means that there is no verifiable evidence that he DID.

Personally... given similarities between the 'Jesus' story and the early Buddhist stories in the area, and the Mithraic stories... etc... it seems likely that MOST of the 'story' we attribute to Jesus is 'mythical accumulation'.

There are two main points I'd make about your posts.

The first is that perhaps the reason there is no independent historical account of Jesus of Nazerath is because there was no need for an independent historical account: it would be hard to forget a guy who rides into Jerusalem like a king on Sunday and dies via crucifiction on Friday. So just like I don't need an independent historian to tell me that there was a man named Mr. Blake who taught chemistry at my high school because I was there and don't need independent historical confirmation, for most people who actually saw Jesus, they didn't really need one either.

When you do need a historical account is in fact precisely when Josephus shows up: when the people who saw him are starting to get old, and more recent history has clearly shown that he was a man of some importance. So the whole "problem" of no independent confirmation is really a misnomer: it's just a reflection of the fact that there was no need for a historical account of Jesus when the facts had already been established in people's memories.

The second thing I'd point out is that just because a man has similarities to a mythical and fictitious character has nothing to do with his or her existence. Marvin Gaye's dad is similar in some ways to Agamemnon (both killed their children), but that doesn't mean Marvin Gaye's dad never existed.

lets look at this "logically"

first of all i find the historical record utterly unconvincing. jesus was a common name at the time, christ was not jesus' last name so any reference to a christ(us) in an historical text is meaningless, and messiahs were common as dirt back then so any reference to a fiery teacher who got killed by the romans could have been any of a number of people.

but there are only 2 possibilities eh? either he existed or he didnt. (duh)

if he existed, he went out and preached, got a bunch of fairly well..... common...followers, and the rest is history (so to speak)

if he didnt exist, a bunch of fisherman got together one day over a bottle of wine and made him up. not unlike lron hubbard, they decided to make up a religion whole cloth by making up stories that make those who made it up look like thickheaded cowards being led by a man who was giving a message that no jew at the time wanted to hear from his messiah. the common messiah of the day preached the overthrow of rome not a new religion.

these counterfeiters would have to be theological and marketing geniuses.

obviously they made up some of the stories of the birth of jesus. at the time that wouldnt even count as lying, it was alegory. but to make up a huge story about a guy running around nazareth and jerusalem performing miracles and starting a movement that not only continued with many of the principal characters (who do exist in the historical record) and also many people still living who would have had to have seen jesus in the flesh requires thought and planning that would seem to me to be beyond the average fisherman.

The Muslims considered him a profit so yes he did exist.
?
Is this, Corny, just a peculiarly funny mistake or slip of the diction here?
I like it.
BTW, requiring a bunch of people who are deluded in their own fashion making reference to another mass delusion doesn't qualify actual existence of anything other than recognizing an accepted group delusion.
For example, some people aren't keen on the Mormon pursuit since the angel Moroni didn't really have much to do with the old or new testament, and therefore, people who buy those scripts might see the Mormons as deluded, although they're using the same *general* reference source, with the obvious derivation of golden tablets and a few other things.

Ummmmm, yes he did.
This is an example of ... proof?
*tap*

We also cannot definitively prove that George Washington ever existed...

Let's argue about that.
Uhm anyone up for an exhumation?
One hand of wishes, one hand of sh*t ... which one will fill up faster?

Did Charles Darwin exist?
Question is, was he one of the more mutable of his species?

...and is this the impetus for ANOTHER exhumation/fossil comparison and strata examination?

Not bad for a first post. Short and sweet, yet insightful, but probably a little too subtle for the screaming liberals that proliferate like bunnies in these forums.

My original answer to the question "Does Jesus exist?" would be.....

....ask Him yourself after you die. And hope He's in a good mood.
Yeah, hope you get to him before HE dies - and resurrects as that vindictive, Old Testament-ish bastard in "Revelation".

Too subtle for you?

What do you mean? All of the evidence showing George Washington comes from American archives; they're quite clearly not contemporary sources since they have an agenda to prove.
Good point!!!!
*bias!*
*bias!*

Ya i think we was real

The Bible is more than enough proof that he is the Son of God. More and more historians and scientists that try to prove the Bible wrong end up finding out it is correct. The Bible has never been proven wrong ever.
:eek:

Get the popcorn ...

There are two main points I'd make about your posts.

The first is that perhaps the reason there is no independent historical account of Jesus of Nazerath is because there was no need for an independent historical account: it would be hard to forget a guy who rides into Jerusalem like a king on Sunday and dies via crucifiction on Friday. So just like I don't need an independent historian to tell me that there was a man named Mr. Blake who taught chemistry at my high school because I was there and don't need independent historical confirmation, for most people who actually saw Jesus, they didn't really need one either.

When you do need a historical account is in fact precisely when Josephus shows up: when the people who saw him are starting to get old, and more recent history has clearly shown that he was a man of some importance. So the whole "problem" of no independent confirmation is really a misnomer: it's just a reflection of the fact that there was no need for a historical account of Jesus when the facts had already been established in people's memories.

The second thing I'd point out is that just because a man has similarities to a mythical and fictitious character has nothing to do with his or her existence. Marvin Gaye's dad is similar in some ways to Agamemnon (both killed their children), but that doesn't mean Marvin Gaye's dad never existed.

The problem with the assertion that 'nobody needed contemporary evidence', is that it falls just as flat in the case of Jesus, as it did in the case of Exodus.

The Egyptians recorded things like, how many loaves of bread they had at a given festival. And yet, apparently, they failed to notice the mass imprisonment, (wrath of God), and eventual emancipation of an entire culture of slaves.

One looks at Roman history - and they recorded bizarrely mundane matters of all kinds. It seems unlikely that they wouldn't have felt the need to record what would APPEAR to be a 'son of God' on Earth. After all - they recorded OTHER 'son of God' stories they found. (Heracles/Hercules).

Perhaps they didn't have our modern media - but ancient cultures (especially those highly civilised ones) have had a HABIT of recording 'the News'.

And yet, in the case of this alleged 'messiah' (One of MANY), they failed to even mention him - let alone anything significant ABOUT him.

Mr Blake, at your school, is no parallel. YOU saw him (apparently)... but no man alive today has seen this 'Jesus'... because we were all born WAY too late.

As - by the way, was Josephus... and all those who followed him.


What you are doing here, is confusing what is KNOWN, with what is TRUE.

After all - by the time Josephus get's around to writing his little pamphlet, what is KNOWN about Jesus? There are stories, sure. And there are even Gosples. But, how much of it is necessarily TRUE?

Just because someone tells Josephus that Jesus can jump over tall buildings in a single bound, does it necessarily make it true?


By the way - the reason I use such a flippant idea (the jumping tall buildings) is that Superman is one of the GREATEST examples of the growth of a myth in a short period of time (Batman is arguably the other great modern example).

To explain what I mean - one could assume that the FIRST Superman strips are literally 'true'. What does one know about Superman, now? Well, we know for a FACT that he has to say a magic word to change into his costume (Shazam), and that he can jump over tall buildings, and that he can run faster than a steam locomotive.

Fast forward a few decades (a perfect parallel to the 'Jesus' situation), and contemporary reports tell us that Superman no longer needs a telephone box and a magic word, and now he can fly, and move faster than the speed of light. We also now have DETAILED assertions about his childhood.

Rather a scarily appropriate parallel, I think.

lets look at this "logically"

first of all i find the historical record utterly unconvincing. jesus was a common name at the time, christ was not jesus' last name so any reference to a christ(us) in an historical text is meaningless, and messiahs were common as dirt back then so any reference to a fiery teacher who got killed by the romans could have been any of a number of people.

but there are only 2 possibilities eh? either he existed or he didnt. (duh)

if he existed, he went out and preached, got a bunch of fairly well..... common...followers, and the rest is history (so to speak)

if he didnt exist, a bunch of fisherman got together one day over a bottle of wine and made him up. not unlike lron hubbard, they decided to make up a religion whole cloth by making up stories that make those who made it up look like thickheaded cowards being led by a man who was giving a message that no jew at the time wanted to hear from his messiah. the common messiah of the day preached the overthrow of rome not a new religion.

these counterfeiters would have to be theological and marketing geniuses.

obviously they made up some of the stories of the birth of jesus. at the time that wouldnt even count as lying, it was alegory. but to make up a huge story about a guy running around nazareth and jerusalem performing miracles and starting a movement that not only continued with many of the principal characters (who do exist in the historical record) and also many people still living who would have had to have seen jesus in the flesh requires thought and planning that would seem to me to be beyond the average fisherman.

You did so well, up until halfway through.

"but there are only 2 possibilities eh? either he existed or he didnt".

This part is true. A man named Jesus, to whom the modern stories are attached EITHER lived, or did not live.

But then you ignore the rules of logic that you invoked at the start:

"if he existed, he went out and preached, got a bunch of fairly well..... common...followers, and the rest is history (so to speak)

if he didnt exist, a bunch of fisherman got together one day over a bottle of wine and made him up".

If he existed - he was just a man. The stories got attached to him because he was in the right place, at the right time.

If he existed - he was just a man, but allowed stories told about OTHERS to become part of his own 'history', for his own reasons.

If he existed - it was in the form of a simple 'good' man - who never even KNEW of all the stories that were being claimed to have happened to him.

If he existed - he was a charlatan - who deliberately spread rumours of his own god-hood, to further some motive.

If he existed - he was a charlatan - who ACTIVELY made people believe he was a miracle worker, through staged 'miracles'.

If he existed, he was a charlatan - who actively PRETENDED to be 'messiah'... with deliberate knowledge of the role he was pretending to fulfill.

If he existed - he was a holy man. But, spent all his life being holy, not doing any of the things scripture 'invented' to reinforce just how 'holy' he was.

If he existed - he wasn't ONE man, at all, but the culmination of centuries of storytelling - (like the King Arthur story)... although there could have been just 'one man' that eventually became acknoledged as the 'face' of the story.

If he existed, he was someone OTHER than the fulfillment of Jewish myth. Perhaps, he was the man claimed as an early incarnation of Buddha, but the myth has been subverted.

And, doubtless, we could continue looking for more possibilities.

And - if he did NOT exist? Do we necessarily need 'wise fishermen' for the story to happen, anyway? (Of course, what is WRONG with fishermen?)

No - the 'fishermen' of tale need only be as authentic as the messiah figure, of course.


To put it quite simply, Jesus could be a simple retelling of the Mithraism story, and the 'fishermen' are but characters IN that story? Then... who wrote it? We don't KNOW (for sure), and there is likely no way we ever CAN know.

Does it need to have been the work of great propogandists? No... it was just a good story, and good stories get re-told, and embellished, and their most obvious contradictions get worked out. One has only to look at the manuscripts of Shakespeare to see that very process in action.

You did so well, up until halfway through.

"but there are only 2 possibilities eh? either he existed or he didnt".

This part is true. A man named Jesus, to whom the modern stories are attached EITHER lived, or did not live.

But then you ignore the rules of logic that you invoked at the start:



If he existed - he was just a man. The stories got attached to him because he was in the right place, at the right time.

If he existed - he was just a man, but allowed stories told about OTHERS to become part of his own 'history', for his own reasons.

If he existed - it was in the form of a simple 'good' man - who never even KNEW of all the stories that were being claimed to have happened to him.

If he existed - he was a charlatan - who deliberately spread rumours of his own god-hood, to further some motive.

If he existed - he was a charlatan - who ACTIVELY made people believe he was a miracle worker, through staged 'miracles'.

If he existed, he was a charlatan - who actively PRETENDED to be 'messiah'... with deliberate knowledge of the role he was pretending to fulfill.

If he existed - he was a holy man. But, spent all his life being holy, not doing any of the things scripture 'invented' to reinforce just how 'holy' he was.

If he existed - he wasn't ONE man, at all, but the culmination of centuries of storytelling - (like the King Arthur story)... although there could have been just 'one man' that eventually became acknoledged as the 'face' of the story.

If he existed, he was someone OTHER than the fulfillment of Jewish myth. Perhaps, he was the man claimed as an early incarnation of Buddha, but the myth has been subverted.

And, doubtless, we could continue looking for more possibilities.

And - if he did NOT exist? Do we necessarily need 'wise fishermen' for the story to happen, anyway? (Of course, what is WRONG with fishermen?)

No - the 'fishermen' of tale need only be as authentic as the messiah figure, of course.


To put it quite simply, Jesus could be a simple retelling of the Mithraism story, and the 'fishermen' are but characters IN that story? Then... who wrote it? We don't KNOW (for sure), and there is likely no way we ever CAN know.

Does it need to have been the work of great propogandists? No... it was just a good story, and good stories get re-told, and embellished, and their most obvious contradictions get worked out. One has only to look at the manuscripts of Shakespeare to see that very process in action.
we arent debating whether or not jesus was the "only begotten son of god" just whether or not he existed. if he existed, he existed in some form as the man in the new testament. (after all there were many jesuses back then and many messiahs. those dont count as his having existed)

if he "existed" then its enough for him to have been a street preacher at the correct time. there is no need for every story about him in the bible to be correct. the birth narratives are especially likely to not be literally true. (well, so is the whole resurrection story but why quibble)

the apostles of jesus are in the historical record. for them to have existed but jesus have not existed means they made up a big hunk of their lives whole cloth. there was a time, for example, when peter and paul were fighting over control of the early church. if paul knew that peter had made up big parts of the jesus story he would have had irresistable leverage over him.

these uneducated fishermen were the fathers of the early church. they would have had to make up a different theology than what was common at the time. they didnt just take the mithra story and jewify it. while not an impossibility, i find it unlikely.

I think I'll just post generally instead of directly dealing with the posts concerning the sources, because they're pretty much the same thing.

Foxthrot: I know of the Arabic translation that sounds more plausible for Josephus to have written- the problem is that it doesn't deal with the fact that it disrupts the text. Whether or not this means that the text did exist in an undisruptive form earlier I'm not sure- since we don't have Josephus' original work this is hard to tell. I'm also wondering how many of those scholars are afraid to tackle the Jesus question simply because of the controversy that surrounds such a topic.

As far as everything else stated in other posts:

Regardless, others have stated that no contemporary account exists for Jesus. This is true, but this is no conclusive evidence that he didn't exist. This is merely evidence that, well, we don't have any evidence. Yes, the Romans paid special attention to detail, but that detail only comes in the form of what the Romans themselves would care about- for example, we don't know a lot about Parthia because the Romans didn't care that much for them except to revile them as enemies. This argument could be made for Josephus as well: as a Jew, he probably didn't care that much for Jesus because a) there were many Messiahs at that time and thus Josephus may have written him off as "yet another troublemaker" and b) as stated by others, there were many people named "Jesus" back then. Thus, finding a "Jesus" in the sources shouldn't be surprising (in fact, Barabbas is actually named "Jesus Barabbas", leading some to wonder if Barabbas actually *is* Jesus Christ).

