NationStates Jolt Archive

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
Tactius arrived after the fact and states that the followers believed that this man was executed by Pilate.

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.
Really? From what I've read, a growing number of historians are questioning whether he existed or not.

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.
There were many messiahs in the area at that time and contemporary historians wrote about them, they did not write about Jesus, it seems kinda odd that they managed to skip over a messiah who ended up becoming important.

'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.
Really?

From the wikipedia article posted near the beginning:

Luke says that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the entire Empire, which required Joseph to register in his ancestral town. Matthew says that Herod ordered the massacre of innocent children, so that they fled to Egypt and later returned to Nazareth. Despite the fact that Josephus delighted in recounting the vices of Herod, this latter story doesn't appear at all in his histories, although the story of Jesus coming out of Egypt does fit Matthew's presentation of him as the New Moses. Despite the fact that the very event was an exercise in record-keeping, we have no records of Luke's universal census, and the very idea of everyone returning to his ancestral home would be a bureaucratic nightmare. The first census of Palestine did indeed take place under Quirinius, when he became legate of Syria c. 6 CE, which angered many Jewish people; but King Herod had already died by that time, contradicting the account in Matthew.
Herod was dead by the time the census was supposed to have happened. Unlike what was reported in the gospel.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html

Some valuable thinking points in both of these

:mp5: Really?

From the wikipedia article posted near the beginning:

Herod was dead by the time the census was supposed to have happened. Unlike what was reported in the gospel.

There was more than one Herod. Herod the great, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I and Herod Agrippa II

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

the romans never had such a census. what official roman history are you talking about?

the romans never had such a census. what official roman history are you talking about?

Care to prove this assertion since they were the ones that actually started the census thing for taxing purposes.

Care to prove this assertion since they were the ones that actually started the census thing for taxing purposes.
since its really hard to prove something DIDNT exist how bout we just go with "for god's sake if there were such a census, and if everyone were required to go back to their ancestral homes, and if joseph mary and their new born child were ON this suppposed census, EVERY biblical and first century historian would refer to it as it would be just about the coolest proof of jesus's existance ever"?

that it is NOT referred to means to me that i dont have to bother searching the archives to find it. i dont read latin anyway and i cant afford the trip to .....welll ....wherever such a census would be hidden.

Care to prove this assertion since they were the ones that actually started the census thing for taxing purposes.
How do you prove a non-existance?

Ususaly the method is failing to prove the existance of something

since its really hard to prove something DIDNT exist how bout we just go with "for god's sake if there were such a census, and if everyone were required to go back to their ancestral homes, and if joseph mary and their new born child were ON this suppposed census, EVERY biblical and first century historian would refer to it as it would be just about the coolest proof of jesus's existance ever"?
And since the purpose of such censuses was for tax-assessment, the Romans would be interested in where people lived and did business, not in having them go back to their ancestral homes just to be counted. The very idea of a Roman census in which people have to go to places they no longer live in is simply ludicrous.

Yes. When Jesus rose from the dead, he ascended into Heaven, but he got bored and came back down as Chuck Norris. Recognize the beard?

Really? From what I've read, a growing number of historians are questioning whether he existed or not.
I think that's so. Out knowledge and understanding of 1st century history is getting better all the time, and presenting new challenges to long-held assumptions such as the existence of Jesus.

Added to that, the very idea of denying Jesus's existence would have been taboo in much of western society until quite recently, and would have had one burned at the stake for heresy up until a couple of hundred years ago. The church had many centuries of power in which to inculcate belief in Jesus Christ into the psyche of a largely illiterate population. It's only relatively recently that it's been losing its grip over peoples, but it can take quite a while to loosen such ingrained and emotionally charged "certainties".

Really? From what I've read, a growing number of historians are questioning whether he existed or not.

There were many messiahs in the area at that time and contemporary historians wrote about them, they did not write about Jesus, it seems kinda odd that they managed to skip over a messiah who ended up becoming important.

From the professors I have studied under here in the States to those when I have studied abroad, I have never once heard one question his existance. It is possible that some have written work questioning his existance, but in the broad community of historians the idea is not given much credence. The mainstream accepts the idea that Jesus existed as historical fact. Those who argue the contrary are either trying to keep the historical community from becoming lax by stirring up debate and discussion, or they are complete and total crackpots with now respect in the historical community. When I see someone prominent in our field step up and question the existance of Jesus, then you might see me step up my own personal research.

As far as Jesus being missed my many historians, that is easily explained. He did not start a violent revolt. If Jesus had been a good military leader and started up an armed revolt against Roman rule, then he would have grabbed a historian's attention. A crazy man who pissed of the Sanhedrin and got crucified is really not that important. His message and His movement slowly gained speed and notice, but it is easy to see how He would not. Historians of the time focused their attention on the politics of Rome and on wars of the Roman people. There was little else that interested them. You got reports on the status of the empire and the economic prosperity or depression of certain regions, but small time prophets of an out of the way and slightly troublesome culture don't make the papyrus. You have to admit, even today, that we don't really care what happens in other parts of the world until things get bloody. It is a point of human nature. One man dying back then was really small time. Even if numerous people came out to see a particular cruxifiction, that is no different from a town having a big turn out for a hanging. A big turnout was just people coming to see a man die, not neccesarily because the reason for his death was that important. As such, it doesn't really need to be told about all over the empire. It was just a local matter.

I really cannot present evidence. .....my study of the Christ only extends to the Bible and a few short theological briefs

hmmmm, very telling

And yet you are confident enough to dismiss the rest of us.

'Including Caesar's own words' : is that not biased? Yet you cannot accept Christians talking of Jesus (apaprently because that is biased).
Christians talking about Jesus, and relaying his words, is at best second-hand evidence, and if they weren't witnesses to the events, it's hearsay. By Caesar's own words, I mean words written by Caesar himself in books such as De Bello Gallico. What he said may have been biased, but the fact that he said it, and wrote it down for posterity, is proof of his existence (just as St.Paul's own written words are proof of his existence).

Not even Christians claim that Jesus himself actually wrote anything down.

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.
Historical figures who are believed beyond doubt to have existed, including Alexander the Great, have primary evidence to support that belief. That's why the belief exists! Where the primary evidence is lacking, and all we have is later sources, we talk about "legendary", "mythical" or "shaddowy" figures, who may or may not have existed in something like the way they are described. That is the category into which Jesus falls.

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.
They are primary evidence that some people in the late 1st century wrote these stories down. They are not primary evidence that what they wrote down is true, because we do not have reliable evidence of who they were or what their sources were.

The gospels were not written entirely separately from each other. The four evangelists lived in the same society and had similar access to the same stories and myths. It is universally acknowledged, by Christian scholars, that the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) shared at least one common source : either Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, or all three borrowed from the same other texts.

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.
Where does Luke cite any eye-witness accounts?

We regard the Bible as unreliable because, when judged by exactly the same standards applied to any other document of the time, it is unreliable! Why would people be biased about this? It makes no difference to the Atheist case whether or not there was a man claiming to be the Messiah in the early first century, since the core of the Atheist argument is that the claims themselves are wrong or unproven.

If we needed to biasedly disprove the existence of religious figures in order to make our case, then we'd also be questioning the existence of people such as St.Paul.

Lastly, even if the Roman records of Jesus are 'secondary', where'd they get the idea of Jesus from in the first place?
From the Christians!

As far as Jesus being missed my many historians, that is easily explained. He did not start a violent revolt. If Jesus had been a good military leader and started up an armed revolt against Roman rule, then he would have grabbed a historian's attention. A crazy man who pissed of the Sanhedrin and got crucified is really not that important. His message and His movement slowly gained speed and notice, but it is easy to see how He would not. Historians of the time focused their attention on the politics of Rome and on wars of the Roman people. There was little else that interested them. You got reports on the status of the empire and the economic prosperity or depression of certain regions, but small time prophets of an out of the way and slightly troublesome culture don't make the papyrus. You have to admit, even today, that we don't really care what happens in other parts of the world until things get bloody. It is a point of human nature. One man dying back then was really small time. Even if numerous people came out to see a particular cruxifiction, that is no different from a town having a big turn out for a hanging. A big turnout was just people coming to see a man die, not neccesarily because the reason for his death was that important. As such, it doesn't really need to be told about all over the empire. It was just a local matter.
All of this may be true and explain the absence of evidence, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence isn't there, and without evidence, we cannot know the truth. It is an absurd fallacy to assume something when there's no evidence for it, just because there are reasons why there is no evidence. By the token, we could believe all manner of outlandish fictions and justify it by saying "there are reasons for the lack of evidence". Either we have evidence or we don't. Period.

hmmmm, very telling

And yet you are confident enough to dismiss the rest of us.

I am confident enough in the good standing and broad knowledge of every professor of history I have studied under which includes a broad range of personal ideologies that don't neccesarily mesh with the Christian ideal. In fact, a number of my professors have been Atheists. They do not question the existance of Christ. They question the facts surrounding his life, but not its occurance. I also am confident enough in my own personal knowledge of the mainstream thought in the profession I will soon enter. I may be a Christian and a Sunday School teacher to boot, but my personal faith does not hold sway when I am in an academic environment. The existance of Jesus is accepted as historical fact my the vast majority of the historian's community, and though I have not studied it as extensively, I am confident in the professionalism of my fellow historians.

From the professors I have studied under here in the States to those when I have studied abroad, I have never once heard one question his existance. It is possible that some have written work questioning his existance, but in the broad community of historians the idea is not given much credence. The mainstream accepts the idea that Jesus existed as historical fact. Those who argue the contrary are either trying to keep the historical community from becoming lax by stirring up debate and discussion, or they are complete and total crackpots with now respect in the historical community. When I see someone prominent in our field step up and question the existance of Jesus, then you might see me step up my own personal research.