Regarding the Talmud: the only sources of a name close to Jesus' (remember, it's not the exact name but only "Yeshua" (it should be "Yehoshuah") comes in the Babylonian version, not the Jerusalem one where it would be expected. There are many people named "Yeshua" in the Talmud: in fact, the name itself is supposed to be derogatory against anyone trying to convert Jews away from Judaism. Whether or not Jesus was one of the people named "Yeshua" is open to interpretation.

The other Roman accounts talk about a "Christus" which is not definitively Jesus. It could mean Jesus or it could mean anyone who was proclaimed to be a Messiah. We just associate "Christ" with "Jesus" because that's what we're used to, but in the 1st century the Romans would not have done that. Besides, the Romans just saw the Christians as "troublemakers" not worth their time- hence the lack of attention to their records.

As far as the Christian sources go: Paul's seem to be the most reliable, but he was not a contemporary and he never met Jesus in person, so his account could very well be about a mythical person whose identity was spreading at that time. An argument can be made that Paul simply helped "the legend" spread, one that got ingrained in later Christian thinkers (like Justin Martyr). There was also the argument made by Louis Cable (not sure how many are familiar with him) that Paul never mentioned Jesus as a person in the letters we've verified as his, but this is incorrect: there are several verses were Jesus actually *is* mentioned as a human being, and not purely in a religious sense.

Finally, I'd like to say that my stance is actually that Jesus did in fact live. From a historical sense he didn't do any of the miracles attributed to him- those were later additions of the Gospels who either embellished the stories on purpose to prove his legitimacy or by accident simply because they didn't (or the witnesses they gathered didn't) understand what they were seeing. An argument was made by one scholar saying that "there couldn't have been this much attention heaped onto Jesus today if he didn't do something special" and I agree with that. That's no proof of the miracles, etc. but I doubt Christianity would have survived this long if they based their religion on "a fraud". I know my posts seem to contradict this, but my stance is merely there's more to the sources than simply a "yes or no" question of his existence. As I said before, the absence of sources doesn't mean that there won't be one surfacing later, so this question may one day be ultimately resolved.

On another point, does anyone know what happened to that Antonio Banderas movie where he plays a professor that supposedly found Jesus' bones? I've seen the trailers but it seems to have not come out. :(

On another point, does anyone know what happened to that Antonio Banderas movie where he plays a professor that supposedly found Jesus' bones? I've seen the trailers but it seems to have not come out. :(

the movie is called "the body." its out on VHS, dunno about DVD...

EDIT: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JD5M/002-8648311-9098435?v=glance&n=130&v=glance

the movie is called "the body." its out on VHS, dunno about DVD...

EDIT: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JD5M/002-8648311-9098435?v=glance&n=130&v=glance

Thanks. Though I'm a bit worried by the fact it was straight to video...never a good sign. Still, you never know- some bombs were actually good (I'd mention "Eurotrip" but then I'd get baffled looks. So I won't...). Thanks again.

Yeah, hope you get to him before HE dies - and resurrects as that vindictive, Old Testament-ish bastard in "Revelation".

Too subtle for you?

Time will ultimately tell, won't it? My belief costs me nothing in the here and now, and moreover, has brought me peace, whether you care to believe it has worth or merit or not matters nada, to either me, or God. And if I'm right, after I die, gains me more than I will ever see on this earth. And if I'm wrong, as you insist, I will still lose nothing.

Your state of disbelief, has however, obviously gained you a cynical outlook, a mean spiritedness and atrocious manners in the here and now. You, on the other hand, if I'm right, after you die, have already lost everything..... and don't even know it (or care).

You takes your chance, and you pays your price.

I am comfortable with my choice.

we arent debating whether or not jesus was the "only begotten son of god" just whether or not he existed. if he existed, he existed in some form as the man in the new testament. (after all there were many jesuses back then and many messiahs. those dont count as his having existed)

if he "existed" then its enough for him to have been a street preacher at the correct time. there is no need for every story about him in the bible to be correct. the birth narratives are especially likely to not be literally true. (well, so is the whole resurrection story but why quibble)

the apostles of jesus are in the historical record. for them to have existed but jesus have not existed means they made up a big hunk of their lives whole cloth. there was a time, for example, when peter and paul were fighting over control of the early church. if paul knew that peter had made up big parts of the jesus story he would have had irresistable leverage over him.

these uneducated fishermen were the fathers of the early church. they would have had to make up a different theology than what was common at the time. they didnt just take the mithra story and jewify it. while not an impossibility, i find it unlikely.

Wow - did you miss the point, or choose to ignore it?

If 'Jesus' existed... is a question with no real meaning.. unless you define what that MEANS.

Do you mean, Jesus as in the son of God? Then there is NO way we can prove it.

Do you mean, Jesus as an inspiration for the myth? Then, there is no way we can prove how MUCH of it is true.

Do you mean, a man called Jesus existed at that time? Then we can probably find evidence... since it was a fairly common name (well, not "Jesus", that is the 'translation').

If there was a 'Jesus' does he NEED to have been a preacher? No - not even. The man IDENTIFIED as Jesus could have been a street-dwelling drug-addict, for all that it matters to the story.

The ONLY thing we can be fairly certain of, from evidence we can find - is that there were MANY people called 'Jesus', and that there were many claims to 'messiah', at that time.

So - a figure called Jesus is Messiah in one story? Does that mean there has to be ANY actual proof of the 'Jesus', the 'Messiah' or the correlation of the two?

I have to ask - which 'apostles' are in the 'historical record'? Which 'historical record are we discussing?

Is it not obvious that, there is no more evidence of the historical accuracy of what is ascribed to the apostles, than there is for that which is ascribed to Jesus?

So - even if we found a scripture claiming to be an independent, contemporary account of the life of Luke, for example... does that necessarily mean that "Luke" lived? That a literal "Luke" was a literal apostle to a literal "Jesus"?

Regarding the Peter and Paul thing... why would Peter necessarily have had ANY interaction with Paul? We can't even be sure either 'existed', in any capacity similar to what is described in the bible. And - even if they DID both exist, as described (assuming that the testaments they wrote are not just pseudepigrapha)... why would they NECESSARILY conflict over content and message? One can easily imagine Peter 'allowing' Paul to claim fellowship with the RISEN Messiah (anything to further the story) - even though he CLEARLY never met the LIVING Jesus.

Regardless, others have stated that no contemporary account exists for Jesus. This is true, but this is no conclusive evidence that he didn't exist.


I've not seen that claimed.

However, with NO independent, contemporary evidence to prove he DID exist, there is no reason to believe he did.


This is merely evidence that, well, we don't have any evidence. Yes, the Romans paid special attention to detail, but that detail only comes in the form of what the Romans themselves would care about- for example, we don't know a lot about Parthia because the Romans didn't care that much for them except to revile them as enemies.


If there was a man, proved to be performing miracles, or even with a decently strong claim, it seems likely that it would have been reported a LITTLE, at least.


This argument could be made for Josephus as well: as a Jew, he probably didn't care that much for Jesus because a) there were many Messiahs at that time and thus Josephus may have written him off as "yet another troublemaker" and b) as stated by others, there were many people named "Jesus" back then. Thus, finding a "Jesus" in the sources shouldn't be surprising (in fact, Barabbas is actually named "Jesus Barabbas", leading some to wonder if Barabbas actually *is* Jesus Christ).


Josephus WAS a Jew... but he was also, for want of a more delicate way to put it... a lapdog. He was writing for an audience. If he mentioned Jesus at all (which is still debatable), it might ONLY be pandering to the desires of his audience... no guarantee that his material would be reliable or factual.


The other Roman accounts talk about a "Christus" which is not definitively Jesus. It could mean Jesus or it could mean anyone who was proclaimed to be a Messiah.


Christus basically just means 'annointed'. We ASSUME some parallel between Greek references to an 'annointed' and Hebrew references to 'Messiah', but there is no automatic reason to make that assumption... except habit.


As far as the Christian sources go: Paul's seem to be the most reliable, but he was not a contemporary and he never met Jesus in person, so his account could very well be about a mythical person whose identity was spreading at that time.


This is true. Since Paul NEVER met the living Jesus, he could easily be retelling any amount of myth, ignorant of the origins.


An argument was made by one scholar saying that "there couldn't have been this much attention heaped onto Jesus today if he didn't do something special" and I agree with that.


A flawed assumption. We don't EVEN know that this 'Jesus' existed. To say that there wouldn't have been that much attention heaped on a man who wasn't special, ignores completely, the fact that "Jesus" might JUST be the 'Jewish' name attached to a much older story.

After all, there couldn't have been that much attention heaped onto Red Riding Hood, if she didn't do something special... right?


but I doubt Christianity would have survived this long if they based their religion on "a fraud".

This is nonsensical. By this token, ALL religions must be true - even when they are also mutually contradictory.

I've not seen that claimed.

However, with NO independent, contemporary evidence to prove he DID exist, there is no reason to believe he did.


There is no independent evidence that Henry VIII existed. All sources are biased in one way or another. It is illogical to claim that sources need to be independent to be valid. The Gospels provide contempary evidence.

An interesting analysis of evidence

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

The Gospels provide contempary evidence.

33 years after some guy's death is not "contemporary".

On the subject of the original post, I'll go over this again, like I have in other threads.

In the early 1st century, there was an apocalyptic preacher who calimed to be the Messiah. His name? Yeshua ben Pantera, which, translated to English, means Joshua, son of Pantera. (Pantera was a Roman soldier.) The same thing happened to him as happened to the others who claimed to be the Messiah. He was crucified. (Somewhere along the line someone substituted nails for rope. The Romans didn't nail people to the cross, they tied them to it. A several hour death for the former, and a several day death for the latter.) A few decades later, someone dug up tales of this man. However, the Messiah had to be descended from David, so Yeshua ben Pantera could not be the Messiah. So, this person changed his name to Yeshua ben Yosef, or Joshua, son of Joseph. Now he had a qualification to be the Messiah. A bit of creative writing, stealing from bothe Mithraism and the cult of Dionysus, and a new mystery cult was formed.

Several hundred years later, various factions had formed. One believed that Yeshua was the son of Yosef, the other believed he was the son of YHWH. Yeshua as the son of YHWH won out, but in doing so Yeshua no longer qualified as the Messiah, a problem which lasts to this day.

There you have it.

This is nonsensical. By this token, ALL religions must be true - even when they are also mutually contradictory.
Maybe they are in some sense. They all seem to look towards the spiritual; perhaps there's something spiritual within the human psyche (or some influence on the human psyche?) that draws them to behave as such, and thus all Religion is a fulfilment of this need, including Atheism (since you do think about and consider such issues).

Well to begin with, Consiglioni, your point has no support whatsoever. Honestly, you simply postulate wihtout any sort of back up. Until you support your ideas with evidence, or even logic, I will ignore your points completely.

Pretty easy to ignore someone, all you have to do is adjust the blinders.

The actual existance of a Jesus figure in my opinion is difficult to doubt. There is more documentation on this Christus figure then some major Roman emporers of similar time periods, yet we do not doubt their existance for a second. The secular (Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Tacitus, and Suetonius) and non-secular sources (Jewish Talmud and histories, Christian historical information) agree upon time frames and specific personification of the Christ figure. To disagree on his existance is similar to debating the existance of Augustus, or another major emperor in history.

The biggest difference between the names that you mentioned and Jesus Christ, is that there is not only written documentation but there is also physical proof of their existence; therefore, less documentation was needed to prove they existed. What physical proof is there of Jesus ever lived?

As for the question of the originality of his ideas, yes, some of them are not the most original of the time period. However, the idea of deific sacrifice is rather unique. The ideas of loving one another and the interconnection of humanity and existance are not that different. However, the distinguishing theological differences between Christianity and other major world religions still clearly exist in my opinion. I hope this helps.
- Hannah Dew
Religion Student, Tyslan High

The idea of deific sacrifice is not unique. Conquering nations had been doing it for hundreds of years, if not thousands, prior to Christ. It was a way of forcing a people into submission from a stronger people. We even did it to the Native Americans.

What theological differences are you talking about?

There is no independent evidence that Henry VIII existed. All sources are biased in one way or another.


Actually - there IS independent evidence for the life of Henry VIII. What you are confusing is 'independent' (i.e. from some source outside of the immediate 'influence') and 'not biased'.

As you point out, most evidence will have some bias, some being more biased than others.

But, since there are mentions of Henry VIII in diplomatic evidences (thus, very FAR removed from the 'dependent' circle), there IS 'independent' evidence. Some of it may be bias for or against the monarch, but that should be taken in to consideration when reviewing the source.

On the other hand - where are Jesus' diplomatic correspondences? Where are the mentions by his contemporaries?


It is illogical to claim that sources need to be independent to be valid. The Gospels provide contempary evidence.


I didn't say that a source MUST be independent to be valid. I also didn't actually say it MUST be contemporary.

However, the BEST evidence is going to be that which is closest to the event in time, but most removed from the direct sphere of influence. Thus - independent, and contemporary.

After all - if the ONLY evidence one had about World War Two, was a diary written by a high-up officer in the Third Reich, one would get a very different view of the whole event than from a less 'subjective' view.

Yes - the Gospels provide fairly contemporary evidence... but this still leaves problems:

1) The EARLIEST evidence is something like 30 years AFTER the alleged events. Thus - even the MOST 'contemporary' evidence is fairly far removed, chronologically.

2) There is NO way to be sure that the Gospels WERE EVEN WRITTEN by the 'names' to which they are attributed. Imagine if we found a piece of evidence that suggested the author known as "John" was actually a schizophrenic cult-member from some Essenic sect? The scripture remains unchanged, no matter who wrote it, but one must question the AUTHORITY of a source, when one cannot accurately pinpoint any evidence for WHO the author is.

3) If ALL the 'contemporary' evidence is written by the friends of the alleged party, even if 'Jesus' DID live, how much weight can be attributed to the subjectivity of the source? There IS no counter-balance. Apparently, nobody else even NOTICED 'God' in their midst.

Back to the World War Two scenario.... if one imagines the ONLY evidences we had were Third Reich accounts about what a great hero Hitler was, and how good his intentions, and how pure his mission... it would be hard assess the validity of those sources... so they SHOULD be questioned.

Certainly, if the ONLY evidence concerning Hitler were non-independent, we could arrive at a very different vision of the man, to that which history actually recalls.


An interesting analysis of evidence

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Why assume that people haven't already read-around the subject?

Maybe they are in some sense. They all seem to look towards the spiritual; perhaps there's something spiritual within the human psyche (or some influence on the human psyche?) that draws them to behave as such, and thus all Religion is a fulfilment of this need, including Atheism (since you do think about and consider such issues).

Ah - the macrocosm of religion. :)

I am of the opinion that we have some gap in our understanding of reality... that, perhaps, being ABLE to question our existence... somehow leaves us in a situation where we feel we MUST question our existence.

And, that one of the first and most logical stages in that questioning, is the old 'why am I here'? scenario. Some can ONLY be happy with an answer to that question which leaves them with a REASON to 'be'. Some are more pragmatic, perhaps.

I think they call it our 'monkey curiousity'... a need to pick at things, to try to get inside them... to understand how they tick.

I think we find ourselves lacking answers, and that seems to feel uncomfortable. And, we humans abhor a vacuum - so we try to feed that 'hunger', just as we do any other.

Some fill that hunger by accepting there must be some greater power, that makes it all make sense.

Some fill that hunger by fulfilling the NOW... which only ever temporarily alleviates the symptoms... it never cures them. Our consumer culture - where we are somewhat DEFINED by what we purchase (even by where, and now - even HOW we purchase), and our appetite for televisual titillations would be good examples of this approach.

Some fill that hunger through another route. Some, as I, accept that I may NEVER have ANY of the answers. And, with a self-recognition of honesty... that for ALL my endeavours, my quest to truly satisfy my 'monkey curiousity' is ultimately hopeless... there comes a form of relief.

In that respect, perhaps I agree with you that Atheism fulfills the same NEED as Religion. But, I cannot cinsider them the same, since the one is essentially the antithesis of the other.

Regarding that last point ("since you do think about and consider such issues")... being an Atheist does not excuse one from TRYING to understand reality... through whatever source.

On the other hand - there are Atheists who do not feel the need to continue the search for truth. Perhaps they are more easily satisifed? Perhaps they do not believe that ANY source can ultimately lead us to a 'capital-T-Truth'.

Thanks. Though I'm a bit worried by the fact it was straight to video...never a good sign. Still, you never know- some bombs were actually good (I'd mention "Eurotrip" but then I'd get baffled looks. So I won't...). Thanks again.


no problem. i saw it a couple years ago and thought it was a decent movie

Okay lets not just debate whether or not Jesus existed... historical facts conclude that if the Line of David existed then Jesus did as well... The line of David has been an issue for debate for a very long time... ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Line of David has been only strengthened with proof that it did exist thus then Jesus Existed.... the rest of it is up for you to debate.. whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or not. Or if you want to go even to the next extreme whether or not the bible is even Historical WHICH there is no historian that can prove that it is not historical... all aspects of the bible have been scrutinized torn apart and the only part that has been questioned is the Line of David but they are continually finding evidence that it did exist and that there is indeed historical proof to back it up.

The problem with the assertion that 'nobody needed contemporary evidence', is that it falls just as flat in the case of Jesus, as it did in the case of Exodus.

The Egyptians recorded things like, how many loaves of bread they had at a given festival. And yet, apparently, they failed to notice the mass imprisonment, (wrath of God), and eventual emancipation of an entire culture of slaves.

One looks at Roman history - and they recorded bizarrely mundane matters of all kinds. It seems unlikely that they wouldn't have felt the need to record what would APPEAR to be a 'son of God' on Earth. After all - they recorded OTHER 'son of God' stories they found. (Heracles/Hercules).

Perhaps they didn't have our modern media - but ancient cultures (especially those highly civilised ones) have had a HABIT of recording 'the News'.

And yet, in the case of this alleged 'messiah' (One of MANY), they failed to even mention him - let alone anything significant ABOUT him.

1) You are conflating two very different things by comparing records of Jesus' life with records of the Exodus. For one thing, you have to remember that Judah is not Egypt: it's the most backwater and far-removed province of the entire Roman Empire. A rabble-rouser who preaches peace briefly, attracts a series of followers, and then is crucified is simply not going to attract much attention until such time as those followers start spreading and, at the very least becomed blamed for, committing violent acts upon the empire. The same thing would likely happen today if someone were to start a new religion in, say, the American Samoa Islands: no one would pay much attention to him, and you would have a very difficult time confirming his existence, right up until his followers are blamed for fire-bombing the Capitol building, and then you'd see historical documentation cropping up about him.

2) Yes, they did record a great deal of minutia about other people, and on the basis of those records, which were rarely first-person accounts, we believe in said people's existence. There is no non-Roman, first-person account of people like Vercingetorix of Gaul or Boudicca of Britian, but despite that fact, we don't dispute their existence. Why then is so much more required to say that yes, Virginia, there was a historical Jesus.

3) You seem to forget that Christians were highly unlikely to actually write anything down, because they thought that Jesus' return was imminent. It's only after you make the transition to a religion that doesn't expect the return that you expect said religion to make a written account of their teaching for posterity's sake, and this is when you first see the account of Mark.


Mr Blake, at your school, is no parallel. YOU saw him (apparently)... but no man alive today has seen this 'Jesus'... because we were all born WAY too late.


. . .That's the point: the fact that you haven't seen him with your own eyes, and haven't ever seen him teach chemistry, is no basis for in fact saying that there is no Mr. Blake who ever taught chemistry at a rural high school in southeastern Idaho, nor is there any particular need to dispute my claim that there is a person who teaches (or at least as of six years ago taught) chemistry in a high school in rural SE Idaho. Why? Because thousands of people have likely seen said person at one time or another in their lives, so in the face of such collective knowledge, there is no real need for independent historical verification. It only becomes necessary to record it for posterity's sake when 1) something he did becomes important, and 2) when there are far fewer people around who can claim to have seen him in person. By extension, we ought to be able to say the same thing about Jesus: thousands of people in the A.D. 30's and 40's had seen him and seen what he did, so there was no real need for an independent investigation or historical account about his existence. It only became necessary in the A.D. 70's, when 1) Jesus' teachings about fire and ruin being visited on Jerusalem suddenly became much more prescient, and 2) when there were fewer people who remembered the historical Jesus. Ironically, this is when historical accounts of Jesus start popping up.

What you are doing here, is confusing what is KNOWN, with what is TRUE.

A distinction without a difference in this case. To say that it was commonly known, through direct observation, up until the AD 70's that a man named Jesus (or some derivation thereof) existed, preached, gained followers, and died is the same thing as saying that it is true that a man named Jesus (or some derivation thereof) existed, preached, gained followers, and died. The truth conditions for each statement are exactly the same in each instance.


After all - by the time Josephus get's around to writing his little pamphlet, what is KNOWN about Jesus? There are stories, sure. And there are even Gosples. But, how much of it is necessarily TRUE?


I'm not arguing about what Jesus did. I'm arguing about what he was and whether he was. The first point is a matter of great contention. The second point, with even a minimal amount of reasoning, should not be.



By the way - the reason I use such a flippant idea (the jumping tall buildings) is that Superman is one of the GREATEST examples of the growth of a myth in a short period of time (Batman is arguably the other great modern example).

To explain what I mean - one could assume that the FIRST Superman strips are literally 'true'. What does one know about Superman, now? Well, we know for a FACT that he has to say a magic word to change into his costume (Shazam), and that he can jump over tall buildings, and that he can run faster than a steam locomotive.

Fast forward a few decades (a perfect parallel to the 'Jesus' situation), and contemporary reports tell us that Superman no longer needs a telephone box and a magic word, and now he can fly, and move faster than the speed of light. We also now have DETAILED assertions about his childhood.

Rather a scarily appropriate parallel, I think.

Possibly, but not for the reason you think. The funny thing is that Superman has a great deal in common with other superheroes that came around during the same time: he picked up the ability to fly in the early 40's IIRC, in response to lagging sales behind other superhero comics that could fly, and his powers have grown greatly over time. Hell, if I remember right Superman was originally written as a villian, but no one on the basis of this disputes that there was a historically-based origin for Superman, or that there was no first Superman comic and everything came about as some conspiracy among a bunch of 30's era comic geeks. Likewise, we don't see much historical records of Superman's existence being confirmed in other independent literature until 20 or so years after this first comic comes out.

If that's the case about Superman, then why are you so quick to dismiss the book of Mark as pure fabrication? To be honest, if you were in a war for conversion of Gentiles (as Jews were with the Christians starting roughly about the same time as Luke and Matthew first went into circulation), why wouldn't you dispute the existence of the other guy's holy man if you could? Hell, given that the Christians were converting people mere weeks after Jesus' execution in the city he was executed in, you'd think that someone, anyone would have pointed out that they had never seen or heard of this Jesus. But you never see any of these claims being leveled against Christians. Instead, there was intense debate about what Jesus was: loon or holy man, and not whether he was.

Did Jesus exist? Of course.

Was he the son of God? Possibly.

I think that Jesus did exist. but this question all depends on your religion. If you are pagan (ack, i hate that word) you probaly don't think he exists, but if not, he does.

(sombody probaly alreday posted somthing like this, but I'm not willing to read every message.)

Actually, it's generally accepted among scholars and historians that Jesus was a real person. It's just a question of whether or not you think he was divine.

Okay lets not just debate whether or not Jesus existed... historical facts conclude that if the Line of David existed then Jesus did as well... The line of David has been an issue for debate for a very long time... ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Line of David has been only strengthened with proof that it did exist thus then Jesus Existed.... the rest of it is up for you to debate.. whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or not. Or if you want to go even to the next extreme whether or not the bible is even Historical WHICH there is no historian that can prove that it is not historical... all aspects of the bible have been scrutinized torn apart and the only part that has been questioned is the Line of David but they are continually finding evidence that it did exist and that there is indeed historical proof to back it up.

Who has been proving these things? Your statement is ambiguous without some verifiable names.

Ah - the macrocosm of religion. :)
It's all connected, you know. Micro perspective and macro perspective are co-dependent when it comes to things like this. It's just a matter of which level of abstraction you want to apply at any given time. :)

Incidentally, rant-warning. >_<;
I am of the opinion that we have some gap in our understanding of reality... that, perhaps, being ABLE to question our existence... somehow leaves us in a situation where we feel we MUST question our existence.

And, that one of the first and most logical stages in that questioning, is the old 'why am I here'? scenario. Some can ONLY be happy with an answer to that question which leaves them with a REASON to 'be'. Some are more pragmatic, perhaps.

I think they call it our 'monkey curiousity'... a need to pick at things, to try to get inside them... to understand how they tick.

I think we find ourselves lacking answers, and that seems to feel uncomfortable. And, we humans abhor a vacuum - so we try to feed that 'hunger', just as we do any other.

Some fill that hunger by accepting there must be some greater power, that makes it all make sense.

Some fill that hunger by fulfilling the NOW... which only ever temporarily alleviates the symptoms... it never cures them. Our consumer culture - where we are somewhat DEFINED by what we purchase (even by where, and now - even HOW we purchase), and our appetite for televisual titillations would be good examples of this approach.

Some fill that hunger through another route. Some, as I, accept that I may NEVER have ANY of the answers. And, with a self-recognition of honesty... that for ALL my endeavours, my quest to truly satisfy my 'monkey curiousity' is ultimately hopeless... there comes a form of relief.
You're not finding me arguing with you on the existence of such a sense. A curious little substrain is the way that sense is recursive. We want to know about why we want to know things, and the only way we know that we want to know about things is that we're curious about things like that. >_>

But I find it interesting that you start with a human questioning of existence and similarly go on to apply the phrase Monkey Curiosity. This is a type of behaviour the likes of which we see in the animal kingdom all of the time; an innate drive to investigate our perceived surroundings to see how it works, make sure it's not going to do anything that might bring us to harm.

Does a monkey question its existence, though? Well, I couldn't say; I don't speak native simean. It could well do. But it doesn't need to do so in order to have a conscious interest in poking around and discovering how its surroundings work. All it needs to be able to do is to analyse and perceive an object in the outside world, place it on a complexity level relative to itself and rationalise what to do with it appropriately.

If it makes you feel better about it, assume I'm speaking hypothetically for a while here. Heck, it worked for Galileo. ^^;

The thing is, the more complex a being is, the higher a level of complexity it can deal with and interact with. A beetle can meet an ant; it has relatively little influence on an ant colony. A bacterial and an animal cell can wage war, but the bacteria ultimately has no way of dealing with the animal itself beyond messing around with its component parts and getting eaten alive by the phagocytes. If you can't possibly perceive it (by which I mean simply respond to stimuli that would indicate a thing's existence), you can't explore it.

So where'm I going with this? Well, the reason for man's search for the spiritual is due to his own level of complexity. Man posesses a sense of self-awareness considerably different than the rest of nature due to the developed neural/biological systems he has integrated within himself. What's more, since his sense of self is so developed as to be able to see itself, he can now perceive, or at least Conceive, things of a similar nature to his own sense of self.

What is of a similar nature to his self?

Community. Humans are inherently social beings as a result. They've developed a sense of Empathy that in turn allows for the development of interactive emotion.
Complex Systems. Computation, logical analysis, mechanics, Invention. Only a being of similar or higher complexity than ourselves could come up with computers.
... Nature itself?

With a sense of understanding of how he himself is what he is, he begins to see himself everywhere. His entire universe seems to be made up of patterns that mimic his own "design". Now you'll start to see where this is going.

Man has a perception of something. His complexity is sufficient to notice a pattern that includes him within it. Thus does he explore and rationalise this with whatever capacity he can. And he's still at it.

And here, I might as well copy/paste your own point. We all come up with our own conclusions that help us to identify what it is we're perceiving. But why is there such disagreement? It's Nature. It's a being whose image humans mimic. It's several beings that humans mimic. It's a universal cosmic force. All of those are equally valid interpretations, and all of them are correct interpretations to the individual that holds them because they provide an explanation for what they perceive.

It all depends on the way you think about the issues.
In that respect, perhaps I agree with you that Atheism fulfills the same NEED as Religion. But, I cannot cinsider them the same, since the one is essentially the antithesis of the other.
Au Contraire. Atheism is just another way of making sense of the world. Another interpretation of what it is we perceive. Sure, it is based on a premise that one particular interpretation is mistaken, but it would be no less valid an idea should "Theism" never have taken hold.

The main reason Theism has, in fact, become dominant, is because it's easier for the Romantic (I could spend years talking about the romantic/classic division; check out Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a nice little exposee into that one) man to perceive the system that influences him as a larger version of himself. Classic abstract thinkers are only recently becoming more prominant within Western Society, and are met with some hostility due to their interpretations in this regard. However, these two aspects of thought are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's like the old Blind Men's Elephant experiment; it takes many different perspectives to truly make sense of the problem. Sometimes, it takes people who have traversed the line between Classic and Romantic to come up with the idea of coexistence.

Regarding that last point ("since you do think about and consider such issues")... being an Atheist does not excuse one from TRYING to understand reality... through whatever source.

On the other hand - there are Atheists who do not feel the need to continue the search for truth. Perhaps they are more easily satisifed? Perhaps they do not believe that ANY source can ultimately lead us to a 'capital-T-Truth'.
Well, I reckon if you put enough effort into it and are both open to new ideas and willing to share your own pontifications, you'll come up with something insightful, even if it's not necessarily the Truth.

Now, where was I?

Oh yes.

Jesus.

...