As far as Jesus being missed my many historians, that is easily explained. He did not start a violent revolt. If Jesus had been a good military leader and started up an armed revolt against Roman rule, then he would have grabbed a historian's attention. A crazy man who pissed of the Sanhedrin and got crucified is really not that important. His message and His movement slowly gained speed and notice, but it is easy to see how He would not. Historians of the time focused their attention on the politics of Rome and on wars of the Roman people. There was little else that interested them. You got reports on the status of the empire and the economic prosperity or depression of certain regions, but small time prophets of an out of the way and slightly troublesome culture don't make the papyrus. You have to admit, even today, that we don't really care what happens in other parts of the world until things get bloody. It is a point of human nature. One man dying back then was really small time. Even if numerous people came out to see a particular cruxifiction, that is no different from a town having a big turn out for a hanging. A big turnout was just people coming to see a man die, not neccesarily because the reason for his death was that important. As such, it doesn't really need to be told about all over the empire. It was just a local matter.
which is a good explanation of why jesus isnt in the historical record. its an explanation that has always made sense to me.

but

how much inaccuracy in the new testament stories of the life of jesus is OK with you? there was no town of nazareth, no census, no star, no magi. was there a slaughter of innocents by herod?

when does the inaccuracy of the bible story start to get to you?

and when you find out that "christian" groups existed utterly independantly of this suppposed "god born as a man" does that not mean something to you? when you find out that st paul was utterly uninterested in the human jesus as if such a man never physically existed, doesnt that make you shake your head?

when the stories of the human jesus come long after stories of a spiritual son of god, doesnt that make you wonder if it was the human part that got made up later?

i find that the whole thing makes me think.

The existance of Jesus is accepted as historical fact my the vast majority of the historian's community, and though I have not studied it as extensively, I am confident in the professionalism of my fellow historians.
The vast majority of the historical community has never looked hard at the question of Jesus's existence. It's a bit like the explanation of the absence of contemporary Roman records - the existence of Jesus matters little to the course of history. The existence of Christians mattered, especially from the fourth century onwards, but whether what they believed is true or not is of little moment.

All of this may be true and explain the absence of evidence, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence isn't there, and without evidence, we cannot know the truth. It is an absurd fallacy to assume something when there's no evidence for it, just because there are reasons why there is no evidence. By the token, we could believe all manner of outlandish fictions and justify it by saying "there are reasons for the lack of evidence". Either we have evidence or we don't. Period.

We have evidence. The Bible may not be used as objective evidence in all cases, and it is not a true historical document. It does, however, contain historical details which we can back up. We know that there was a line of Hebrew kings. In other Hebrew texts that are accepted as histories, we know that David and Solomon are listed in that line of Hebrew kings. The events of their lives are in question often times, but not their existance. If you follow that line of thinking, you have to call into question the existance of many Egyptian pharoahs. (Granted the Egyptians liked to remove pharoahs that were unpopular from the historical records, but that is kind of moot for this example.) Hammurabi also might not have existed. Sure we have his law, but who says that some Babylonian didn't just make it up and slap an name of authority on it. We have the same evidence for the existance of Christ that we have for the existance of many influential people of ancient times.

You are correct that you either have evidence or you don't, but what you consider evidence is likely a bit more forensic than what any human being will ever be able to produce for most figures of that period. There is evidence. It simply isn't pure and objective. That is something that has spoiled most modern people. Pure objective evidence simply is nearly impossible to come by for that period. You have texts and manuscripts, but none of them can be taken as wholly objective evidence.

FWIW, I have read many times that there are no Roman "census" records...but if there are and someone can find evidence of them I'd be interested to see a link.

The non-existence of census records does not mean that Jesus did not exist however. The truth is that the biblical writers and other early Christians wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, so they needed a device to put him there (even though he was actually a Nazarene). Bethlehem makes more "old testament sense" because it was the city of David, and because the OT book of Isaiah said the messiah would be born there. The census is an apocryphal story they made up to make the journey by a pregnant Mary seem more plausible and to establish Jesus messianic credibility with Jewish audiences.

If the Romans were to conduct a census, why would they care where your family was originally from anyway? How does that increase the flow of tax money? If I were the one collecting taxes, I'd personally rather know where you live now now, rather than where Joseph grew up.

Finally, if there were census records, recall that the Roman Empire was huge. There would surely be some trace, some fragment of such a record if it were written down...and keeping an oral record on so vast a scale would be unthinkable.

I do accept that Jesus was an historical figure, even though the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct. I simply doubt that a religion could spring up that quickly around an entirely fiuctional creation. The original Christians would have known Jesus or known people who knew him, and it seems less likely that people would accept him as the messiah if he were someone they'd never heard of. I agree that the writings of Josephus and Tacitus are not dispositive, though both sources mention Jesus, because they were relating stories of others, many of whom were likely Christians themselves. That said, there are many figures for whom purely direct evidence is lacking, but as to which much circumstantial evidence exists (like Khufu, Homer, Boudicca, etc.) who we know more because of their effects on others than by direct evidence from their own hands or contemporaneous accounts.

I agree with the second poster, that the real question is whether that he was the Son of God and performed miracles. There the only source is the Gospels, and they were, basically, "selling something" (namely, Christianity). His life almost directly parallels Apollonius of Tiana (birth foretold by an angel, virgin birth, healed the sick and cured plagues, cast out devils, raised the dead, died himself but rose from the dead, etc.) and Apollonius wrote letters and treatises, so we have better direct evidence of his own work (though Christians either dismiss him, or assert that he was really Paul the Apostle, even though there's little evidence for that).

which is a good explanation of why jesus isnt in the historical record. its an explanation that has always made sense to me.

but

how much inaccuracy in the new testament stories of the life of jesus is OK with you? there was no town of nazareth, no census, no star, no magi. was there a slaughter of innocents by herod?

when does the inaccuracy of the bible story start to get to you?

and when you find out that "christian" groups existed utterly independantly of this suppposed "god born as a man" does that not mean something to you? when you find out that st paul was utterly uninterested in the human jesus as if such a man never physically existed, doesnt that make you shake your head?

when the stories of the human jesus come long after stories of a spiritual son of god, doesnt that make you wonder if it was the human part that got made up later?

i find that the whole thing makes me think.

For starters, most of the records of that time are lost to history. True we have enough to get a good gleaning of the life and times of the people, but anyone who tells you we know definitively is lying to you. Nazareth may or may not have existed. You can't prove either. Star charts of the time are sketchy at best. Travelling magi were not really easy to track. As far as the slaughter of innocents, Herod was hated by the Hebrews for many reasons. The possibility that he slaughtered innocents is pretty high, but that is because the slaughter of innocents against a people was very, very common. It was not a happy time, and documentation of genocide simply did not occur that often. History was written by the victors. They are not going to write about their killing babies.

You cannot honestly prove to me or anyone else the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible. That is the point of faith. Where evidence is concerned, it becomes what is enough for you. To me, I cannot think in terms of their not being a God. There has to be a reason for the universe, even if it is not mine. The idea that it just is and there is nothing else to it seems to be born of cynicism and bitterness. I can't accept that. You can call me an ignorant fool, but at least I am an ignorant fool who has found happiness and solace that cannot be taken away. That is more than most can say for themselves.

For starters, most of the records of that time are lost to history. True we have enough to get a good gleaning of the life and times of the people, but anyone who tells you we know definitively is lying to you. Nazareth may or may not have existed. You can't prove either. Star charts of the time are sketchy at best. Travelling magi were not really easy to track. As far as the slaughter of innocents, Herod was hated by the Hebrews for many reasons. The possibility that he slaughtered innocents is pretty high, but that is because the slaughter of innocents against a people was very, very common. It was not a happy time, and documentation of genocide simply did not occur that often. History was written by the victors. They are not going to write about their killing babies.

You cannot honestly prove to me or anyone else the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible. That is the point of faith. Where evidence is concerned, it becomes what is enough for you. To me, I cannot think in terms of their not being a God. There has to be a reason for the universe, even if it is not mine. The idea that it just is and there is nothing else to it seems to be born of cynicism and bitterness. I can't accept that. You can call me an ignorant fool, but at least I am an ignorant fool who has found happiness and solace that cannot be taken away. That is more than most can say for themselves.
so it doesnt bother you. ok.

personally i find it worthy of alot of consideration. i dont find these things definitive proof of the non existance of jesus but they sure make me rethink many of my previous assumptions.

We have evidence. The Bible may not be used as objective evidence in all cases, and it is not a true historical document. It does, however, contain historical details which we can back up. We know that there was a line of Hebrew kings. In other Hebrew texts that are accepted as histories, we know that David and Solomon are listed in that line of Hebrew kings. The events of their lives are in question often times, but not their existance. If you follow that line of thinking, you have to call into question the existance of many Egyptian pharoahs. (Granted the Egyptians liked to remove pharoahs that were unpopular from the historical records, but that is kind of moot for this example.) Hammurabi also might not have existed. Sure we have his law, but who says that some Babylonian didn't just make it up and slap an name of authority on it. We have the same evidence for the existance of Christ that we have for the existance of many influential people of ancient times.

You are correct that you either have evidence or you don't, but what you consider evidence is likely a bit more forensic than what any human being will ever be able to produce for most figures of that period. There is evidence. It simply isn't pure and objective. That is something that has spoiled most modern people. Pure objective evidence simply is nearly impossible to come by for that period. You have texts and manuscripts, but none of them can be taken as wholly objective evidence.
the bible is taken as an historical source in the same way the iliad is.

the iliad is the story of the trojan war. it was taken as literal truth by the ancient greeks. modern historians believed that troy never existed. over the millennia there was no remaining proof of the existance of troy. the existance of the iliad was not considered proof of troy. it was just an old poem that the greeks believed was true. without independant proof there was no reason to believe it existed. then came the excavation of troy. THEN there was proof and now historians believe that troy existed. this doesnt mean that achilles and hector existed however.

yeah there are places in the bible that actually existed. many of the more obscure ones have been verified by archeology. many are backed up by other historical sources. but many things in the bible are NOT historically accurate and cannot be verified by historical sources.

for example JOB cannot be shown to have actually existed. he is considered to be a narrative device. without some kind of independant verification the status of job as not being historical will not change.

egypt existed. there is no doubt of its place in history. moses on the other hand is a very doubtful figure. the egyptians have no records of a pharoahs adopted son who joined a slave rebellion and led hebrew slaves to freedom. there is no record of the 7 plagues, no record of the deaths of the firstborn sons, no record of the parting of the red sea, no record (i think) of hebrew slaves.

the bible is one historical source. it is not definitive proof of any particular story contained in it. if you combine it with some kind of other evidence (such as the excavation of david's palace) it becomes part of the chain of proof.