Some other time, perhaps. I've taken up enough of your time. Thanks for getting this far! ^^;

Who has been proving these things? Your statement is ambiguous without some verifiable names.
And your statement is pointless unless you can prove me wrong... I know this because I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls taken an indepth interest in the History of The bible and where it fits in. I am so sorry that I cannot provide names that chances are you would have no idea who they are anyways... if I had time I could search out all the info for you but I don't so go do it yourself and especially before you make any more pointless remarks.

Maybe they are in some sense. They all seem to look towards the spiritual; perhaps there's something spiritual within the human psyche (or some influence on the human psyche?) that draws them to behave as such, and thus all Religion is a fulfilment of this need,
The existence of a need to feel something spiritual is not proof that there is any truth in the concept of "spiritual". If a tendency to self-delusion provided an evolutionary advantage, then it would survive and be prevalent in the modern human species, but it would still be a delusion.

including Atheism (since you do think about and consider such issues).
Atheists don't necessarily consider such issues. Atheism is merely a lack of theism, a lack of belief in God (which does not necessarily mean a firm belief that God does not exist). The lack can be because someone has spent a life time considering the issue and concluded there is no god, or because someone has never given a second's thought to the possibility of a god existing, or anywhere in between those two extremes.

I've not seen that claimed.

However, with NO independent, contemporary evidence to prove he DID exist, there is no reason to believe he did.



If there was a man, proved to be performing miracles, or even with a decently strong claim, it seems likely that it would have been reported a LITTLE, at least.



Josephus WAS a Jew... but he was also, for want of a more delicate way to put it... a lapdog. He was writing for an audience. If he mentioned Jesus at all (which is still debatable), it might ONLY be pandering to the desires of his audience... no guarantee that his material would be reliable or factual.



Christus basically just means 'annointed'. We ASSUME some parallel between Greek references to an 'annointed' and Hebrew references to 'Messiah', but there is no automatic reason to make that assumption... except habit.



This is true. Since Paul NEVER met the living Jesus, he could easily be retelling any amount of myth, ignorant of the origins.



A flawed assumption. We don't EVEN know that this 'Jesus' existed. To say that there wouldn't have been that much attention heaped on a man who wasn't special, ignores completely, the fact that "Jesus" might JUST be the 'Jewish' name attached to a much older story.

After all, there couldn't have been that much attention heaped onto Red Riding Hood, if she didn't do something special... right?



This is nonsensical. By this token, ALL religions must be true - even when they are also mutually contradictory.

Okay, what I meant with that last statement is that I doubt Christianity would have survived for this long if Jesus didn't actually live (that would be the "fraud" part, and his existence is central to Christianity itself). The rest- the miracles, etc.- don't necessarily have to be true as well, since they could be interpolations of what he did in the Gospel writers' attempts to deify him.

I do concede that it's a matter of interpretation whether or not Jesus existed, because the non-Biblical evidence is scant, so I'd just say "agree to disagree" here because interpretation is a weak argument in this case.

Regardless, saying that Jesus *didn't* exist is also weak, because this is an argument from silence. Saying that there isn't a source doesn't mean that there won't be one in the future. Like others (and myself) have said, the Romans didn't pay that much attention to him because at the time he could have just been seen as yet another rabble-rouser when they had millions of them (Xenophobialand's argument was the best one here in this regard).

It would be a useless waist of time to answer your question, for two reasons:

1: Typing something out on the computer is most likely not going to deter you from believing the way you do, it needs to be done in person.

2: You most likely have Biest opinions about the Christian religion, and wont believe me even if i made a logical explenation.


Okay, what I meant with that last statement is that I doubt Christianity would have survived for this long if Jesus didn't actually live (that would be the "fraud" part, and his existence is central to Christianity itself). The rest- the miracles, etc.- don't necessarily have to be true as well, since they could be interpolations of what he did in the Gospel writers' attempts to deify him.

I do concede that it's a matter of interpretation whether or not Jesus existed, because the non-Biblical evidence is scant, so I'd just say "agree to disagree" here because interpretation is a weak argument in this case.

Regardless, saying that Jesus *didn't* exist is also weak, because this is an argument from silence. Saying that there isn't a source doesn't mean that there won't be one in the future. Like others (and myself) have said, the Romans didn't pay that much attention to him because at the time he could have just been seen as yet another rabble-rouser when they had millions of them (Xenophobialand's argument was the best one here in this regard).


The bible has been right in so many predictions-about cities being destroyed, countries falling, etc-If that is correct then why shouldnt it be correct about this one person living. again, people dont want to believe, there ears are closed and there minds are blocked up.

Jesus= Christus
He should have been recorded as Yetsu Ban Yoseph.

More importantly, who cares? Do I excist? Maybe. Does that mean you should stop complying with my every whim? Hell no!

The bible has been right in so many predictions-about cities being destroyed, countries falling, etc-If that is correct then why shouldnt it be correct about this one person living. again, people dont want to believe, there ears are closed and there minds are blocked up.

If there are predictions about cities being destroyed and countries falling, etc then if they are correct we no longer have that little thing called free will because if our actions are know by god before we do them then we aren't really doing them freely.

1st of all ur from wisconsin where they worship cheese & brett farve in that order 2nd there is no 2nd 3rd jesus is just alright w/ me 4th bet he got no living relatives 5th lady showjumper dawn palethorpe had a clam called stefan
that should answer your question you snotty heep of parrot droppings
Burger King(deceased)

I've never seen anything besides the bible that states Jesus lived. If someone can provide me with this evidence I would be glad to read it ^_^

There are many references to Christ outside of the Bible - Tacitus the Roman historian writes of Christ, as does Josephus, a Jewish historian (who was very much against the teachings of Christ):

TACITUS "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, avaiIed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..."

Tacitus, "Annals" xv, 44. The Oxford Translation, Revised. (New York Harper & Bros., Publishers, 1858), p. 423.

JOSEPHUS "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, "Antiquities" XVIII, iii, 3, See Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church" (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 92ff.

The debate that Jesus did not exist has no grounds as an argument; the real debate really is over whether Jesus was the Son of God.

There are many references to Christ outside of the Bible - Tacitus the Roman historian writes of Christ, as does Josephus, a Jewish historian (who was very much against the teachings of Christ):

<snip>

The debate that Jesus did not exist has no grounds as an argument; the real debate really is over whether Jesus was the Son of God.
So if I wrote a history today which included a section on a person named Hercule Poirot, who died in the mid-20th century, would that mean that Hercule Poirot existed? Of course not.

In all probability, Tacitus and Josephus are recounting the story which they've heard from Christians, long after the time it was supposed to have happened. They don't cite, and we don't know of, a single shred of primary evidence to back the story up. So the debate about Jesus's existence is perfectly justified.

So if I wrote a history today which included a section on a person named Hercule Poirot, who died in the mid-20th century, would that mean that Hercule Poirot existed? Of course not.

In all probability, Tacitus and Josephus are recounting the story which they've heard from Christians, long after the time it was supposed to have happened. They don't cite, and we don't know of, a single shred of primary evidence to back the story up. So the debate about Jesus's existence is perfectly justified.

Then why do the Muslims consider Jesus a profit?

Then why do the Muslims consider Jesus a profit?

Wha? ... - They make money by selling him?!? :confused:

Then why do the Muslims consider Jesus a profit?


its "prophet", and the real question would be why they do not believe him to be the son of Allah.

No proof.

i've heard many times there are Roman records stating that a man named Jesus the Nazerene was crucified around year 30, but i din't have any quotable evidence or a website. if anyone knows about this, please let us know.

Be well!:D

That would be near to impossible since Nazareth wasn't called Nazareth until about 200 AD. Also, his name likely wasn't Jesus, but Yeshua (an early form of Joshua). So there would be no record of Jesus the Nazarene. Those who claim to "find" them are generally faking it.

Then why do the Muslims consider Jesus a profit?
Because they swallowed at least some of the Christian story just as Josephus, Tacitus and others did. Islam was founded about 600 years after Christianity - it is even further removed from that actual events than Josephus and Tacitus.

Islam is a continuation of the Judeao-Christian heritage, but Muslims believe that the true message of God had been corrupted by Jew and Christians, and the prophet Muhammad put things right by conveying the true, pure, message in the Quran.

I think that Jesus did exist. but this question all depends on your religion.
No it doesn't - it depends on what actually happened around the 1st century AD. You can't change whether or not Jesus existed by what you choose to believe.

[I don't mean to barge in on this whole conversation, If you want I'll just Zorpbugger off]

If you've ever heard of a guy called C. S. Lewis, he said that there are three possible explainations as to who Jesus was:

1 - "He was mad. Just a complete looney." This can't really be true. If he was a looney then billions (literally) of people wouldn't have followed him over two thousand years. There are people with official cirtificates of insanity who start cults today, and the're lucky if they can get fifty followers.

2 - "He was evil. He spent his life tricking billions of people" Again, it's unlikley (but possible) that he would give his entire life up to tricking people (and let himself be brutaly crucified). It's also improbable that billions of people, including some of the most intelligent people in history agreed with him.

3 - "He was right. He did go around healing people" This is the dilemma. It's weather or not you believe he was a fantasticaly skilled and belevonant doctor who healed people for the heck of it, or the Son of God, which is not really the point of this forum.

A few words on early christianity:

www.leidenuniv.nl/gg/personal/jonge/hjdejonge.html

(First, for the record, I do not believe in Jesus as God's son, but....)Regardless of whether he was actually called "Jesus" I am going to go out on limb and say that the man people today refer to as "Jesus" really lived. A) You can trace the lineage of the Popes all the way to Peter who was allegedly hand selected by Jesus. B) Changing the entire course of western history is pretty extreme to do in the name of something that never existed.

and furthermore....I think he had a twin. That ought to clear up the confusion with that whole 'resurrection' thing.

Perhaps I should (as a historian) point out that the survival rate for twins past the age of about 10 in those days was about one in a thousand.

A) You can trace the lineage of the Popes all the way to Peter who was allegedly hand selected by Jesus.
No you can't - the history of the first century or more of the Church in Rome is swamped in legend and uncertainty. The list of early supposed popes/bishops of Rome is a mid-to-late 2nd century creation, and it's likely that the office of Bishop of Rome itself is too.

B) Changing the entire course of western history is pretty extreme to do in the name of something that never existed.
Whether he actually existed or not makes no difference here. If people believed he existed, their actions would be the same regardless of whether or not he did exist.

Christianity flourished in the long run because the Roman Empire took it under its wing. Roman leaders, like some modern leaders I could name, were not averse to using dubious or unsubstantiated claims to further their own ends.

Christianity flourished in the long run because the Roman Empire took it under its wing. Roman leaders, like some modern leaders I could name, were not averse to using dubious or unsubstantiated claims to further their own ends.

Exactly. The Roman Empire, id est the most powerful and therefore the most intelligent and well led people since the Greeks, adopted the religion of the people they had conquered. Could you imagine Britain adopting an African tribal religion in the C19th? That's basicaly what it equates to.

I vote for 'Jesus never existed', due to lack of proof. I realise absence of proof is not proof of absence, but in my mind, if Nazareth didn't exist then, then Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist either.

Hm. What I think is that whether Jesus was the son of God (or A god) or not, whether he existed or not (although I think he did), (perhaps he existed as many men, in a similar way to the "real" King Arthur?), it's undeniable that he's probably the most significant single person in the history of the western world, and in the top five out of humanity. Whether he existed as we think of him or no, he (or they) undisputedly caused cataclysmic change, and the world without this one figure would be unrecognizable - for better or worse.

edit: Also, by now it doesn't actually matter whether he existed or not, and if he didn't, or wasn't one person, it matters as little as the fact that King Arthur never existed as one man - the Jesus/Arthur of legend/myth/history is more real in the ways that matter, if you know what I mean.

-Snipped the Lord-Liar-Lunatic argument-
Le sigh. Lewis's ideas might have held in his time, but Mere Christianity is a flawed acclaim of biblical theology in current society.

Misinterpretation? Maybe Jesus misinterpreted whatever power tried to talk to him, or maybe Jesus himself was misunderstood (the latter being my own understanding).
Puppetry? Maybe Jesus was being manipulated by some otherworldly being into throwing himself onto the cross; not even necessarily a benevolent being, at that.
Stubbornness? Maybe Jesus just had an idea and became resolutely fixed on the validity of that idea to the point of self-sacrifice.
Fiction? Maybe Jesus was an invention of St Paul, and the Disciples were inventions to apply credibility.
Conglomeracy? Maybe Jesus, as an idea, is a fusion of the many different claimants to Messiah-hood within that period.

There are many other possible things he could have been. Lewis was naive in thinking his problem could be so easily solved.

Perhaps I should (as a historian) point out that the survival rate for twins past the age of about 10 in those days was about one in a thousand.
And the odds of resurrecting from the dead?

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

Yes, he existed. Roman records show proof that Pontius Pilate existed, and that he handled a political/religious prisioner for the Pharisee's named Jesus.

1 - "He was mad. Just a complete looney." This can't really be true. If he was a looney then billions (literally) of people wouldn't have followed him over two thousand years.
Baloney. Those whose only knowledge of Jesus came from what they were told or was written by those who came after him would have no idea that he was a looney, and so no reason not to follow him.

There are people with official cirtificates of insanity who start cults today, and the're lucky if they can get fifty followers.
We live in a very different society from the excessively superstitious and scientifically ignorant 1st century Palestine. You cannot apply 20th century mindsets to events of 2000 years ago.

"He was evil. He spent his life tricking billions of people" Again, it's unlikley (but possible) that he would give his entire life up to tricking people (and let himself be brutaly crucified).
He didn't give up his entire life - he supposedly preached for about 3-4 years, didn't he? And for all we know, the preaching was a weekend diversion from his business as a travelling salesman :)

As for letting himself be crucifed, I wasn't aware that those who were arrested, tried and sentenced to death were given a choice about whether the setence was carried out!

"He was right. He did go around healing people" This is the dilemma. It's weather or not you believe he was a fantasticaly skilled and belevonant doctor who healed people for the heck of it, or the Son of God, which is not really the point of this forum.
C S Lewis was making assumptions about what happened which aren't borne out by the historical evidence. If you begin an argument with falses premises, you get false answers.

Good point, but people take these things literally.

Jesus being God's son does not mean literally. You probably don't speak Ancient Hebrew, but the nouns are quite limited. There are perhaps ten or fifteen different interpretations of the word "son", it is just taken as that because it sounded good when people wrote the bible years ago. Jesus was an ordinary bloke, with an extraordinary idea, which regardless of weather or not you believe him to be the son of god, generaly (though not when taken literaly without interpretation.

Yes, he existed. Google "jesus" for the proof.

I'm not dissagreeing with you or anything, like I said, I'm inclined to believe that he did exist, but the internet will never convince anyone of anything. Really. It's just too open and free. Especially not just a Google search. Especially not one with just the word "Jesus" as the search criteria. You'd probably get over a billion responses to that - the internet is a big place - and I'd say less than 10% of those would even be passing credible.
But like I said, I think he probably did exist. It's just that the internet is no way of proving that.

It is a question of faith. Look at this definition of heaven:

Heaven: really cool place [insert specific personal beliefs here]

If there was easy scientific proof that he existed and was God's son, what would be the point of a really super-special reward for the faith? It's like having a brilliant golf club, but the entry test is to destinguish a golf ball from a machine-gun.

The way we have now will ensure the only people there will absolutley deserve it, for believing it for a lifetime against the logic of this world.

It is a question of faith. Look at this definition of heaven:

Heaven: really cool place [insert specific personal beliefs here]

If there was easy scientific proof that he existed and was God's son, what would be the point of a really super-special reward for the faith? It's like having a brilliant golf club, but the entry test is to destinguish a golf ball from a machine-gun.

The way we have now will ensure the only people there will absolutley deserve it, for believing it for a lifetime against the logic of this world.

No.
IF a God, god or gods exist, heaven, if it exists in the way that it should exist, will let ALL people who live a good, honourable life in. REGARDLESS of their Religious creed.
Saying "we believed in Jesus against all odds, we will get into heaven" is the biggest bullshit ever. Believing in Jesus doesn't mean anything if you're a horrible person.
Sorry. But I despise that viewpoint. Appologies also if I've misinterpreted your statement.

Exactly. The Roman Empire, id est the most powerful and therefore the most intelligent
That's a non sequitor :)
and well led people since the Greeks, adopted the religion of the people they had conquered. Could you imagine Britain adopting an African tribal religion in the C19th? That's basicaly what it equates to.
No, it would equate to Britain adopting an African religion in the 23rd century, after members of the religion had lived in London and other British cities for 300 hundred years, and assuming that a modern British ruler was in a position to impose a new state religion at all.

No, you haven't misinterpreted this. But you may be forgetting one small point:

"The ONLY way to the father is through ME" (abbreviated.)

You're right, it doesn't necassarily mean that you have to be a christian and go to church and have whist drives etc., but you have to follow his teachings. Have you ever heard of the Barry Idea?

No, you haven't. But you may be forgetting one small point:

"The ONLY way to the father is through ME" (abbreviated.)

You're right, it doesn't necassarily mean that you have to be a christian and go to church and have whist drives etc., but you have to follow his teachings. Have you ever heard of the Barry Idea?


No, I haven't heard of the "Barry Idea"

My point is, though, that every single religion that has ever existed has basically said the same thing- "Don't do stupid stuff, don't kill people whenever you feel it's a good idea, live and let live, etc, etc, etc"... basically, the fundamental point is that if you live a good life, you will be rewarded.
I don't think, though, that one religion has the power to discredit all other religions. I don't think a loving God would send people into the oblivion of nothingness or eternal damnation or purgatory just because they did not follow one. specific. religion. You know? It's just not what a loving anything would do. I still think that living a good life is key, so, I don't agree with "The ONLY way to the Father is through ME" at all.

Yes, he existed. Roman records show proof that Pontius Pilate existed, and that he handled a political/religious prisioner for the Pharisee's named Jesus.
There is evidence that Pontius Pilate existed, but can you cite any actual (i.e. contemporary) evidence that he handled a political/religious prisoner named Jesus? Can you cite any evidence that the Romans ever dealt with prisoners on behalf of religious leaders of their subject states?

No, it doesn't mean you have to believe Jesus was gods son etc, what it does mean is that if you follow all jesus' teachings you will go to heaven (to put it bluntly). If you were a Muslim, who's to say that "the Muslim God" isn't "the Christian God", just because they have different names? That's a commonly held belief which makes little sense. In essense I agree exactly what you're saying, it's just a little tricky to convey meanings in pixels.

You'd probably get over a billion responses to that - the internet is a big place - and I'd say less than 10% of those would even be passing credible.
60,300,000 hits actually. Further refining such as: Proof, and Existence narrows it down to 1,820,000. As I view more of the entries, they all seem to cite the same evidence, and the same reasoning. Trusting an individual source on the 'net is unwise at best, but when so many people agree on the same thing, I'm inclined to listen.

[Sorry. I really should use the "reply with quote" button]

Okay lets not just debate whether or not Jesus existed... historical facts conclude that if the Line of David existed then Jesus did as well... The line of David has been an issue for debate for a very long time... ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Line of David has been only strengthened with proof that it did exist thus then Jesus Existed.... the rest of it is up for you to debate.. whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or not. Or if you want to go even to the next extreme whether or not the bible is even Historical WHICH there is no historian that can prove that it is not historical... all aspects of the bible have been scrutinized torn apart and the only part that has been questioned is the Line of David but they are continually finding evidence that it did exist and that there is indeed historical proof to back it up.

I wish this were more than idle speculation.

The line of David was questioned because it has long been unsure as to whether there was a literal 'David'... and, if there was, what he 'did'.

Does the fulfillment of Davidic musings prove anything about Jesus? Not at all - Any more than the existence of a literal Saint Nicholas equates to the existence of an Easter Bunny.

Sorry, my friend, but if you HONESTLY believe that the ONLY part of the bible that has ever been questioned is the line of David... you've either not spent much time reading the scripture, or you have paid no attention to any of the contemporary scriptural debates.

No, it doesn't mean you have to believe Jesus was gods son etc, what it does mean is that if you follow all jesus' teachings you will go to heaven (to put it bluntly). If you were a Muslim, who's to say that "the Muslim God" isn't "the Christian God", just because they have different names? That's a commonly held belief which makes little sense. In essense I agree exactly what you're saying, it's just a little tricky to convey meanings in pixels.

:) Yeah, it is difficult, I agree.
Well, yeah, I agree with that. This makes me happy.
What do you think, though, about atheists or agnostics who follow no teaching other than the basic principles of goodness? I personally think they'd be admitted in, too, although it'd be pretty funny. Um. Telegram my account with your reply, please, I'm going to sleep now, and what's more I'm going away for a few days and won't have the internet. I love theological discussions, though.

There is evidence that Pontius Pilate existed, but can you cite any actual (i.e. contemporary) evidence that he handled a political/religious prisoner named Jesus? Can you cite any evidence that the Romans ever dealt with prisoners on behalf of religious leaders of their subject states?

Google Edwin Yamauchi. He found the evidence.

60,300,000 hits actually. Further refining such as: Proof, and Existence narrows it down to 1,820,000. As I view more of the entries, they all seem to cite the same evidence, and the same reasoning. Trusting an individual source on the 'net is unwise at best, but when so many people agree on the same thing, I'm inclined to listen.

I suppose so, but the main problem with the internet is that thousands of wrong people who have the same wrong ideas are still wrong. You know? I'm not attacking you or anything, but things like Wikipedia (lol history lol) make me incredibly suspicious.
It's good for opinion-building, though, or information-gathering. Just not the final point. ...thing

I'm pained to leave this interesting discussion, but there's a pile of polynominals staring at me that won't solve themselves...

I'll just leave you all with this. Christian or not, no-one can deny that the world would be a better place with Jesus' teachings. That's a very overused statment, so I'll elaborate:

If only some people do it, they'd be picked on by those who don't (which is what we have in today's world).

If we have no-one who followed it, everyone would pick on everyone... that's called "Hell".

If everyone followed it (and I mean EVERYONE without exception)... that's called "Heaven".

I've got to go now, so I can't read replies etc. for a while, but before you do reply give it a lot of thought. If you're very lucky you may come to the same conclusion I did.

Yes, Jesus did exist, and he was the son of God. The bible is a historically acurate document and is proof of his life and divinity. But, it's mostly a faith thing.

1) You are conflating two very different things by comparing records of Jesus' life with records of the Exodus. For one thing, you have to remember that Judah is not Egypt: it's the most backwater and far-removed province of the entire Roman Empire. A rabble-rouser who preaches peace briefly, attracts a series of followers, and then is crucified is simply not going to attract much attention until such time as those followers start spreading and, at the very least becomed blamed for, committing violent acts upon the empire. The same thing would likely happen today if someone were to start a new religion in, say, the American Samoa Islands: no one would pay much attention to him, and you would have a very difficult time confirming his existence, right up until his followers are blamed for fire-bombing the Capitol building, and then you'd see historical documentation cropping up about him.


I am not saying there is DIRECT parallel between the Jesus and Exodus stories.. I am saying there is the same reason to DOUBT both stories. In both cases, something miraculous happens, that apparently changes the destinies of a collective of people, and something that resoundingly shows the DEFINITE truth of one particular 'god' myth.

And yet, in NEITHER case is anything recorded by anyone OTHER than those already members of the particular cult in question.

And, if one looks at an instance where there HAS been a parallel of similar scope, one finds the origins of the Baha'i faith... which DOES have contemporary and independent records.


2) Yes, they did record a great deal of minutia about other people, and on the basis of those records, which were rarely first-person accounts, we believe in said people's existence. There is no non-Roman, first-person account of people like Vercingetorix of Gaul or Boudicca of Britian, but despite that fact, we don't dispute their existence. Why then is so much more required to say that yes, Virginia, there was a historical Jesus.


Personally, I don't accept Boudicca as 'fact', and, in fact, when I went to school, we were taught that the Boudicca story was just that... a story.. which may or may not have truth.

It seems you are as willing to accept ANY historical story as 'true' as any other.


3) You seem to forget that Christians were highly unlikely to actually write anything down, because they thought that Jesus' return was imminent. It's only after you make the transition to a religion that doesn't expect the return that you expect said religion to make a written account of their teaching for posterity's sake, and this is when you first see the account of Mark.


And yet, this is somewhat irrelevent. If the root of Christianity is TRUE, then there should have been miracles of sufficient degree to gain attention of the Roman establishment. THAT attention does not need to 'wait' for the return of Jesus.

The fact that ONLY Jesus' followers began writing that material, and then ONLY after half a century has passed, does nothing to reinforce the integrity of the material.


. . .That's the point: the fact that you haven't seen him with your own eyes, and haven't ever seen him teach chemistry, is no basis for in fact saying that there is no Mr. Blake who ever taught chemistry at a rural high school in southeastern Idaho, nor is there any particular need to dispute my claim that there is a person who teaches (or at least as of six years ago taught) chemistry in a high school in rural SE Idaho. Why? Because thousands of people have likely seen said person at one time or another in their lives, so in the face of such collective knowledge, there is no real need for independent historical verification. It only becomes necessary to record it for posterity's sake when 1) something he did becomes important, and 2) when there are far fewer people around who can claim to have seen him in person. By extension, we ought to be able to say the same thing about Jesus: thousands of people in the A.D. 30's and 40's had seen him and seen what he did, so there was no real need for an independent investigation or historical account about his existence. It only became necessary in the A.D. 70's, when 1) Jesus' teachings about fire and ruin being visited on Jerusalem suddenly became much more prescient, and 2) when there were fewer people who remembered the historical Jesus. Ironically, this is when historical accounts of Jesus start popping up.


The whole Mr Blake thing is irrelevnt UNLESS this Mr Blake you speak of is capable of doing feats like raising the dead.

One has NO reason to doubt that a man exists. Hell, billions of men exist. But to claim the historicity of ONE particular man, especially in the context of some unusual story, requires more evidence than the simple claim that SOMEONE with that name existed.


A distinction without a difference in this case. To say that it was commonly known, through direct observation, up until the AD 70's that a man named Jesus (or some derivation thereof) existed, preached, gained followers, and died is the same thing as saying that it is true that a man named Jesus (or some derivation thereof) existed, preached, gained followers, and died. The truth conditions for each statement are exactly the same in each instance.


Rubbish.

I can say that Satan ate babies in the Capitol without it being true... although it might well be 'known'.

The ONLY reason you can make ANY claims about what was 'known, through direct observation', is because you have read about it in ONE set of texts, which might or MIGHT NOT be true.

With no independent corroboration - there is no reason to assume that what is KNOWN is also TRUE... except, perhaps, that you wish to believe it is so.


I'm not arguing about what Jesus did. I'm arguing about what he was and whether he was. The first point is a matter of great contention. The second point, with even a minimal amount of reasoning, should not be.


Fine. Then prove with contemporary, independent evidence, that such a man existed.

It is easy to prove A man called 'Jesus' existed. But, can you prove that THE man called 'Jesus' existed? If you can - you have an evidence that the rest of the world is still looking for.


Possibly, but not for the reason you think. The funny thing is that Superman has a great deal in common with other superheroes that came around during the same time: he picked up the ability to fly in the early 40's IIRC, in response to lagging sales behind other superhero comics that could fly, and his powers have grown greatly over time. Hell, if I remember right Superman was originally written as a villian, but no one on the basis of this disputes that there was a historically-based origin for Superman, or that there was no first Superman comic and everything came about as some conspiracy among a bunch of 30's era comic geeks. Likewise, we don't see much historical records of Superman's existence being confirmed in other independent literature until 20 or so years after this first comic comes out.

If that's the case about Superman, then why are you so quick to dismiss the book of Mark as pure fabrication? To be honest, if you were in a war for conversion of Gentiles (as Jews were with the Christians starting roughly about the same time as Luke and Matthew first went into circulation), why wouldn't you dispute the existence of the other guy's holy man if you could? Hell, given that the Christians were converting people mere weeks after Jesus' execution in the city he was executed in, you'd think that someone, anyone would have pointed out that they had never seen or heard of this Jesus. But you never see any of these claims being leveled against Christians. Instead, there was intense debate about what Jesus was: loon or holy man, and not whether he was.

How do you know 'Christians were converting people mere weeks after Jesus' execution'?

Is it because of that same old uncorroborated source?

Oh - and where do you get this idea of Jews in a 'war of conversion'?

I suppose so, but the main problem with the internet is that thousands of wrong people who have the same wrong ideas are still wrong. You know? I'm not attacking you or anything, but things like Wikipedia (lol history lol) make me incredibly suspicious.
It's good for opinion-building, though, or information-gathering. Just not the final point. ...thing
Wikipedia-Yeah, I wouldn't rely on wiki either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgies)

Wiki ain't exactly the best source of statistical information.

Okay, what I meant with that last statement is that I doubt Christianity would have survived for this long if Jesus didn't actually live (that would be the "fraud" part, and his existence is central to Christianity itself). The rest- the miracles, etc.- don't necessarily have to be true as well, since they could be interpolations of what he did in the Gospel writers' attempts to deify him.

I do concede that it's a matter of interpretation whether or not Jesus existed, because the non-Biblical evidence is scant, so I'd just say "agree to disagree" here because interpretation is a weak argument in this case.

Regardless, saying that Jesus *didn't* exist is also weak, because this is an argument from silence. Saying that there isn't a source doesn't mean that there won't be one in the future. Like others (and myself) have said, the Romans didn't pay that much attention to him because at the time he could have just been seen as yet another rabble-rouser when they had millions of them (Xenophobialand's argument was the best one here in this regard).

The point I've been trying to make, is that 'Jesus' need never have existed, for the ROOT of the Christian story to be true... in a 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' fashion.