You cannot honestly prove to me or anyone else the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible. That is the point of faith. Where evidence is concerned, it becomes what is enough for you. To me, I cannot think in terms of their not being a God. There has to be a reason for the universe, even if it is not mine. The idea that it just is and there is nothing else to it seems to be born of cynicism and bitterness.

But wouldn't God him/her/itself (assume male) not be in exactly the same position ? This universe would exist because he wanted it, but what of the "omni-universe" which spawned him ?
Or if you think he is eternal - poor guy. Imagine the several billion years of boredom before the "7 days"...

You can call me an ignorant fool, but at least I am an ignorant fool who has found happiness and solace that cannot be taken away. That is more than most can say for themselves.

But is your happiness and solace not based on beliefs that mean misery and suffering for others (e.g. gays, witches and so on ) ?

Of course Jesus existed. Even if you don't believe that he was/is the Son of God there is no denying His existance. There are historical records of Jesus. The only thing to debate is whether or not He is the Messiah... which He is by the way. Jesus is the Savior of humanity and I believe that with all my heart. JESUS ROCKS!

I am confident enough in the good standing and broad knowledge of every professor of history I have studied under which includes a broad range of personal ideologies that don't neccesarily mesh with the Christian ideal. In fact, a number of my professors have been Atheists. They do not question the existance of Christ. They question the facts surrounding his life, but not its occurance. I also am confident enough in my own personal knowledge of the mainstream thought in the profession I will soon enter. I may be a Christian and a Sunday School teacher to boot, but my personal faith does not hold sway when I am in an academic environment. The existance of Jesus is accepted as historical fact my the vast majority of the historian's community, and though I have not studied it as extensively, I am confident in the professionalism of my fellow historians.


A number of your professors have been athiests? How simply awful for you, still at least you struggled through it all, eh?

Unfortunately for you, the use of phrases like ' the Christian ideal ' does place a question mark over whether your personal faith holds sway when you are in an academic environment. You have an ulterior motive in convincing yourself that Jesus the man existed, even though you have practically admitted that there is no reliable evidence to back up this position.

There is legitimate doubt over whether Jesus existed. You can choose to not even contemplate the possibility if it offends you so obviously; that doesn't make you right.

Seeing as God is ALL-POWERFUL, I think its safe to say that He could find something so He wasn't bored :P

Of course Jesus existed. Even if you don't believe that he was/is the Son of God there is no denying His existance. There are historical records of Jesus. The only thing to debate is whether or not He is the Messiah... which He is by the way. Jesus is the Savior of humanity and I believe that with all my heart. JESUS ROCKS!
you may want to skim through the thread for the discussion of the historical record. its been fairly well discussed.

Of course Jesus existed. Even if you don't believe that he was/is the Son of God there is no denying His existance. There are historical records of Jesus.

The point of this thread is that reliable records in fact do not seem to exist. The existing historical records fall apart in the following categories:

1. Texts about the "sect" of Christians but not about the person Jesus Christ
2. Texts about Jesus Christ written several decades or even centuries after the crucifiction would have taken place - which therefor are not reliable.
3. Texts that seem to talk about Jesus Christ but contain many factual errors (wrong titles for government officials, incorrect placenames etc)
4. Texts written by people intent on spreading the Christian religion
5. Texts mentioning a "Jesus" or a "Christ", but not in combination. Since the name Jesus in that day was somewhat like "Tom, Dick and Harry" is now and "Christ" is merely a honourary title this means nothing.
6. Texts that were deliberately altered (presumably by the Church) to include Jesus Christ.

If you know of a reliable text, please share.

The story of Jesus is based on a Greek tale, but poisoned with monotheistic believes of rebel jews.
By the way; this can really be proved by evidence, so this subject is nothing to discuss about; the Jesus that Christians believe in has never existed.
Just a fact.

Jesus did exist. Saying he didn't involves contradicting followers of the two biggest religions in the world. Christianity and Islam. Islam does Mention Jesus as a Prophet of Allah. Also, most Jews do believe that Jesus lived. Could they all be wrong? Jesus's existance is not in question. All that needs to be known now is if he is the Son of God. I believe he is.

The story of Jesus is based on a Greek tale, but poisoned with monotheistic believes of rebel jews.
By the way; this can really be proved by evidence, so this subject is nothing to discuss about; the Jesus that Christians believe in has never existed.
Just a fact.

that's a new one. please, explain further about this tale.

The story of Jesus is based on a Greek tale, but poisoned with monotheistic believes of rebel jews.
By the way; this can really be proved by evidence, so this subject is nothing to discuss about; the Jesus that Christians believe in has never existed.
Just a fact.

:rolleyes:

Proof that it is based on a Greek tale please.

As to everything else, there is more proof of Jesus existing than not.

But wouldn't God him/her/itself (assume male) not be in exactly the same position ? This universe would exist because he wanted it, but what of the "omni-universe" which spawned him ?
Or if you think he is eternal - poor guy. Imagine the several billion years of boredom before the "7 days"...

But is your happiness and solace not based on beliefs that mean misery and suffering for others (e.g. gays, witches and so on ) ?


Well, if you think in human terms, then yeah poor guy. It is pretty arrogant to assume God thinks anything like us, him being of infinite intellect and wisdom after all.

Actually, that suffering is their choice. You can obey God or not. If you choose to obey God, you have to deny your sinful nature. If you don't obey God, you are fully responsible for the consequences. Yes it is tragic, but it is a tragedy of a persons own choosing.

I will stop this line of thought now though, as I don't want to get this thread off on something other than its intended topic.

The story of Jesus is based on a Greek tale, but poisoned with monotheistic believes of rebel jews.
By the way; this can really be proved by evidence, so this subject is nothing to discuss about; the Jesus that Christians believe in has never existed.
Just a fact.

Man, I used to think myself a person very knowledgable in terms of Greek myth, but you have stumped me. I have never heard of this tale. Please do explain and bring forth evidence. I would certainly like to hear this tale.

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.

There is some evidence. It is subjective (VERY), and not ACTUALLY all THAT contemporary of the time.

Is it, therefore, worthless? No - but it is certainly not a strong evidence. If there were MORE contemporary evidence, or evidence that was equally contemporary, but MORE independent - then the evidence we HAVE would have far MORE value... because we could corroborate it.

Nobody is necessarily saying that Jesus did NOT exist... just... that the evidence is not very good that he DID exist.

For an example - let us look at Lemony Snicket... it CLAIMS to be historically true and accurate, and ALL of the texts are fairly contemporary... should we, therefore, accept the Baudelaire Orphans as real-life figures... and the Series of Unfortunate Events as being an accurate and 'true' history?

A number of your professors have been athiests? How simply awful for you, still at least you struggled through it all, eh?

Unfortunately for you, the use of phrases like ' the Christian ideal ' does place a question mark over whether your personal faith holds sway when you are in an academic environment. You have an ulterior motive in convincing yourself that Jesus the man existed, even though you have practically admitted that there is no reliable evidence to back up this position.

There is legitimate doubt over whether Jesus existed. You can choose to not even contemplate the possibility if it offends you so obviously; that doesn't make you right.

Actually, I enjoyed it. I consider them good friends now that we are no longer under the teacher-student relationship, which obviously had to be maintained as professionally as possible. I had no problems getting throught their classes. They, like any good historian, used written sources as pretext for any point they made in class. You make assumptions about me that have no basis. I am not offended, and you really will find that it is very difficult to offend me.

You see, I take my chosen profession as a historian very seriously. History and teaching are what I love, and I refuse to let anything come in between that. As a teacher, I would be letting my students down if I left out any side or arguement pertaining to a matter of history. I cannot let any of my personal views color my judgement in the academic environment. If evidence is presented that Jesus did not exist, then I will present it. Likewise, I will also point out the many problems with providing a solid picture of the times in which Jesus lived. I will point out that mainstream thought is that Jesus did exist. I will also point out that there is thought to the contrary. I don't give the idea of Jesus not existing much credence because there is so much professional thought to the contrary. True, it is legitimate to argue that he did not exist, but a legitimate arguement isn't something I have to instantly take on its word. My school of thought is just as legitimate as yours. In fact, I would say that we have similar amounts of evidence supporting both our claims.

'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?

Try researching the "Q" scripture... it seems that both the books of Luke and Matthew are actually basd on another (as yet unfound) scripture.

Which kind of calls into question, the necessity of believing either of THOSE Gospels as necessarily 'eye-witness' accounts.

:rolleyes:

Proof that it is based on a Greek tale please.

As to everything else, there is more proof of Jesus existing than not.
Care to show it?

Jesus did exist. Saying he didn't involves contradicting followers of the two biggest religions in the world. Christianity and Islam. Islam does Mention Jesus as a Prophet of Allah. Also, most Jews do believe that Jesus lived. Could they all be wrong? Jesus's existance is not in question. All that needs to be known now is if he is the Son of God. I believe he is.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

There ya go

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.


Show us? If you believe you have evidence of Jospeh, Mary and Jesus... especially if you think there is evidence that clearly identifies those three individuals... feel free to present it.

Biblical scholars, and biblical 'doubters' alike have been looking for such evidence.

Care to show it?

Show that its a greek tale? Sorry I never said it was a greek tale. I'm waiting on proof that it is a greek tale.

Outside the Bible, there are acknowledgements of his existence by Josephus, Tactius, and other people. Josephus hated him, so there was no motive to fake Jesus' existence.