Early Buddhists were in that area 600 years before the alleged life of Jesus - with a 'messiah' TYPE story, with many surprising similarities. Mithraism similarly predates the story, with many of the same 'features'.

So, would the story still be believed if Jesus never existed? Sure it would... it was basically believed BEFORE he is alleged to have existed.

Has anyone actually SAID that Jesus didn't exist? I think the general consensus has been that, in the absence of verifiable evidence that he DID, it is not logical to ASSUME that he did.

It's the old 'lack of faith' versus 'faith of lack' situation.

It would be a useless waist of time to answer your question, for two reasons:

1: Typing something out on the computer is most likely not going to deter you from believing the way you do, it needs to be done in person.

2: You most likely have Biest opinions about the Christian religion, and wont believe me even if i made a logical explenation.

The bible has been right in so many predictions-about cities being destroyed, countries falling, etc-If that is correct then why shouldnt it be correct about this one person living. again, people dont want to believe, there ears are closed and there minds are blocked up.

So - ANYONE who doesn't agree with you... is choosing to ignore the evidence?

Curious. So -what do you think about the incarnation of Buddha in Palestine, 600 years BEFORE Jesus... and all the parallels to the Jesus story?

Perhaps, it is those who claim to be 'enlightened', that are ignoring evidence?

Then why do the Muslims consider Jesus a profit?

They don't. They consider him a prophet.

They also consider Torah and New Testament to be sacred texts. That doesn't make Jesus necessarily 'real', or the Genesis account more literally 'true'.

There are many references to Christ outside of the Bible - Tacitus the Roman historian writes of Christ, as does Josephus, a Jewish historian (who was very much against the teachings of Christ):

TACITUS "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, avaiIed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..."

Tacitus, "Annals" xv, 44. The Oxford Translation, Revised. (New York Harper & Bros., Publishers, 1858), p. 423.

JOSEPHUS "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, "Antiquities" XVIII, iii, 3, See Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church" (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 92ff.

The debate that Jesus did not exist has no grounds as an argument; the real debate really is over whether Jesus was the Son of God.

Way to ignore the whole thread.

Yes, he existed. Roman records show proof that Pontius Pilate existed, and that he handled a political/religious prisioner for the Pharisee's named Jesus.

Show us those Roman records, please?

Wha? ... - They make money by selling him?!? :confused:

No they don't but they do recognize him as a prophet.

Exactly. The Roman Empire, id est the most powerful and therefore the most intelligent and well led people since the Greeks, adopted the religion of the people they had conquered. Could you imagine Britain adopting an African tribal religion in the C19th? That's basicaly what it equates to.

I thought you said you were a historian?

The Roman Empire has a history of borrowing gods from other cultures. Mainly Greek, but with some Egyptian and Mesopotamian input.

And, as one looks at the declining Empire, one sees an Empire losing it's faith... and looking for a newer, more vital principle. In the end, there was a general trend towards either Mithraism OR Christianity... (both of which share so many similarities, anyway)... and Christianity was 'lucky enough' to be the one to receive the Imperial 'sanction'.

its "prophet", and the real question would be why they do not believe him to be the son of Allah.

No proof.

Because Islam is a different religion.

I vote for 'Jesus never existed', due to lack of proof. I realise absence of proof is not proof of absence, but in my mind, if Nazareth didn't exist then, then Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist either.

Nazareth was a city in Israel and home of Joseph.

Nazareth was a city in Israel and home of Joseph.

Curious... can you prove it?

Curious... can you prove it?

Luke Chapter 2 verse 4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Curious... can you prove it?

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-map-Carta.asp
a modern map of Israel.
look in the north easterly area

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-map-Carta.asp
a modern map of Israel.

Don't even need that. Look at any ancient map of Israel.

It is common knowledge that Jesus existed. The question should be: Was he right? or even Did he die, then live again?

Don't even need that. Look at any ancient map of Israel.
I'm saying, it exists to this day, not that it never did exist. I wouldn't trust older maps anyway. (http://www.floridahistory.com/ancient-world-map.jpg)

Luke Chapter 2 verse 4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

I feel I have to point out to you, since you are using the Bible as a source to claim the historicity of Nazareth.... that the city we call Nazareth today, does not match the Biblical descriptions of the GEOGRAPHY of the city.

Since you mentioned Luke 4, try looking at Luke 4:29 "...and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built..., that they might throw Him down over the cliff..."

Now - it is easy to see (If you've ever been to the site, or if you've really researched the matter) - that there is no 'brow of the hill' that matched such a description. It would require a structure that had a steep slope... a 'cliff' according to the scripture... and yet, the city we CALL Nazareth in not on any kind of steep slope.

Indeed, the traditional site of 'the Leap of the Lord', is a very gentle slope...

It is ALSO worth bearing in mind, that we ONLY 'know' where Nazareth 'is' today, because of Eusebius... which is the EARLIEST record of the city to give a LOCATION... about 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus.

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-map-Carta.asp
a modern map of Israel.
look in the north easterly area

Wonderful... but totally irrelevent.

Show me evidence of where Nazareth WAS.

Your modern maps prove nothing. Show ANY contemporary source that verifies the location of the city.

It is common knowledge that Jesus existed. The question should be: Was he right? or even Did he die, then live again?

Sorry, but 'common knowledge' is not really worth all that much. Evidence is what you should be looking for... not a murmur of approval.

Well, the answer to the simple question is yes :

Any historian, history teacher, researcher, archaeologist, or any other person who has any sort of historical education will tell you for a fact that Jesus Christ did once walk the earth. In that sense, he did exist.

Now, are you asking do we think Jesus Christ is the son of god? Did he rise from the dead? Thats purely a question of religious preference. Christians will tell you yes. My opinion is no, he was just a man.

Well, the answer to the simple question is yes :

Any historian, history teacher, researcher, archaeologist, or any other person who has any sort of historical education will tell you for a fact that Jesus Christ did once walk the earth. In that sense, he did exist.


No - they really won't, you know.

There is actually almost NO evidence to believe that any such person as this 'Jesus' you call 'Christ' existed... and what there IS, was written long after the fact, and mainly by members of one extremist religious group.

Neither of which factors lends much credibility to the accounts.

I feel I have to point out to you, since you are using the Bible as a source to claim the historicity of Nazareth.... that the city we call Nazareth today, does not match the Biblical descriptions of the GEOGRAPHY of the city.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/galilee.htm

Since you mentioned Luke 4, try looking at Luke 4:29 "...and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built..., that they might throw Him down over the cliff..."

Care to tell me where I said Luke Chapter 4 please? I said Luke Chapter 2 VERSE 4!

It is ALSO worth bearing in mind, that we ONLY 'know' where Nazareth 'is' today, because of Eusebius... which is the EARLIEST record of the city to give a LOCATION... about 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus.

Which is actually BS.

No - they really won't, you know.

There is actually almost NO evidence to believe that any such person as this 'Jesus' you call 'Christ' existed... and what there IS, was written long after the fact, and mainly by members of one extremist religious group.

Neither of which factors lends much credibility to the accounts.

Actually, the Gospels and Book of Acts are a collection of eye-witness accounts...

Anyway, there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone you have not seen ever existed, or does exist. We must depend on history written by people other than ourselves to know about the past, and evidence provided by people other than ourselves to know about the present.

Furthermore, so far, the "experts" who said things such as "the Hittites are a mythical people" have been proven wrong, time after time. History and archeology keep proving more of the historicity of the Bible, the longer they keep digging, the more proof they find!

Here is an interesting article that I just read, titled "The irony of the intelligent believer", written by Vox Day, self-described "Christian Libertarian."
He takes on the question of how intelligent people could possibly believe in what others consider mythology. I don't always agree with this guy, but this article covers everything from utilitarian consequences of belief to the Catholic Spanish Inquisition ("nobody expects---the Spanish Inquisition!!!")

Have a look...;)

article in worldnetdaily.com (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47503)

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.
Show me some evidence he doesn't exist, and i'll take a look at it. Otherwise, I believe it would be strange a fictional character would be known as real person.

Any historian, history teacher, researcher, archaeologist, or any other person who has any sort of historical education will tell you for a fact that Jesus Christ did once walk the earth. In that sense, he did exist.
No they won't. I'm a History graduate and I'm not convinced that he existed. There is quite a number of other historians, archeaologists and other researchers who have specialised in this field and are not convinced either.

Try this, for a start : http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm (the main article, The Jesus Puzzle is a little way down the page).

Sorry, but 'common knowledge' is not really worth all that much.
Quite. It used to be common knowledge that the the Sun circled the Earth, and the church persecuted those who denied it.

No they won't. I'm a History graduate and I'm not convinced that he existed. There is quite a number of other historians, archeaologists and other researchers who have specialised in this field and are not convinced either.

Try this, for a start : http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm (the main article, The Jesus Puzzle is a little way down the page).

I'm studying history and I believe he existed. WHy? Because to many things tell me he existed. Like the fact that the Muslims consider him a prophet. Now why would they consider him a prophet if he didn't exist?

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

He might have, but not as the scriptures tell it. I don't think he performed miracles or resurrected, i think he was just some clever dude that loved his fellow man, the first hippie, if you like :cool:

The Bible is more than enough proof that he is the Son of God. More and more historians and scientists that try to prove the Bible wrong end up finding out it is correct. The Bible has never been proven wrong ever.

I'd love to see you back that one up with links and stuff

Show me some evidence he doesn't exist, and i'll take a look at it. Otherwise, I believe it would be strange a fictional character would be known as real person.

Good point---has there ever been a widespread belief by adults, children, educated, non-educated, in a person who has turned out to be a fictional character?

(Of course, that excludes Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, because the adults know better...);)

And a belief in that person that persisted for 2000 years?

You would have to be God to pull that one off...:D

Time will ultimately tell, won't it? My belief costs me nothing in the here and now, and moreover, has brought me peace, whether you care to believe it has worth or merit or not matters nada, to either me, or God. And if I'm right, after I die, gains me more than I will ever see on this earth. And if I'm wrong, as you insist, I will still lose nothing.

Your state of disbelief, has however, obviously gained you a cynical outlook, a mean spiritedness and atrocious manners in the here and now. You, on the other hand, if I'm right, after you die, have already lost everything..... and don't even know it (or care).

You takes your chance, and you pays your price.

I am comfortable with my choice.

One would think you believe out of fear of being punished later....
As for cynical, mean spiritedness & atrocious manners, can't say i suffer from those, just sarcam

No they won't. I'm a History graduate and I'm not convinced that he existed. There is quite a number of other historians, archeaologists and other researchers who have specialised in this field and are not convinced either.

Try this, for a start : http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm (the main article, The Jesus Puzzle is a little way down the page).
excellent link. thanks for posting it.

I'd love to see you back that one up with links and stuff

I'd like to see you do the same thing against the Bible.

No - they really won't, you know.

There is actually almost NO evidence to believe that any such person as this 'Jesus' you call 'Christ' existed... and what there IS, was written long after the fact, and mainly by members of one extremist religious group.

Neither of which factors lends much credibility to the accounts.


You say, 'Written long after the fact...mainly by members of one extremist group'. Now, you tell me, why would there be an 'extremely religious group' in the first place? BECAUSE OF THE PERSON THEY FOLLOW! Who would put faith in someone who didn't even exist? If you don't believe his divinity, that's between you and God, but NO ONE can claim Jesus did not even exist.

You say, 'Written long after the fact...mainly by members of one extremist group'. Now, you tell me, why would there be an 'extremely religious group' in the first place? BECAUSE OF THE PERSON THEY FOLLOW! Who would put faith in someone who didn't even exist? If you don't believe his divinity, that's between you and God, but NO ONE can claim Jesus did not even exist.
Yes, they can and they do! Have you ever seriously studied (from non-Christian sources) human psychology, the dynamics of myth-making, and the history and culture of the Middle East in the first century?

People have believed in non-existant tree-gods, ghosts, demons, aliens and many other outlandish things. Some modern educated people even seem to think that the characters in TV soap operas are real! Compared to that, to have illiterate primitive Middle-Eastern tribesmen believing in the existence of a non-real human being is pretty mundane.

I quite agree - even if you do not belive he was divine, he still historically existed. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, as nuts as the Greeks. There would be records somewhere under Pnchus Pilate of the execution of 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

Anyhow, here a spin - lets say Muhammad never existed. Who agrees?:confused:

Some modern educated people even seem to think that the characters in TV soap operas are real! Compared to that, to have illiterate primitive Middle-Eastern tribesmen believing in the existence of a non-real human being is pretty mundane.

I'm sorry, but I have studied the middle eastern peoples in the first century - and sorry to say, but there were not primitive, illiterate poeple. For one, they were taken over by the Roman Empire. They themselves have been hailed the most advanced of any ancient civillisation. Now, as usual with cultural imperialism, they would have taken inventions and used them for their own use. Now I cannot think you can call them 'primitive'. Also, because reciting the Torah was a great tradition, many commoners could do just this - read. Also, I'm sorry to say belief of characters in modern times is because of ignorance. How is ignorance connected to the beife of Christ?

I'm studying history and I believe he existed. WHy? Because to many things tell me he existed. Like the fact that the Muslims consider him a prophet. Now why would they consider him a prophet if he didn't exist?
At what level are you studying History? Have you yet been taught to distinguish between primary and secondary evidence, and to scrutinize original evidence properly?

By the time Islam appeared on the scene, Christianity was well-established, and its doctrines and assumptions had been widely circulated, in Arabia as well as elsewhere. Why wouldn't a bunch of largely illiterate Arabs without any training in historical analysis believe that the man in the gospels might be real? Muhammad and those around him didn't have access to first-century evidence unavailable to anyone else, so of course they would be as likely to believe at least some of the Christian myth as anyone else.

You say, 'Written long after the fact...mainly by members of one extremist group'. Now, you tell me, why would there be an 'extremely religious group' in the first place? BECAUSE OF THE PERSON THEY FOLLOW! Who would put faith in someone who didn't even exist? If you don't believe his divinity, that's between you and God, but NO ONE can claim Jesus did not even exist.

I agree with The Pink City here. Why would a cult start/grow if the person never existed in the first place? Go ahead and tell me of a group who belived in a person one generation after they had passed away who never existed.

I agree with The Pink City here. Why would a cult start/grow if the person never existed in the first place? Go ahead and tell me of a group who belived in a person one generation after they had passed away who never existed.
Christians, perhaps :)

What you're presenting here is an "argument from incredulity" - a logical fallacy. Study the evidence (and lack ot it), the accessibility to verifiable knowledge 2000 years ago, the dynamics of the spread of ideas and the speed with which legends can take hold (as urban legends do even today), and it becomes perfectly feasable to believe that people start to believe in someone who didn't exist, or that they start to believe in someone who is an almalgum of different real people with a bunch of older myth thrown in.

I'd like to see you do the same thing against the Bible.

Well, paste some quotes from the bible for us to shred then :cool:

I'm sorry, but I have studied the middle eastern peoples in the first century - and sorry to say, but there were not primitive, illiterate poeple. For one, they were taken over by the Roman Empire. They themselves have been hailed the most advanced of any ancient civillisation. Now, as usual with cultural imperialism, they would have taken inventions and used them for their own use. Now I cannot think you can call them 'primitive'.
Educated Romans, and educated Jews, were literate, but until modern times, the overwhelming majority of people in all civilisations were illiterate.

Find yourself a time machine and spend a day in an ordinary Roman or Jewish village, and then try telling me that they weren't primitive! The Roman Empire was the most advanced western civilisation of its day (but possibly not as advanced as China at the time), but it was still primitive by our standards. These are the people who invented numerous gods, made their lviing emperors into gods, put a horse into the Senate (allegedly), and engaged in genocide and barbaric practices such as crucifixion. Their level of scientific knowledge was a tiny fraction of what any schoolchild knows today.

Also, because reciting the Torah was a great tradition, many commoners could do just this - read. Also, I'm sorry to say belief of characters in modern times is because of ignorance. How is ignorance connected to the beife of Christ?
By comparison to any moderately well-educated person today, they were ignorant of history, geography and science, and were highly superstitious : ideal fodder for myth-makers. Some were highly intelligent, but didn't understand how to apply rational analysis to evidence.

I am willing to believe that a man named Jesus did exist and likely even tried to promote good will, but I would not go as far to call him the son of god or the savior of mankind.

I have been fascinated with the parallel elements of numerous faiths. For instance the "great flood" or "deluge" is common in many belief systems. The theme includes the angering of god/s and a select few who survive in a vessel (including a chest in Greek mythology) to repopulate the world. This would lead me to believe there was indeed a historical flooding of such devastation that it managed to make its way into a great number of cultural "myths", each one tailored to suit the beliefs of that culture. Bits and pieces of factual events, for obvious reasons, are woven into every cultural mythology.

Ever since mankind became capable of philisophical thought, the biggest questions seem to be how did we get here and what happens to us when we die. These questions have always been and most likely always will be subject to much debate. It is in our nature to seek answers to the unkown. The most simple idea is that we were put here by higher powers.

For many people it might be easier to accept a man with above-average morals as being sent by a higher being to save us from one of our worst fears. Death. It is just as easy to feed the masses by embelishing upon the truth and this is known by any great storyteller.

It's interesting to see the number of people who are not willing to even contemplate the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Some are doing the textual equivalent of jumping up and down with their fingers in the ears whilst others seem to be trying to steer the discussion towards a debate about whether he was divine or not instead (a ridiculous thing to argue about)


I went to a state (i.e. secular) primary school and even there we were told Jesus stories twice a day as if they were historical fact - when I think about what sort of upbringing/education others might have had I can understand why the reaction is so hostile.


Christians are used to people telling them that their saviour was just an ordinary man, a religious leader or even a fraud, but when they are presented with the idea that the man himself didn't even exist it just seems to induce some kind of brain overload. They can always combat the first set of assertions with blind faith alone, the latter is far more disturbing for them as it can't be swept away in the same illogical manner.

I am willing to believe that a man named Jesus did exist and likely even tried to promote good will
I'm willing to believe it too, if and when the evidence clearly points that way. At the moment it neither confirms nor denies Jesus's existence (and possibly never will).

I have been fascinated with the parallel elements of numerous faiths. For instance the "great flood" or "deluge" is common in many belief systems. The theme includes the angering of god/s and a select few who survive in a vessel (including a chest in Greek mythology) to repopulate the world. This would lead me to believe there was indeed a historical flooding of such devastation that it managed to make its way into a great number of cultural "myths", each one tailored to suit the beliefs of that culture. Bits and pieces of factual events, for obvious reasons, are woven into every cultural mythology.
I think it's more likely that most civilisations have suffered from their own catastrophic floods at some point, rather than that there was one huge, worldwide flood. A worldwide flood as described in the Bible is scientifically impossible.

The parallels between different beliefs are indeed interesting. If one looks at the beliefs already in circulation at the time the gospels were written, you'll find that there's precious little in the gospels which is original - virgin births, resurrections etc were all present from other sources in the religious culture of the time.
It is in our nature to seek answers to the unkown. The most simple idea is that we were put here by higher powers.
Many simple ideas are wrong : the World is a far more complex place than the ancients could have imagined, and than even many modern people realise.

When people can't genuinely find answers, they invent them. Humanity will have grown up when it becomes comfortable with the idea that not knowing the answer is OK.

There is more proven historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Juliur Ceaser...everyoine accepts that Julius Ceaser was a real man, and is accepted by historians. There was a company in Europe bout 5 yrs ago who tried to make a documentary to disprove Jesus' existence. They could not find one single person of authority in any of the relevenat scientific disciplines who would deny Jesus' existence...so they paid a mathematician to deny his existence.

Google Edwin Yamauchi. He found the evidence.
I googled him, and all I can see is that he cites the same non-Christian evidence as everybody else - Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny etc. Not one of them is contemporary with Jesus.

Do you have a site where he cites contemporary primary evidence : dating from, say, 28-35 AD?

Why do I even bother asking the question? There is none! If someone found some, it would be all over the news. Get over it.

There is more proven historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Juliur Ceaser...everyoine accepts that Julius Ceaser was a real man, and is accepted by historians.
Who started this fictitious mantra? It is absolute poppycock. We have documents, including Caesar's own words from the lifetime of Caesar; we have statues, coins and other artifacts from his own lifetime. Nothing like this exists from the lifetime of Jesus.

There was a company in Europe bout 5 yrs ago who tried to make a documentary to disprove Jesus' existence. They could not find one single person of authority in any of the relevenat scientific disciplines who would deny Jesus' existence...so they paid a mathematician to deny his existence.
I'm glad they couldn't find a scientist to deny it. It's pretty well impossible to disprove, but that is not the point. Unless we have positive proof that he DID exist, his existence remains an open question.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/galilee.htm



Okay - I went to that site, and it shows a picture of the area, including where they believe Nazareth is - but it is a modern map, is it not?

If one follows the link toNazareth - one sees that even THIS source admits that there is no Old Testament record of a Nazareth in that are of the land, "Nazareth is in the area that was allotted to the Israelite tribe of Zebulun during the Old Testament period (see Tribal Lands), although it is not mentioned by name at all in that part of the Bible"... and one also sees that reference to the cliff again "fact, it eventually got so bad (He was at least twice run out of town, and once nearly thrown over the town's cliff by a mob) that He actually had to move away to Capernaum".

What I want you to provide, is some evidence that shows Nazareth WAS where you say Nazareth IS. That means CONTEMPORARY maps, or some geographical evidence that PROVES the location of Nazareth.


Care to tell me where I said Luke Chapter 4 please? I said Luke Chapter 2 VERSE 4!


My mistake. I read it as Luke 2 and 4. However, since you mentioned Lukes' Gospel, it served to remind me of that geographical inconsistency. Luke clearly describes a terrain feature of the area (a cliff) which is NOT present in modern day 'Nazareth'.


Which is actually BS.

Really?

You are very confident. Where is you earlier account that actually describes where Nazareth is? Our earliest documented source to actively GIVE a geographic location, IS Eusebius... whether you like it or not.

If you are going to call 'bullshit', you need to prove it IS bullshit.

Actually, the Gospels and Book of Acts are a collection of eye-witness accounts...

Anyway, there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone you have not seen ever existed, or does exist. We must depend on history written by people other than ourselves to know about the past, and evidence provided by people other than ourselves to know about the present.

Furthermore, so far, the "experts" who said things such as "the Hittites are a mythical people" have been proven wrong, time after time. History and archeology keep proving more of the historicity of the Bible, the longer they keep digging, the more proof they find!

Here is an interesting article that I just read, titled "The irony of the intelligent believer", written by Vox Day, self-described "Christian Libertarian."
He takes on the question of how intelligent people could possibly believe in what others consider mythology. I don't always agree with this guy, but this article covers everything from utilitarian consequences of belief to the Catholic Spanish Inquisition ("nobody expects---the Spanish Inquisition!!!")

Have a look...;)

article in worldnetdaily.com (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47503)

We are TOLD that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. That doesn't make it so.

The book of Acts cannot be eye-witness testimony... sonce Paul never 'saw' the living Jesus.

You are right, though: "there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone you have not seen ever existed, or does exist"... but that isn't a big deal when you are tryng to work out if ANY people ever existed... only when you want to ascertain the EXPLICIT existence of any ONE person.

And - the more 'mystery' you add to that one person, the more evidence is needed to verify the existence of THAT person.

Regarding the 'historicity' of the Bible... there are often evidences found for MUNDANE things.... like Egypt existing, for example.

However, what there is less (in fact NO) evidence for, is any of the hocus-pocus aspect of the book. The simple existence of Egypt, verifies in NO way, any of the book of Exodus, in terms of supernatural activity.

After all... many books of moder fiction MAY feature some REAL locations... that adds no necessary evidence of the veracity of the tale.

The point I've been trying to make, is that 'Jesus' need never have existed, for the ROOT of the Christian story to be true... in a 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' fashion.

Early Buddhists were in that area 600 years before the alleged life of Jesus - with a 'messiah' TYPE story, with many surprising similarities. Mithraism similarly predates the story, with many of the same 'features'.

So, would the story still be believed if Jesus never existed? Sure it would... it was basically believed BEFORE he is alleged to have existed.

Has anyone actually SAID that Jesus didn't exist? I think the general consensus has been that, in the absence of verifiable evidence that he DID, it is not logical to ASSUME that he did.

It's the old 'lack of faith' versus 'faith of lack' situation.

Well, the Ba'al Shem Tov, while not exactly a divinity, is treated in almost a divine-like fashion by Hasidic Jews, and we do know he existed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27al_Shem_Tov). Granted, it's not proof that Jesus existed himself, but it can provide leverage to the theory that divine-like figures originated out of real people. Jesus may have been the same way, either in the first century AD maybe even much, much earlier. Learning about the Ba'al Shem Tov has made me think "what if Yahweh had the same origins?" There's no proof now (or at least "smoking gun" proof: a group of tribal peoples the Egyptians called "Shasu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu)" who were described as "Yhw-") but it could come later, hence why it's just a theory.

Regardless, though, it does appear like we're just arguing over wording, since we've both essentially conceded this is all about interpretation.

His real name was Jesus 'Chuck'

Turino's sheet is the evidence, which shows that Jesus really existed. Science has proved that.

Turino's sheet is the evidence, which shows that Jesus really existed. Science has proved that.

sure, but big jump between that and Water-to-Wine

Turino's sheet is the evidence, which shows that Jesus really existed. Science has proved that.

The Shroud of Turin has yet to prove ANYTHING, conclusively.

Where do you believe you have found evidence to the contrary?

Well, the Ba'al Shem Tov, while not exactly a divinity, is treated in almost a divine-like fashion by Hasidic Jews, and we do know he existed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27al_Shem_Tov). Granted, it's not proof that Jesus existed himself, but it can provide leverage to the theory that divine-like figures originated out of real people. Jesus may have been the same way, either in the first century AD maybe even much, much earlier. Learning about the Ba'al Shem Tov has made me think "what if Yahweh had the same origins?" There's no proof now (or at least "smoking gun" proof: a group of tribal peoples the Egyptians called "Shasu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu)" who were described as "Yhw-") but it could come later, hence why it's just a theory.

Regardless, though, it does appear like we're just arguing over wording, since we've both essentially conceded this is all about interpretation.

I don't disagree that ordinary figures can gain heroic stature in the retelling. What I have been pointing out, is that there is no reason to believe that the Jesus (as Christ) story doesn't NEED any 'Jesus' figure to have been literally real. And, there is no real evidence to prove that any Jesus figure WAS real.

Most likely, most logically, what we see in the Jesus myth, is actually the stories of Mithraism, or the pre-Christian Buddhists, with the main character renamed as a Jew.... in exactly the same way that Genesis has a flood based on Mesopotamian stories, with the main characters renamed.


On the subject of the Egyptians - the nearest Egyptian history has to the Biblical Exodus, is the story of the Hyksos... and it puts a VERY different complexion on the story... making the Egyptians the VICTIMS, rather than the oppressors. And, making Exodus less about "let my people go", and more about the Egyptians finally overthrowing tyrants and driving them out. A theory worth considering, perhaps?

You say, 'Written long after the fact...mainly by members of one extremist group'. Now, you tell me, why would there be an 'extremely religious group' in the first place? BECAUSE OF THE PERSON THEY FOLLOW! Who would put faith in someone who didn't even exist? If you don't believe his divinity, that's between you and God, but NO ONE can claim Jesus did not even exist.

Do you not see that your logic means that ALL religions MUST be true?

If we accept that people would NOT follow something 'made-up', then you are admitting that the world WAS defecated into existence by an early incarnation of Raiden, and that the world was ALSO created when a female Egyptian deity masturbated another one to orgasm....

After all, as you say, people wouldn't put their faith in something that didn't exist.

Why are you so SURE Jesus did exist? You say NO ONE can claim otherwise, but do you have any evidence that actually MAKES it unquestionable? Of course you don't.... there is none.

I'm sorry, but I have studied the middle eastern peoples in the first century - and sorry to say, but there were not primitive, illiterate poeple. For one, they were taken over by the Roman Empire. They themselves have been hailed the most advanced of any ancient civillisation. Now, as usual with cultural imperialism, they would have taken inventions and used them for their own use. Now I cannot think you can call them 'primitive'. Also, because reciting the Torah was a great tradition, many commoners could do just this - read. Also, I'm sorry to say belief of characters in modern times is because of ignorance. How is ignorance connected to the beife of Christ?

Actually, the Babylonians were more 'advanced' in terms of pure sciences, and the Greeks were more politically advanced.

As you point out, repetition of Torah was a tradition. You must see, however, that this does not necessarily connect with ANY proof that the commonalty could READ.

One has only to look at Medieval Christianity... where most of the Bible texts were learned by rote, in Latin.... by a populace that could not read... and, mostly, could not even understand Latin!

I agree with The Pink City here. Why would a cult start/grow if the person never existed in the first place? Go ahead and tell me of a group who belived in a person one generation after they had passed away who never existed.

Do you believe in the Incarnations of the Buddha? People HAVE believed in incarnations of the Buddha... DURING the lifetimes of those individuals.

Do you accept the Buddha as real?

After all, as you say, people wouldn't put their faith in something that didn't exist.
*Hums quietly in the corner*

*Hums quietly in the corner*

Humming AT the post... or in anticipation of the responses?

Humming AT the post... or in anticipation of the responses?
Actually, a little of both. It'd be interesting to see anyone who would generally argue with you try to disagree with that one.

But people will put their faith into something that doesn't exist if it's an integral part of an explanation for something that does exist and that they require an explanation for.

At what level are you studying History? Have you yet been taught to distinguish between primary and secondary evidence, and to scrutinize original evidence properly?