Show that its a greek tale? Sorry I never said it was a greek tale. I'm waiting on proof that it is a greek tale.
No the other part
As to everything else, there is more proof of Jesus existing than not.
We would like to examine this "proof"

I expect the guy referred to in the bible did exist, although the stories about him are probably hardly true at all. It seems reasonable to think, from an historical point of view, that a carpenter called jesus, who was the son of mary and joseph, was crucified in about AD30. beyond that is impossible to say, given the evidence.

Just to add in the viewpoint of a history major and soon to be educator of our nation's youth, Jesus existed.


I honestly fear for the education system... if it is now allowable to teach history to 'the youth', based on what is 'most popular', rather than which has evidentiary support.

It is something that holds universal acceptance amoungst historians, both in the States and overseas.


No. It really isn't. There are those that question the literal truth of the New Testament, 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.


No - it is EASILY contestable... it is just not easy to PROVE, either way.

Sure, there was likely 'a man' named Jesus at that point... it WAS a fairly common name (well, Joshua). But, was there a person named Jesus, that the stories are based on??? That is the real question.

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.


Not at all. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Superman and Batman are both EXCELLENT examples of 'non-real' persons, who have undergone a process of 'mythical accumulation'.... drawing stories to themselves, and generating chains of myths, and swathes of 'evidence'.

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.


One has to look at the Baudelaire Orphans to see the lack of 'truthiness' of this statement.

Also - you claim that you will teach to the nation's youth... and yet you are here implying that a thing MUST be true, "Even without evidence"...


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.


Which is partially true.... however, any REAL historian will tell you it is almost impossible to be sure Jesus DID exist, also.


It is not from fear of reprisal. It is because the likelihood of Jesus not existing is laughable.


Not at all.... just that it is a principle of history to accept that which is supported... and there is no way to support a claim that there CANNOT have been a Jesus. There is scant enough evidence to support the idea that there MIGHT have been a Jesus.


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.

If you honestly believe this last statement, I beg you not to teach history.

There will always be doubters. There will always be someone who doesnt believe he exists. But I and many other Christians dont need proof. You shouldnt need proof just accept that there are things no one can understand without faith. You must have faith in order to understand that Jesus existed and is the Son of God

Care to prove this assertion since they were the ones that actually started the census thing for taxing purposes.

Show evidence FOR the census.

One does not need to show evidence for 'doubt'.

However, if you are willing to take ONE source as fact, and present that as fact... you need to be able to verify it if it is questioned.

I am confident enough in the good standing and broad knowledge of every professor of history I have studied under which includes a broad range of personal ideologies that don't neccesarily mesh with the Christian ideal. In fact, a number of my professors have been Atheists. They do not question the existance of Christ. They question the facts surrounding his life, but not its occurance. I also am confident enough in my own personal knowledge of the mainstream thought in the profession I will soon enter. I may be a Christian and a Sunday School teacher to boot, but my personal faith does not hold sway when I am in an academic environment. The existance of Jesus is accepted as historical fact my the vast majority of the historian's community, and though I have not studied it as extensively, I am confident in the professionalism of my fellow historians.

You feel the need to state your religion, and the fact that you TEACH that religion... and then you reinforce that that does NOT affect your opinion here....

Protesting too much?

You have basically stated that you would believe Jesus existed DESPITE a lack of evidence....

Thus, I can place no value in your opinion as an historian.

An historian can ONLY assert that which is supportable by evidence. What you are, my friend, is a preacher, masquerading as an historian.

Of course he did. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Christian, im atheist.

He lived as a Jew. Whether he is the son of god or not etc. is another matter. He did live though.

We have evidence. The Bible may not be used as objective evidence in all cases, and it is not a true historical document. It does, however, contain historical details which we can back up. We know that there was a line of Hebrew kings. In other Hebrew texts that are accepted as histories, we know that David and Solomon are listed in that line of Hebrew kings. The events of their lives are in question often times, but not their existance. If you follow that line of thinking, you have to call into question the existance of many Egyptian pharoahs. (Granted the Egyptians liked to remove pharoahs that were unpopular from the historical records, but that is kind of moot for this example.) Hammurabi also might not have existed. Sure we have his law, but who says that some Babylonian didn't just make it up and slap an name of authority on it. We have the same evidence for the existance of Christ that we have for the existance of many influential people of ancient times.

You are correct that you either have evidence or you don't, but what you consider evidence is likely a bit more forensic than what any human being will ever be able to produce for most figures of that period. There is evidence. It simply isn't pure and objective. That is something that has spoiled most modern people. Pure objective evidence simply is nearly impossible to come by for that period. You have texts and manuscripts, but none of them can be taken as wholly objective evidence.

1) Just because the Bible contains SOME true historical facts, does not mean that any OTHER 'facts' are historically accurate.

2) Story writers USUALLY try to make sure that they set their stories in real locations.... they attach 'true' historical events and characters to fictions, to further the believablility of the tale.

3) How can you claim to know the subject, when you state "we know that David and Solomon are listed in that line of Hebrew kings".... the TRUTH of the existence of David has LONG been in question. It is only NOW that the acceptability of David is climbing again... through the discovery of independent sources that claim the existence of a 'king' by that name.

4) "Pure objective evidence simply is nearly impossible to come by for that period". Which means that we should take ALL evidences from that time, as ONLY as reliable as they are able to be corroborated.

Minuta']Of course he did. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Christian, im atheist.

He lived as a Jew. Whether he is the son of god or not etc. is another matter. He did live though.

Hollow rhetoric, unless you have EVIDENCE.

I do wish that people would stop presenting their opinions as facts...

For starters, most of the records of that time are lost to history. True we have enough to get a good gleaning of the life and times of the people, but anyone who tells you we know definitively is lying to you. Nazareth may or may not have existed. You can't prove either. Star charts of the time are sketchy at best. Travelling magi were not really easy to track. As far as the slaughter of innocents, Herod was hated by the Hebrews for many reasons. The possibility that he slaughtered innocents is pretty high, but that is because the slaughter of innocents against a people was very, very common. It was not a happy time, and documentation of genocide simply did not occur that often. History was written by the victors. They are not going to write about their killing babies.

You cannot honestly prove to me or anyone else the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible. That is the point of faith. Where evidence is concerned, it becomes what is enough for you. To me, I cannot think in terms of their not being a God. There has to be a reason for the universe, even if it is not mine. The idea that it just is and there is nothing else to it seems to be born of cynicism and bitterness. I can't accept that. You can call me an ignorant fool, but at least I am an ignorant fool who has found happiness and solace that cannot be taken away. That is more than most can say for themselves.

Didn't you say you were a Christian?

How can you claim to be ANY kind of authority on the matter, and NOT know that the Old Testament does "write about killing babies"? Indeed, if one reads Joshua, one sees a history of a genocide, written BY the oppressors.

But, here is the REAL telling argument: "You cannot honestly prove to me or anyone else the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible. That is the point of faith. Where evidence is concerned, it becomes what is enough for you. To me, I cannot think in terms of their not being a God. There has to be a reason for the universe, even if it is not mine".

You admit that, even if there were evidence that PROVED Jesus was a false historical figure, you cannot accept that version of the truth.

I honestly fear for the education system... if it is now allowable to teach history to 'the youth', based on what is 'most popular', rather than which has evidentiary support.

No. It really isn't. There are those that question the literal truth of the New Testament, both in the States and overseas.

No - it is EASILY contestable... it is just not easy to PROVE, either way.

Sure, there was likely 'a man' named Jesus at that point... it WAS a fairly common name (well, Joshua). But, was there a person named Jesus, that the stories are based on??? That is the real question.

Not at all. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Superman and Batman are both EXCELLENT examples of 'non-real' persons, who have undergone a process of 'mythical accumulation'.... drawing stories to themselves, and generating chains of myths, and swathes of 'evidence'.

One has to look at the Baudelaire Orphans to see the lack of 'truthiness' of this statement.

Also - you claim that you will teach to the nation's youth... and yet you are here implying that a thing MUST be true, "Even without evidence"...

Which is partially true.... however, any REAL historian will tell you it is almost impossible to be sure Jesus DID exist, also.

Not at all.... just that it is a principle of history to accept that which is supported... and there is no way to support a claim that there CANNOT have been a Jesus. There is scant enough evidence to support the idea that there MIGHT have been a Jesus.

If you honestly believe this last statement, I beg you not to teach history.

While there may be some squabbles over the subject, there is not likely to ever be a conclusive shift from the idea that Jesus existed. I never said I would teach that he did in fact exist. I said later on in the thread that the proper manner of teaching is to present all viewpoints and not validate any particular one. It is for the student to decide what he or she thinks of the information, not for the teacher to decide for them.

I will be teaching history, and I will teach it well and honestly. There is little likelihood that I will teach on the times of Jesus overmuch as my emphasis is European history. In fact, this summer I will be living in Florence, Italy for about five weeks. I will be studying the Renaissance and the Reformation with my current advisor. I am most excited.

You should read my further posts before you make statements that assume certain things about my views and personal knowledge. I know many true historians, and as I go on after college to pursue my masters and doctoral degrees I will continue to gain knowledge of my profession. I know what true historians will tell you, and most of them will say that it is likely that Jesus existed. They will not go into his miracles, but his existance is not really something that is questioned heavily, for good or ill. I go with mainstream thought currently because it is in fact the line of thought that has the most support by true historians. It is the most popular line of thought because most historians believe that the evidence strongly suggests that it is correct. Arguement over the validity and correctness of the New Testament does not mean that the existance of Jesus is under question. The facts surrounding him are, but in general, the man is not. It doesn't matter what you believe reguarding His supposed divinity. The man in all likelihood did exist. If he didn't, then our understanding of those times is in need of a serious overhaul.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html

Since everyone ignored these the first time, I will post them again

Of course Jesus existed. Even if you don't believe that he was/is the Son of God there is no denying His existance. There are historical records of Jesus. The only thing to debate is whether or not He is the Messiah... which He is by the way. Jesus is the Savior of humanity and I believe that with all my heart. JESUS ROCKS!

Knock yourself out. Just, don't confuse FAITH with EVIDENCE.

You are welcome to your opinion... even when it is questionable (like believing that Jesus even comes CLOSE to the Hebrew description of 'Messiah').

But, it is NOT 'fact', until it is 'proved'. (As much as ANY 'fact' ever can be 'proved'....)

The story of Jesus is based on a Greek tale, but poisoned with monotheistic believes of rebel jews.
By the way; this can really be proved by evidence, so this subject is nothing to discuss about; the Jesus that Christians believe in has never existed.
Just a fact.

Not a 'fact' until you provide evidence, my friend.

I won't accept assertions that Jesus lived, without evidence... but I won't accept a 'fact' that he was based on a Greek myth, without evidence, either.

Especially since the Jesus story shares MUCH MORE in common with Mithraism, of early Buddhism, than any Greek character.

You admit that, even if there were evidence that PROVED Jesus was a false historical figure, you cannot accept that version of the truth...
... thereby validating yet another prediction (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9976651&postcount=247) my theory on religious faiths has made.

I swear, somebody needs to stop me. All of this is going to make me believe I'm right. >_<;

You feel the need to state your religion, and the fact that you TEACH that religion... and then you reinforce that that does NOT affect your opinion here....

Protesting too much?

You have basically stated that you would believe Jesus existed DESPITE a lack of evidence....

Thus, I can place no value in your opinion as an historian.

An historian can ONLY assert that which is supportable by evidence. What you are, my friend, is a preacher, masquerading as an historian.

If I ever saw solid conclusive proof that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth as my Christian belief states there was, then I would be forced to rethink my standing. I say you cannot prove the contrary because there is honestly a lack of sufficient evidence to do so. I will never preach to my students. My beliefs are my own when I am in the classroom. I have already stated that. When I am teaching Sunday School, I teach theology. When I am in the classroom, I teach history. It is a very simple thing to do.

Jesus did exist. Saying he didn't involves contradicting followers of the two biggest religions in the world. Christianity and Islam. Islam does Mention Jesus as a Prophet of Allah. Also, most Jews do believe that Jesus lived. Could they all be wrong? Jesus's existance is not in question. All that needs to be known now is if he is the Son of God. I believe he is.

Fallacious argument, my friend.

Being 'popular' is nothing akin to being 'true'.

If one looks before the birth of organised Monotheism (basically, Egyptian Amon worship)... it was 'known' by almost EVERYONE that there were a number of gods.

Could they all be wrong?

:rolleyes:

Proof that it is based on a Greek tale please.

As to everything else, there is more proof of Jesus existing than not.

Obviously.

However, given the totally subjective, or far-from-contemporary, nature of the evidence... there is no more reason to BELIEVE that evidence, than there is to believe in the LITERAL existence of Harry Potter.

Outside the Bible, there are acknowledgements of his existence by Josephus, Tactius, and other people. Josephus hated him, so there was no motive to fake Jesus' existence.

Josephus wasn't even BORN during the lifetime of Jesus... thus, his evidence is totally secondary, at best.

And, where do you get the idea that Josephus 'hated' Jesus?

Tacitus wrote even after Josephus... and didn't even have Josephus' limited experience of the area.

http://www.everystudent.com/forum/historical.html

I figured I would contribute that there is a theory that Jesus Christ was actually the deified Julius Caesar. There is a website somewhere, ah, right here... http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

While there may be some squabbles over the subject, there is not likely to ever be a conclusive shift from the idea that Jesus existed.


That is because you are setting a fallacy as an assumption. MOST historians do not implicitly accept Jesus as 'real. Mainly because MOST historians don't really care either way, and so accepting the 'assumption' is enough.

That is not the same as MOST historians BELIEVING that Jesus WAS literally real.


I never said I would teach that he did in fact exist. I said later on in the thread that the proper manner of teaching is to present all viewpoints and not validate any particular one.


No. The PROPER manner of teaching history, is to present all of the EVIDENCE... 'viewpoints' be damned. The student of history should base his or her acceptance on the EVIDENCE, not on 'current theories'.


You should read my further posts before you make statements that assume certain things about my views and personal knowledge.


I respond to posts in the order I get to them. I have seen nothing yet to make me change my opinion.


I know what true historians will tell you, and most of them will say that it is likely that Jesus existed.


Some historians might tell you that. Any historian who tells you there is GOOD evidence, is lying to you.


I go with mainstream thought currently because it is in fact the line of thought that has the most support by true historians.


'Support by historians' is a fallacy. It doesn't matter WHAT 'historians' believe, or how many of them accept it. EVIDENCE is all that should matter.

What are these 'true historians' of yours?


The man in all likelihood did exist. If he didn't, then our understanding of those times is in need of a serious overhaul.

Rubbish. The validity of one myth, in no way calls into question the remainder of the 'knowledge' we have for that era.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html

Since everyone ignored these the first time, I will post them again

what did you find so important about these links? i scanned them and didnt find anything that caught my eye.

how about a bit of a summary?

If I ever saw solid conclusive proof that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth as my Christian belief states there was, then I would be forced to rethink my standing. I say you cannot prove the contrary because there is honestly a lack of sufficient evidence to do so. I will never preach to my students. My beliefs are my own when I am in the classroom. I have already stated that. When I am teaching Sunday School, I teach theology. When I am in the classroom, I teach history. It is a very simple thing to do.

You make special exception. There is as much reliable evidence for the literal truth of the Islamic or Buddhist faiths... or for the Hindu faith... and yet, one can be fairly sure you are NOT accepting all of those stories as literally true.

You do not NEED evidence that they are 'wrong'... partly because your prejudice already TELLS YOU' they are wrong, and partly because there is a LACK of evidence to PROVE them false.

So - in the absence of evidence, you do NOT accept.... except for YOUR religion.

I figured I would contribute that there is a theory that Jesus Christ was actually the deified Julius Caesar. There is a website somewhere, ah, right here... http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html
now THATS a wild theory!

i dont suppose you have read this book and can fill us in on some of what the author considers proof? its too big a leap for me to make in my own head without some kind of historical support.

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.

Well, if you can concede that "the Jesus Myth" began from "an ordinary figure" then you can also concede that there *is* a possibility of an ordinary 1st century AD figure named Jesus who had all these fantastic stories attributed to him. I've never once said that the Gospels *were* literal truth, at least not completely, because there *are* Biblical figures- including David-that can be accounted for historically, and Jesus could one day join their ranks. To go back to what I originally said, to state that because there are no records for Jesus existing does not mean *a* Jesus did not, because to state so is an argument from silence. It does not also suggest that he did, because that's also an argument from silence, in which case interpretation sets in, and that's subjective.

I don't doubt- contrary to what I believe you're thinking- that the Gospel stories surrounding Jesus *were* influenced by other stories and traditions already in existence (I've heard the argument that a lot of Jesus' sayings are actually Socratic in origin- I haven't been able to quanitify that). It could even be quite possible that *every* story surrounding Jesus is a complete fabrication meant to legitimize his status in history (remember, ancients weren't above ripping off traditions and stories just to make real people "extraordinary"). Yes it's true that a *real* figure does not necessarily have to be the root of the stories, but it does not mean that there wasn't (stories do have to come from somewhere).

Besides, you do know there were a lot of people claiming to be Messiahs in Jesus' time, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Josephus.27s_report_of_civil_unrest_in_the_first_century) It could be very well possible that at first Jesus wasn't afforded much attention because he was just one of MANY "troublemakers" to the Jews and the Romans at the time and not worth mentioning, only gaining importance later. Remember, "what's important" does not *always* remain static.

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?

The existence of the Shasu doesn't necessarily mean that the Exodus was literally true, at least in full anyway- it's merely a *possible* (and I stress possible) origin for the nation of Israel (in fact, I believe, the Egyptians didn't like them because they were raiders, similar to the Hyksos story). It should be noted that the first instance of the word "Israel" in history is the Merneptah Stele (more commonly called, incorrectly so, "the Israel stele"), and all it has is just a single line declaring that "Israel is wasted, bare of seed". In fact, there's really not a lot of archeological evidence suggesting there *was* a united Israelite Kingdom (although David is accounted for historically) or for even the conquests of Joshua. In fact, according to archaeology, Omri is the first king of Israel (since Israel is usually synonomous with "the House of Omri" in archaeological sources). Having said that, like I said before, several of Israel's and Judah's kings *can* be accounted for historically, some of whom netting indirectly positive historical accounts (Sennacherib's annals details how Hezekiah took over Philistia to strengthen Judah, for example, even though Sennacherib- probably embellishing to assert Assyria's status as a legitimate power- trapped him "like a bird in a cage", a common literary device at the time). This doesn't mean that the whole Bible is false, but it also means that there isn't a kernel of truth in it either.

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.

You do know that "Nazarene" has other meanings and those meanings could be applied to Jesus. "Nazarene", if I'm not mistaken, also means "warrior", so "Jesus the Nazarene" can also mean "Jesus the warrior".

the Greeks were more politically advanced (than the Romans.

Considering that the Greeks couldn't unite into a single state and the Romans could rule the Mediterranean almost uninterrupted for over a 1000 years, I don't think the Greeks were more politically advanced. Just because they invented democracy doesn't mean they were good at politics.

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, Romans 2:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:16;&version=31;) seems to suggest that Paul knows about the Resurrection story, which he expands on in Romans 5:12-21, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21;&version=31;) even declaring that "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:17;&version=31;)). Seems like Paul knows of the existence of a man named Jesus who can bring salvation (the important part here being that Paul knew of *a* Gospel story and that Jesus was a man).

Also, considering that Paul never actually *met* Jesus it shouldn't be surprising he doesn't bring up many of his stories, considering he probably didn't know them. I don't know all your stories, but that doesn't discredit your existence does it?

I do accept that Jesus was an historical figure, even though the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct. I simply doubt that a religion could spring up that quickly around an entirely fiuctional creation. The original Christians would have known Jesus or known people who knew him, and it seems less likely that people would accept him as the messiah if he were someone they'd never heard of. I agree that the writings of Josephus and Tacitus are not dispositive, though both sources mention Jesus, because they were relating stories of others, many of whom were likely Christians themselves. That said, there are many figures for whom purely direct evidence is lacking, but as to which much circumstantial evidence exists (like Khufu, Homer, Boudicca, etc.) who we know more because of their effects on others than by direct evidence from their own hands or contemporaneous accounts.