Yes I have. Been taught the same in my Political Science classes too.

By the time Islam appeared on the scene, Christianity was well-established, and its doctrines and assumptions had been widely circulated, in Arabia as well as elsewhere.

This here can be constested since the roots of Islam have been around since Abraham.

Why wouldn't a bunch of largely illiterate Arabs without any training in historical analysis believe that the man in the gospels might be real? Muhammad and those around him didn't have access to first-century evidence unavailable to anyone else, so of course they would be as likely to believe at least some of the Christian myth as anyone else.

Prove to me that Jesus didn't exist.

Okay - I went to that site, and it shows a picture of the area, including where they believe Nazareth is - but it is a modern map, is it not?

No it isn't.

What I want you to provide, is some evidence that shows Nazareth WAS where you say Nazareth IS. That means CONTEMPORARY maps, or some geographical evidence that PROVES the location of Nazareth.

And I would love to see proof that it didn't exist!

My mistake. I read it as Luke 2 and 4. However, since you mentioned Lukes' Gospel, it served to remind me of that geographical inconsistency. Luke clearly describes a terrain feature of the area (a cliff) which is NOT present in modern day 'Nazareth'.

Well if he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and the fact that the bible says they left Nazareth to go to Bethlehem then I am of the firm belief that Nazareth did exist and so far, there is no proof to the contrary.

Really?

Really.

You are very confident. Where is you earlier account that actually describes where Nazareth is? Our earliest documented source to actively GIVE a geographic location, IS Eusebius... whether you like it or not.

*yawns* I'll go with what is in the Bible on this one. I also provided a biblical map but alas, you don't trust it.

If you are going to call 'bullshit', you need to prove it IS bullshit.

I did. However, you have yourself convinced I'm wrong.

since none of y'all seem to have read candelar's link http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm ill tell you what most impressed me about it.

if you look at the new testament chronologially (by when the various books were written) you see that in the beginning there was NO talk of the life of jesus as a human being. the epistles of paul contain NO reference to the life of jesus, the sayings of jesus, the parables of jesus, not even the name of jesus's mother. paul never uses any example of jesus's life even when such example would make his point

when paul visited jerusalem, he didnt go to any of the famous sites of the life of jesus that any of US would go to. he didnt go to the room where the last supper was held, he didnt go to the garden of gesthemane, he didnt go to cavalry where the blood of jesus had so recently soaked into the ground.

if you look at the gospels and analyze them by the modern scientific method which reveals what parts were written first. you find that the first parts written were about the spiritual jesus. the last parts were about the life of jesus. if you look at early christian writers, the gospels are utterly unmentioned until about the middle of the second century....AD150ish. until then all that the writers talked about was the spiritual son of god not the human son of god. as if jesus had never walked on the earth in human form at all

it turns out that messiah cults, "christians", were very common in the first century AD. many people felt that jewish monotheism was a more sophisticated belief than the old polytheistic approach of the greeks and romans. they wedded jehova with "wisdom" or "logos". God became the father and logos the "son".(in the beginning was the word, etc.) they existed purely on the spiritual plane, not the human plane. these "christian" commnunities existed all over the area. (remember that christus means messiah)

it was not until much later that the claim of an actual human messiah being this son of god came into the picture. the "god" part of the jesus story came before the "man" part of the story. and if you look at the man part of the story, its pretty lame in that the biggest details are stolen from other religions ... virgin birth, born in a cave, dead 3 days, blah blah blah.

i had always assumed that jesus existed and his later followers got carried away and claimed later that he was god. turns out that the god belief came first then someone got carried away and claimed that he was actually a man.

Well if he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and the fact that the bible says they left Nazareth to go to Bethlehem then I am of the firm belief that Nazareth did exist and so far, there is no proof to the contrary.
.
the point is, they know that nazareth DIDNT exist at the time jesus was born. acheologically speaking.

it was founded somewhat after jesus would have been dead. so when they call him jesus of nazareth it has to be made up by someone who didnt know that nazareth didnt exist then.

the point is, they know that nazareth DIDNT exist at the time jesus was born. acheologically speaking.

Prove it!

it was founded somewhat after jesus would have been dead. so when they call him jesus of nazareth it has to be made up by someone who didnt know that nazareth didnt exist then.

Again, prove it.

Actually, a little of both. It'd be interesting to see anyone who would generally argue with you try to disagree with that one.

But people will put their faith into something that doesn't exist if it's an integral part of an explanation for something that does exist and that they require an explanation for.

Indeed. My own (personal) perspective, is that we put faith in all kinds of things every day... with very little thought to how 'real' those things may be. For example - when I drive, there are thousands of components of my vehicle, that I 'put faith' in, without even knowing what they do... but I optimistically believe that all the parts NEEDED to make it run, will just continue to chug along.

And then, when I refuel, I 'put my faith' in the general goodness of humanity, in order to believe that I'm not just going to get gunned-down at the gas-pump. And yet, people get killed every day... is my faith in something 'real'?

I am using the 'people don't believe in things that don't exist' platform, as a way of granting leeway to the other poster. The other poster has claimed it as a fact, so I am extending that platform as a 'given' for the purpose of discussion (with that poster)... in order to see how logical their assertion is... or if they are going to argue special exception.

This here can be constested since the roots of Islam have been around since Abraham.


No - according to MUSLIMS, the roots of Islam have been around since the creation of the world... just not by it's 'true name'.

Also - Muslims claim that their religion diverges from 'Judaism' at the Ishmael/Isaac juncture (not Abraham).

However, the recognised faith of Islam didn't exist until about 600 AD... even though it claims an unofficial existence long before that point.


Prove to me that Jesus didn't exist.

On the contrary, if you wish to make the assertion that one specific person existed, as written in one specifi text, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence.

In the absence of ANY independent, contemporary evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that ANY one specific person might have existed.

No it isn't.


Yes - it is. The site you directed me to contains no 'bibliography', if you will... so there is no way to verify the AGE of the material. The map LOOKS new, and cites no original source, so it is fairly safe to assume it is a CURRENT map of a historical area.


And I would love to see proof that it didn't exist!


The Old Testament fails to mention it when describing the area, and the GEOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE contradicts.

Thus, what WE call Nazareth now, cannot be the 'Nazareth' alleged in the book.


Well if he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and the fact that the bible says they left Nazareth to go to Bethlehem then I am of the firm belief that Nazareth did exist and so far, there is no proof to the contrary.


Remember, the bible texts were written MANY decades after the alleged death of Jesus. There are several reasons to believe that 'Nazareth' might be a mistake/confusion on the part of the Gospel writers.

(For example, alternate meanings of the word 'Nazarene'. Someone not familiar with the term Nazarene, MIGHT assume that it means 'person from Nazareth'. Another example might be that a Gospel writer did not know the name of the town that Jesus was alleged to have first grown in, and put in the name of a (newly formed) settlement NEAR where Jesus was THOUGHT to have come from).

Regarding the 'no proof to the contrary'... you have ONE source (the scripture) that claims it as 'real'... and yet, Eusebius was the first person to PINPOINT the location. (Don't believe me? Try Googling 'Eusebius' and 'Nazareth'...)


*yawns* I'll go with what is in the Bible on this one. I also provided a biblical map but alas, you don't trust it.


Feel free to 'go with the Bible'. Just have the honesty to admit that you are allowing BIAS in your evidence... since - if you didn't accept the Bible as BEYOND reproach, you would have to admit that non-corroborated evidence is extremely unreliable.


I did. However, you have yourself convinced I'm wrong.

No, my friend... you have just failed to provide any contemporary evidence. I don't know why I'm surprised to be honest... the whole 'Jesus is real' argument RELIES on accepting non-independent, non-contemporary evidence.

<snip>the whole 'Jesus is real' argument RELIES on accepting non-independent, non-contemporary evidence.

THEN WHAT THE HELL IS INDEPENDANT AND CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE?

All you are saying is that all the evidence that Jesus did exist is not valid. Why? because it says he exists! That is not an objective way of looking at it.

Sure. Why not? Well, that Archetype certainly existed, anyway.

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects. Many scholars are debating whether Jesus actually lived. I don't think he did personally.

Honestly, does it matter? Jesus is the most influential person in history regardless of whether or not he ever actually existed.

THEN WHAT THE HELL IS INDEPENDANT AND CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE?

All you are saying is that all the evidence that Jesus did exist is not valid. Why? because it says he exists! That is not an objective way of looking at it.
independant contemporary evidence would be a roman notation that they had crucified a jewish street preacher named jesus on in a year that matches up well with the supposed date of jesus' death

or a notation by a jewish scholar that he had gone to hear the sermon on the mount

or a letter to someone talking about some guy who rose from the dead or brought another guy back from the dead. especially if his name was jesus and it was roughly the time when jesus was supposed to have been active.

there is NO contemporary evidence. everything that talks about jesus as a living man comes from well after he was dead.

this doesnt mean that he didnt exist. he was pretty irrelevant compared to kings and armies and all. it just means that there is no independant evidence on it.

Indeed. My own (personal) perspective, is that we put faith in all kinds of things every day... with very little thought to how 'real' those things may be. For example - when I drive, there are thousands of components of my vehicle, that I 'put faith' in, without even knowing what they do... but I optimistically believe that all the parts NEEDED to make it run, will just continue to chug along.
This isn't faith in the religious sense - it's a prediction based on a lifetime of empirical evidence; evidence which is testable, repeatable and has been observed by everyone else around you : cars work (usually).

Religious faith involves believing in things which haven't been seen, aren't testable, and which billions of people in the world don't accept as being true.

Who started this fictitious mantra? It is absolute poppycock. We have documents, including Caesar's own words from the lifetime of Caesar; we have statues, coins and other artifacts from his own lifetime. Nothing like this exists from the lifetime of Jesus.


I'm glad they couldn't find a scientist to deny it. It's pretty well impossible to disprove, but that is not the point. Unless we have positive proof that he DID exist, his existence remains an open question.


'Including Caesar's own words' : is that not biased? Yet you cannot accept Christians talking of Jesus (apaprently because that is biased).
What about Alexander the Great and many other figures in history? Do we all believe they exist? Of course. What makes Jesus any different? Not all figures of history have 'primary' sources concerning their existence, yet we still believe them to exist.
Why don't you believe the Bible's records of Jesus, in particular, The Four Gospels? They were primary sources written by different people working separately from each other; that's what you have all asked for: primary evidence. Oh I forgot, despite the fact the Gospels were written by separate persons (and Luke's is even a collection of EYE-WITNESS STATEMENTS that were not necessarily from believers of Christ's divinity), its 'The Bible', a book you all consider to be unreliable, for some unknown reason, especially when there is nothing in it that has been disproven.

Lastly, even if the Roman records of Jesus are 'secondary', where'd they get the idea of Jesus from in the first place?

This isn't faith in the religious sense - it's a prediction based on a lifetime of empirical evidence; evidence which is testable, repeatable and has been observed by everyone else around you : cars work (usually).

Religious faith involves believing in things which haven't been seen, aren't testable, and which billions of people in the world don't accept as being true.
Religious faith is built on the same principles. In involves analysis of some perception within an individual and making a prediction based on that "evidence". The thing is that there are many theories on something that it implicitly subjective, hence one has the licence to pick whichever explanation best suits the scenario.

To a religious person, their faith is believing in an explanation for something he or she has personally experienced and merely accepting any screwy side-tacks that the explanation gives as an integral part of that. Heaven? Prophecy? Universal origin? Divine wrath? It's all completely irrelevant unless what lies behind them helps to explain to a person the sense of otherworldliness and spiritual perception they experience. And if it provides an explanation that one can accept, then all of the details, no matter how screwy, are taken as supporting the answer to the more important question.

Religious faith and empirical trust are at heart the same thing. The only difference is that faith ignores discrepencies in fine detail because they don't affect the internal explanation for the world. To a Christian, the existence of Jesus isn't the heart of the matter. Prove he didn't and they'll still believe. Similarly, prove Paul made the whole thing up and people will still listen to his advice. But, disprove the very notion of God itself, or provide a better underlying reason for everything that includes an explanation for their own feelings on the matter, and they may start to reconsider.

there are census records of mary joseph and jesus remember they were on their way to jeusalem for the census. its there in official roman history.

however he was no spritual leader. he came from the line of david and was seen as a possible king ( in the traditional sense) of the jews. the man barabus the supposed muderer released by pilot wa in fact called jesus barabus and from a line of spiritual leaders whom the people thought to be a religous profet of some sort. the things jesus done like walking amonst the poor are akin to the canvassing our politiains do now.
this information comes from "the temple and lodge" which is a history of the masonic order or the "knights of the east" as they are known

Oh I forgot, despite the fact the Gospels were written by separate persons (and Luke's is even a collection of EYE-WITNESS STATEMENTS that were not necessarily from believers of Christ's divinity), its 'The Bible', a book you all consider to be unreliable, for some unknown reason, especially when there is nothing in it that has been disproven.

Lastly, even if the Roman records of Jesus are 'secondary', where'd they get the idea of Jesus from in the first place?


Problem is, the bible isnt a collection of "eye-witness" accounts.
Thing is, the oldest versions are in 3rd century Greek.
These were probably translated from original texts in Hebrew that may have been writen in 200 or so A.D.
Some scholars think that these texts may been written about 100 years after Jesus supposed ressurrection.

That means that no one who was there, was alive when they were written.
This means, that any statement, intended to be portrayed as an eye-witness account, was likely third, or even fourth hand recollections, and almost assuredly innaccurate in some way.

So, wether its true or not, you cannot take the bible as literal historical evidence.
Becuase its actual time of writing is unknown,but known enough to cast doubt on its accuracy.

Furthermore, if I wrote a book called "Backwoodssquatches' is the true Messiah", and distibuted it, in 200 years, if you picked it up, and read it, it would certainly not be irrefutable proof that I am indeed, the messiah.

See, you cant take the word of the very item in question, as literal truth, becuase it tells you it is.

Just to add in the viewpoint of a history major and soon to be educator of our nation's youth, Jesus existed. It is something that holds universal acceptance amoungst historians, both in the States and overseas. Even the most die-hard Atheists in my department believe that a man named Jesus existed in and around the time that the popular Christian figure is said to have existed. It is really not an easily contestable fact. Even with a lack of evidence, a figure such as Jesus had to have had a real live person for the mythos to be based around. Even without evidence, there has to have been a person named Jesus preaching in and around that time, nevermind if He was divine or not. Figures like that do not merely pop up out of someone's head. The miracles they perform do, but not the men themselves.

I really cannot present evidence. I focus on European history and my study of the Christ only extends to the Bible and a few short theological briefs. I can tell you that no respectable professor of history will tell you that Jesus did not exist. It is not from fear of reprisal. It is because the likelihood of Jesus not existing is laughable. If you wish to continue to debate it, go ahead. The historians of the world are through with that particular debate, at least on a professional level.