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, if you can concede that "the Jesus Myth" began from "an ordinary figure" then you can also concede that there *is* a possibility of an ordinary 1st century AD figure named Jesus who had all these fantastic stories attributed to him.


The 'possibility' is conceded. What is debated, is whether or not ONE, specific character LITERALLY existed, as a factual, 'real' person.


To go back to what I originally said, to state that because there are no records for Jesus existing does not mean *a* Jesus did not, because to state so is an argument from silence.


I don't really think anyone is arguing for the absolute NON-existence of Jesus, more that it is illogical to believe the character MUST be literally true.


(stories do have to come from somewhere).


Not really.


Besides, you do know there were a lot of people claiming to be Messiahs in Jesus' time, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Josephus.27s_report_of_civil_unrest_in_the_first_century) It could be very well possible that at first Jesus wasn't afforded much attention because he was just one of MANY "troublemakers" to the Jews and the Romans at the time and not worth mentioning, only gaining importance later.


Yes... there were many 'messiah figures'.... nobody is arguing against that... just against the specifically factual existence of ONE. We accept that there were many (unknown to us by name)... but was ONE of those 'messiah' figures the literal Jesus of whom we know?


You do know that "Nazarene" has other meanings and those meanings could be applied to Jesus. "Nazarene", if I'm not mistaken, also means "warrior", so "Jesus the Nazarene" can also mean "Jesus the warrior".


Indeed... I made this point (obliquely) in one of MY posts about Nazareth.


Considering that the Greeks couldn't unite into a single state and the Romans could rule the Mediterranean almost uninterrupted for over a 1000 years, I don't think the Greeks were more politically advanced. Just because they invented democracy doesn't mean they were good at politics.


Just because the Greeks had a fragmentary political process, doesn't necessarily equate to 'couldn't unite'. The Greeks SEEMED fairly content with independence, and local sovereignty. Greek politics 'invented' Democracy... Roman politics 'invented' the Republic... I would argue that the Greeks were more politically sophisticated. You also speak of Rome as though it were one cohesive rule, by one cohesive system...

Well, if you can concede that "the Jesus Myth" began from "an ordinary figure" then you can also concede that there *is* a possibility of an ordinary 1st century AD figure named Jesus who had all these fantastic stories attributed to him. I've never once said that the Gospels *were* literal truth, at least not completely, because there *are* Biblical figures- including David-that can be accounted for historically, and Jesus could one day join their ranks. To go back to what I originally said, to state that because there are no records for Jesus existing does not mean *a* Jesus did not, because to state so is an argument from silence. It does not also suggest that he did, because that's also an argument from silence, in which case interpretation sets in, and that's subjective.
it seems that if you do <i dont know what its called> analysis on the writing of the epistles, the gospels and the early non-biblical christian writings that jesus the man came AFTER the idea of jesus the son of god. more like 100 years after. the original concept wedded the old testament version of god with the greek notion of the (resexed) goddess wisdom or "logos" (as in "in the beginning was the word, etc') where the "word" becomes the son of god. not til much later does the idea that there was an actual human being involved in the story come about.

i find that this changes my original notion that jesus was a local preacher/prophet who was transmorgrified into god over time. it was most likely the other way around -- the purely spiritual idea of a son of god was transmorgrified into an actual human being over the course of time.



Well, Romans 2:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:16;&version=31;) seems to suggest that Paul knows about the Resurrection story, which he expands on in Romans 5:12-21, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21;&version=31;) even declaring that "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:17;&version=31;)). Seems like Paul knows of the existence of a man named Jesus who can bring salvation (the important part here being that Paul knew of *a* Gospel story and that Jesus was a man).

Also, considering that Paul never actually *met* Jesus it shouldn't be surprising he doesn't bring up many of his stories, considering he probably didn't know them. I don't know all your stories, but that doesn't discredit your existence does it?

so paul was off persecuting local christians one day when he was struck blind by god and converted. he became a father of the church but NEVER EVER learned anything about the man he was worshipping??? he knew no stories of the life or sayings of jesus? he didnt care to even ask those who knew jesus personally? he never even ASKED peter (for example) for a few saying of jesus since the guy knew him and all?

what kind of disciple is that?

now THATS a wild theory!

i dont suppose you have read this book and can fill us in on some of what the author considers proof? its too big a leap for me to make in my own head without some kind of historical support.

It has been a while since I read it and I only got around to a chapter or two. In fact, until today I had forgotten about it.

If I recall correctly he claims the stories of Jesus and Caesar are remarkably similar, he shows how many of the different names/places involved in the story are quite similar, and he asserts that Caesar was crucified... in effigy (if I recall correctly).

I'm not sure what to make of it and I'll probably read it again shortly. But from my perspective (an atheist who uses reason as his guide), Jesus is likely a myth and probably never did exist. I can't prove that he didn't exist but they say the same thing to me about this "god" character they speak of. The only thing that keeps me from going crazy trying to prove that they are wrong is they are the one's making the outlandish claims, not me.

Just as atheism is the default belief (we are all born atheists, after all), Jesus being a myth or a flat out lie is the default belief.

The 'possibility' is conceded. What is debated, is whether or not ONE, specific character LITERALLY existed, as a factual, 'real' person.

Then we're on the same page then.

I don't really think anyone is arguing for the absolute NON-existence of Jesus, more that it is illogical to believe the character MUST be literally true.

Well, as an observation, you seem to. I could be reading too deeply, however.

Not really.

Well, technically they all do- I mean, someone's got to tell the story, right? Though I get the point.

Indeed... I made this point (obliquely) in one of MY posts about Nazareth.

My mistake then. I just know that one of the arguments made is that "Nazareth didn't exist" when it doesn't necessarily have to in order for "Jesus the Nazarene" to make sense.

Just because the Greeks had a fragmentary political process, doesn't necessarily equate to 'couldn't unite'. The Greeks SEEMED fairly content with independence, and local sovereignty. Greek politics 'invented' Democracy... Roman politics 'invented' the Republic... I would argue that the Greeks were more politically sophisticated. You also speak of Rome as though it were one cohesive rule, by one cohesive system...

Well, I go by success. The Greeks were a squabbling bunch of city-states that couldn't get together until a dictator told them to (that would be Philip II of Macedon), and even then, shortly afterwards they were divided (Alexander's Empire fell apart soon after his death). The Romans have an unrivaled history of stability in one area, with their Empire having roughly the same borders for 600 years (since Gaul was only annexed in the first century BC), being in continuous rule of the Mediterranean for 1000 years and being in continuous existence for over 2000 (counting the fact it was simply the Western half of the Roman Empire that fell in the 5th century). There simply isn't another state in history with the same record.

it seems that if you do <i dont know what its called> analysis on the writing of the epistles, the gospels and the early non-biblical christian writings that jesus the man came AFTER the idea of jesus the son of god. more like 100 years after. the original concept wedded the old testament version of god with the greek notion of the (resexed) goddess wisdom or "logos" (as in "in the beginning was the word, etc') where the "word" becomes the son of god. not til much later does the idea that there was an actual human being involved in the story come about.

i find that this changes my original notion that jesus was a local preacher/prophet who was transmorgrified into god over time. it was most likely the other way around -- the purely spiritual idea of a son of god was transmorgrified into an actual human being over the course of time.

Cite this analysis (I believe it's linguistic). I want to read it.

so paul was off persecuting local christians one day when he was struck blind by god and converted. he became a father of the church but NEVER EVER learned anything about the man he was worshipping??? he knew no stories of the life or sayings of jesus? he didnt care to even ask those who knew jesus personally? he never even ASKED peter (for example) for a few saying of jesus since the guy knew him and all?

what kind of disciple is that?

Assuming some (or total) fabrication of the Gospel to legitimize Jesus, the story might have taken some time to develop- the early Christians may not have had all the details yet. My point was that Paul had a concept of Jesus as a man, so the Epistles are not definitive proof that "Jesus was not a man".

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'm quite sure in my heart he exsists, and is the son of God, he apostles, will not break the ninth commandment, thou shall not give false testiment to thy neighbor, i believe all he did was true from preaching to the presits, to him dying on the cross for our sins so we don't have to sacrifice a lamb, any more, but it's time to debate, whether or not MAry was thirteen when she had him? Or why she's called the virgin, when she had many other kids after Jesus with out the Holy ghost giving it to her w/o the help of a male

Knock yourself out. Just, don't confuse FAITH with EVIDENCE.

You are welcome to your opinion... even when it is questionable (like believing that Jesus even comes CLOSE to the Hebrew description of 'Messiah').

But, it is NOT 'fact', until it is 'proved'. (As much as ANY 'fact' ever can be 'proved'....)

have you even read the Bible? Jesus's fills every description for the Messiah

Fallacious argument, my friend.

Being 'popular' is nothing akin to being 'true'.

If one looks before the birth of organised Monotheism (basically, Egyptian Amon worship)... it was 'known' by almost EVERYONE that there were a number of gods.

Could they all be wrong?


how do the thousands that nelieved in the Many Gods of the Egyptians even begin to compare with the BILLIONS that believe that Jesus existed?

Right, well here's a theory I read about. It's pretty long.

Jesus was in fact entirely mythical. As many people have already pointed out, his story has parallels with that of Mithras, and a lot of his theories are Socratic teachings (the book has examples, so if you want examples I could get some). There is a reason why his teachings are similair to Socrates'. Socrates was an initiate of the Pagan Mysteries, one of which was the Mystery of Mithras. The Greek one was the Mystery of Dionysus. Or Orpheus. Actually, the Greeks had a few godmen. The Eygptian one was Osiris. Every Meditarranean culture had their own version of the Mysteries, with their own godmen. The teachings differed slightly, but the biggest differences were in the names. The teachings were almost exactly the same. And they taught the same teachings as Jesus. All (or nearly all in some cases - like I said, slight differences) the godmen died and were reborn after three days, had twelve disciples (twelve is for some reason a holy number, which is why there were twelve signs of the zodiac before there were twelve months to a year), did the whole Last supper thing, saying the wine was their blood and the bread their body, etc. In the same way, all performed miracles. The same miracles as Jesus. Walking on water, water to wine, feeding large amounts of people with a ridiculously small amount of food. And they were all executed by "authorities", Dionysus (for example) was nailed to a tree (cross, anyone) by an Eygptian King whose name escapes me. Most of the godmen were executed by crucifixion.

Now, the theory is that Jesus was the godman the Jews came up with, when they heard of these Mysteries. And the disciples of the Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries became known as Christians. I'm not going into it any further at this point, but I will if anyone brings up points against this theory. As for whether Jesus was real, the theory suggests that since these tales of godmen parallel the tale of Jesus so closely, if there is a historical Jesus, he is so buried under this myth of him that he cannot be found. But, the theory suggests, it is far more likely that Jesus the man was invented by Literalist Christians, who believed the Jesus myth was true. And, as it was Literalist Christianity that was adopted by the State (for instance when the Roman Emperor endorsed it), they wiped out the Gnostic Christians, who knew it was just a myth. As someone has already pointed out, it's the winners that write history. Or occasionally, rewrite it. Oh, and before I forget, the Pagans also had the Sign Of The Fish... something to do with mystical geometry.

Cite this analysis (I believe it's linguistic). I want to read it.



Assuming some (or total) fabrication of the Gospel to legitimize Jesus, the story might have taken some time to develop- the early Christians may not have had all the details yet. My point was that Paul had a concept of Jesus as a man, so the Epistles are not definitive proof that "Jesus was not a man".
the site i was reading was linked by candelar. http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/preamble.htm

its based on research into the Q gospel idea. it might be more fruitful for someone who is more sophisticated in this stuff than i am to start with the Q gospel than this link.

linguistics is the only word i could come up with for it but it doesnt seem quite right to me.

(the book has examples, so if you want examples I could get some)

Please. Also, post a source because I'm interested in reading this. :)

(I also don't think Constantine banned Gnosticism...those were the later Emperors)

Right, well here's a theory I read about. It's pretty long.

Jesus was in fact entirely mythical. As many people have already pointed out, his story has parallels with that of Mithras, and a lot of his theories are Socratic teachings (the book has examples, so if you want examples I could get some). There is a reason why his teachings are similair to Socrates'. Socrates was an initiate of the Pagan Mysteries, one of which was the Mystery of Mithras. The Greek one was the Mystery of Dionysus. Or Orpheus. Actually, the Greeks had a few godmen. The Eygptian one was Osiris. Every Meditarranean culture had their own version of the Mysteries, with their own godmen. The teachings differed slightly, but the biggest differences were in the names. The teachings were almost exactly the same. And they taught the same teachings as Jesus. All (or nearly all in some cases - like I said, slight differences) the godmen died and were reborn after three days, had twelve disciples (twelve is for some reason a holy number, which is why there were twelve signs of the zodiac before there were twelve months to a year), did the whole Last supper thing, saying the wine was their blood and the bread their body, etc. In the same way, all performed miracles. The same miracles as Jesus. Walking on water, water to wine, feeding large amounts of people with a ridiculously small amount of food. And they were all executed by "authorities", Dionysus (for example) was nailed to a tree (cross, anyone) by an Eygptian King whose name escapes me. Most of the godmen were executed by crucifixion.

Now, the theory is that Jesus was the godman the Jews came up with, when they heard of these Mysteries. And the disciples of the Jewish version of the Pagan Mysteries became known as Christians. I'm not going into it any further at this point, but I will if anyone brings up points against this theory. As for whether Jesus was real, the theory suggests that since these tales of godmen parallel the tale of Jesus so closely, if there is a historical Jesus, he is so buried under this myth of him that he cannot be found. But, the theory suggests, it is far more likely that Jesus the man was invented by Literalist Christians, who believed the Jesus myth was true. And, as it was Literalist Christianity that was adopted by the State (for instance when the Roman Emperor endorsed it), they wiped out the Gnostic Christians, who knew it was just a myth. As someone has already pointed out, it's the winners that write history. Or occasionally, rewrite it. Oh, and before I forget, the Pagans also had the Sign Of The Fish... something to do with mystical geometry.
thats kind of it in a nutshell alright. it may be that when the time came for humanizing this "godman" they thought back to the time when there were so many self proclaimed messiahs railing against the romans and they either fastened on one of them who really existed or stuck their made up guy in the middle of the stew. if they made up every detail of jesus, can you really say he existed?

how do the thousands that nelieved in the Many Gods of the Egyptians even begin to compare with the BILLIONS that believe that Jesus existed?
does that mean that when the followers of islam outbreed the followers of christ we will be forced to admit that mohammed was right?

how do the thousands that nelieved in the Many Gods of the Egyptians even begin to compare with the BILLIONS that believe that Jesus existed?
Just because it's popular doesn't make it right.

the site i was reading was linked by candelar. http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/preamble.htm

its based on research into the Q gospel idea. it might be more fruitful for someone who is more sophisticated in this stuff than i am to start with the Q gospel than this link.

linguistics is the only word i could come up with for it but it doesnt seem quite right to me.

Textual? Just a guess.

Anyway, I see the argument- indeed, Matthew and Luke offer different accounts for Jesus' birth, while, if I'm not mistaken, Mark offers no story.

It's still not proof that Jesus was, in fact, made up- a hypothesis can be raised that the spiritual tradition of Jesus rose up and dominated so much that eventually people thought, "hmmnnn, maybe we should research this guy", and hence why the later human tradition emerged. It could be that Jesus was made up, or people realized they couldn't be talking about "a god man" without realizing who this man exactly was. It's like, how someone really catches your attention so you want to learn more, so they did.

Textual? Just a guess.

Anyway, I see the argument- indeed, Matthew and Luke offer different accounts for Jesus' birth, while, if I'm not mistaken, Mark offers no story.

It's still not proof that Jesus was, in fact, made up- a hypothesis can be raised that the spiritual tradition of Jesus rose up and dominated so much that eventually people thought, "hmmnnn, maybe we should research this guy", and hence why the later human tradition emerged. It could be that Jesus was made up, or people realized they couldn't be talking about "a god man" without realizing who this man exactly was. It's like, how someone really catches your attention so you want to learn more, so they did.
the whole thing has me fascinated because its something i had never considered before.

no its in no way proof but it does make it possible that jesus was made up. the notion of it never made any sense to me before since i assumed that the man preceeded the theology.

Please. Also, post a source because I'm interested in reading this.

(I also don't think Constantine banned Gnosticism...those were the later Emperors)

The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

Right, here's a Socratic quote:

"It is never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even."

Other Pagan sages (all initiates of the Mysteries) shared this view, with one saying: "Wish that you may be able to benefit your enemies." Hmm, does this sound to anyone else like, "turn the other cheek". But why would Jesus, a Jew, express such a sentiment, when the Jewish tradition called for "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." In fact, this is one reason Jesus doesn't fit the description of the Messiah. The Messiah was a holy avenger, Jesus wasn't.
(Also, I never said Constantine banned Gnosticism, but the fact that he adopted Literalism caused people to turn against it.)

it may be that when the time came for humanizing this "godman" they thought back to the time when there were so many self proclaimed messiahs railing against the romans and they either fastened on one of them who really existed or stuck their made up guy in the middle of the stew. if they made up every detail of jesus, can you really say he existed?

Well, that's probably what happened, at least, I don't think we'll get a better theory. I mean, the Literalists did need a historical Jesus, because they were desperate to believe their godman was different from the Pagans, because he was real. So they looked up some history, and gave Jesus the last name Christ. Which helped make their story more credible. Well, except to the Pagans and Gnostics, who laughed at them.

have you even read the Bible? Jesus's fills every description for the Messiah

I have read it, and I can't find the bit where the Messiah is supposed to tell us to be nice to everyone even when they hate us. As I said, he was supposed to smite the Jews oppressors, amongst other things. If he so perfectly described the Messiah in his very being, why didn't all the Jews turn to him as the Messiah. Because they didn't, you know.

how do the thousands that nelieved in the Many Gods of the Egyptians even begin to compare with the BILLIONS that believe that Jesus existed?

Like everyone else has said, popular is not the same as right. The earth being flat was a very popular idea. Galileo was executed for heresy because his crazy idea about the Earth going round the Sun, and not being the centre of the universe was very unpopular. Also, since when have there been billions of Christians. Last I heard it was three hundred million, which is nowhere near a billion so, unless this number has increased sevenfold, billions is not that accurate, especially in the plural.

I think that's everything.

[QUOTE=RomeW]It's still not proof that Jesus was, in fact, made up- a hypothesis can be raised that the spiritual tradition of Jesus rose up and dominated so much that eventually people thought, "hmmnnn, maybe we should research this guy", and hence why the later human tradition emerged.[QUOTE]

I'm not going to say that couldn't have happened, but at the time researching someone at all would be virtually impossible. But I suppose they could have done. Although, it does remind me that Bethlehem means "The House Of Bread" and it was, according to St Jerome, shaded by a grove sacred to the godman Adonis, who was represented by bread.
And even the stories of Jesus' birth and early life, which would seem the best proof of existence for "Jesus the Man" are prefigured by the stories of the births and early lives of the Mystery godmen.

have you even read the Bible? Jesus's fills every description for the Messiah

If you say so... tell you what, why don't you educate me, by showing all the Messiah prophecies he fulfilled... and how he fulfilled them?

how do the thousands that nelieved in the Many Gods of the Egyptians even begin to compare with the BILLIONS that believe that Jesus existed?

Why do you think only thousands believed in the Egyptian mythology, by the way?

But, the important thing is: number is not important. If everyone believed the world was flat (as they used to)... was the world flat? Or is the belief wrong?

By your argument, if EVERYONE believed it... the world MUST be flat...

Right, well here's a theory I read about. It's pretty long.

Jesus was in fact entirely mythical. As many people have already pointed out, his story has parallels with that of Mithras, and a lot of his theories are Socratic teachings (the book has examples, so if you want examples I could get some). There is a reason why his teachings are similair to Socrates'. Socrates was an initiate of the Pagan Mysteries, one of which was the Mystery of Mithras. The Greek one was the Mystery of Dionysus. Or Orpheus. Actually, the Greeks had a few godmen. The Eygptian one was Osiris. Every Meditarranean culture had their own version of the Mysteries, with their own godmen. The teachings differed slightly, but the biggest differences were in the names. The teachings were almost exactly the same. And they taught the same teachings as Jesus. All (or nearly all in some cases - like I said, slight differences) the godmen died and were reborn after three days, had twelve disciples (twelve is for some reason a holy number, which is why there were twelve signs of the zodiac before there were twelve months to a year), did the whole Last supper thing, saying the wine was their blood and the bread their body, etc. In the same way, all performed miracles. The same miracles as Jesus. Walking on water, water to wine, feeding large amounts of people with a ridiculously small amount of food. And they were all executed by "authorities", Dionysus (for example) was nailed to a tree (cross, anyone) by an Eygptian King whose name escapes me. Most of the godmen were executed by crucifixion.


Even Odin died on a tree... hanged as a sacrifice to his OWN godhood....

Outside the Bible, there are acknowledgements of his existence by Josephus, Tactius, and other people. Josephus hated him, so there was no motive to fake Jesus' existence.

Josephus was writing 40 years after Jesus' supposed execution (Josephus wasn't born until 37 A.D). He never met Jesus or had any first hand information on him. He was, like Tacitus, relating stories he'd heard from Christians, not directly verifying Jesus' existence. In the end, the snippets from Josephus are some circumstantial evidence for Jesus, in my view, only because they show the rapid spread of Christianity. The rapid spread would have been easier, most likely, had Jesus actually existed.

That said, it was no eye witness reporting.

have you even read the Bible? Jesus's fills every description for the Messiah
Have you ever read the prophecies about the Messiah in the context in which they were written?

Two things look likely to have happened : firstly, writers about Jesus adjusted and embellished the story to make Jesus fit prophecies; and secondly, they re-interpretted prophecies to fit their view of Jesus. The Jewish messianic prophecies were about a king or military leader who was to free them here on Earth, not about a god-man come to provide a way to the kingdom of heaven. i.e. the Christian messiah is not the Jewish messiah - it was a new invention, designed to cope with the fact that Jesus did not succeed in liberating the Jews (if he even tried).

IIRC, there are also NT quotation "from scripture" which were not actually present in Jewish scriptures, as far as we know. They were invented after the fact; but churches don't mention this to their congregations, and few church-goers ever seriously study ancient Jewish religion.

Like everyone else has said, popular is not the same as right. The earth being flat was a very popular idea. Galileo was executed for heresy because his crazy idea about the Earth going round the Sun, and not being the centre of the universe was very unpopular.
Your point is right, but your history is a bit off. Galileo was placed under house arrest and forbidden from publishing on the subject, but he wasn't executed. Others were, though, such as Giodarno Bruno.
Also, since when have there been billions of Christians. Last I heard it was three hundred million, which is nowhere near a billion so, unless this number has increased sevenfold, billions is not that accurate, especially in the plural.
Actually, there's an estimated two billion (US) / two thousand million (UK) Christians in the World, about half of them Catholics.

Also, since when have there been billions of Christians. Last I heard it was three hundred million, which is nowhere near a billion so, unless this number has increased sevenfold, billions is not that accurate, especially in the plural.


Eeehm.. when did you check ? There are about 2.1 billion Christians of various denominations on this planet.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

I have heard enough of this: Regardless of Christ's existence, he has undoubtedly been the most influential person in history. I think it is about time those that believe Jesus didn't exist provide THEIR primary evidence, if they are so bent on Christians supplying theirs.

I have heard enough of this: Regardless of Christ's existence, he has undoubtedly been the most influential person in history. I think it is about time those that believe Jesus didn't exist provide THEIR primary evidence, if they are so bent on Christians supplying theirs.
this thread is full of evidence. the biggest evidence is the lack of stories of the life of christ by the people who were his closest followers (at least in my opinion)

its not like anyone is going to write "gee i didnt see the messiah preaching today" "no one was ressurrected from the dead today" or "the son of god born to the virgin mary in bethlehem is still missing from the current scene"

BUT if the stories of the ressurected human messiah were all over jerusalem (as they should have been if such an amazing thing had happened recently) why didnt anyone SCOFF at them? shouldnt someone have been yelling "BULLSHIT" when people started claiming that some criminal had been raised from the dead, ascended into heaven (along with his mother) and is the proclaimed son of god??

where is the "amazing randy" of 33AD?

on the other hand if pilate had a guy crucified and he came back from the dead a few days later, doesnt that merit some kind of comment? what about all the supposed jewish bigwigs who demanded that jesus be executed? shouldnt they have had some comment on it? something like "wow did we make a big fat mistake killing that guy!"? coming back from the dead was a common theme for gods but very uncommon for contemporary humans. i think it should have made big news even if it did happen on the edge of the empire.

Quote by Grave_n_idle: 'If you say so... tell you what, why don't you educate me, by showing all the Messiah prophecies he fulfilled... and how he fulfilled them?'

Why don't you check this website out: http://www.preservedwords.com/prophecies.htm

That should answer your question...

Ashmoria:
'this thread is full of evidence. the biggest evidence is the lack of stories of the life of christ by the people who were his closest followers (at least in my opinion)'

Lack of stories? That's exactly what the Gospels are! They are stories by the people who were Jesus' closest followers! Please, tell me, why can't the Gospels and the rest of the Bible be accepted as a historical document? This discussion is not about faith but merely about the very existence of the most influential person in history, so why cannot we all accept the Bible (as none of it has been disproven but much of it has been confirmed).

Also, have a look at this everyone: 'Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.' (from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html). Does that not confirm the Bible's truth of the census? Why would that lesson the truth behind Jesus' existence?

I have heard enough of this: Regardless of Christ's existence, he has undoubtedly been the most influential person in history. I think it is about time those that believe Jesus didn't exist provide THEIR primary evidence, if they are so bent on Christians supplying theirs.
This is a straw man. Without re-reading the entire thread, I don't think anyone here claimed definitively that Jesus didn't exist - only that there is no reliable evidence that he did exist.

That view that he might not have existed is supported by the total silence about him in the historical record before c49 AD, and the almost total silence about Jesus as a man before c70 AD. But it's not clear proof : absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, absence of evidence against something is not evidence of presence either. As far as facts are concerned, we begin with a blank slate, and then start adding facts to it based on evidence for them, not the lack of evidence against them.

It's the same principle as "innocent until proven guilty". It's up to the prosecution to prove that a person did commit a crime, not up to the defence to prove that he didn't.

Lack of stories? That's exactly what the Gospels are! They are stories by the people who were Jesus' closest followers! Please, tell me, why can't the Gospels and the rest of the Bible be accepted as a historical document?

It's generally accepted that earliest of the cannonical gospels were written about 40-50 years after the death if Jesus and the oldest as must as 70-80 years after his death. It is also not clear that any of them were written by the apostles themselves, or even by people who had first hand knowledge of Jesus' ministry.

Also, the apostles plainly weren't wandering around writing down everything that Jesus said and did as he did them, which means that even if they are based on the testimony of the apostles, they still can't be regarded as containing the literal words and actions of Jesus, so much as mere later recollections of what he said and did.

Add to that, however, that the Gospels were not written as "history" they were written as persuasive works. (Hence you get oddities like Luke's reference to the non-existent empire-wide census that forced Joseph of Nazareth to return to his ancestral home in Bethlehem. That story is great, if you want to emphasize that Jesus is the Messiah reffered to in Isaiah...but not so great if you want history. There was a local tax census in 6 A.D. (after Jesus's birth because this was aftger Herod's death), but it was not "worldwide," it effected Judeans but not Galileans (because the latter were under a different governor) and it did not require people to move (because the Romans didn't care about Jewish ancestry, they only cared about estimating taxable property, and to assess that it's better to have you in your own home than in some far away ancestral city).

Lack of stories? That's exactly what the Gospels are! They are stories by the people who were Jesus' closest followers!
How do you know that is what the Gospels are? Because a Christian told you? The fact is that we do not know precisely who the Gospel authors were, they don't tell us, and they do not claim to have been eye-witnesses. The names were added to the Gospels by later tradition. Given that they were written between 40 and 100 years after the supposed crucifixion (and people tended not to live as long in the first century), it is highly unlikely that the authors knew Jesus personally. If you want to say that they did, you need to produce hard evidence, and nobody has yet managed to do that.

Also, have a look at this everyone: 'Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.' (from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html). Does that not confirm the Bible's truth of the census? Why would that lesson the truth behind Jesus' existence?
Have you read the Acts of Augustus? The dates don't tally with the estimated time of Jesus's birth, and they don't tally with the governorship of Quirinius. The Acts don't say anything about people having to go back to their hometowns (which would make no sense), but they do say that the censuses counted Roman citizens. Judea at the time was a client kingdom, not a full part of the empire, a census there would have been conducted by its King, not Caesar, and it's people (with a few exceptions) would not have been Roman citizens (Paul made a big deal of the fact that he, unusually for a Jew, was a Roman citizen).

This is fairly typical of some Christian mindsets. They find something a bit similar to something mentioned in the Bible and jump on it as proof of the Bible, while merrily ignoring, or not even investigating, all the inconsistencies and contradictions which show that it isn't proof at all.

Ashmoria:
'this thread is full of evidence. the biggest evidence is the lack of stories of the life of christ by the people who were his closest followers (at least in my opinion)'

Lack of stories? That's exactly what the Gospels are! They are stories by the people who were Jesus' closest followers! Please, tell me, why can't the Gospels and the rest of the Bible be accepted as a historical document? This discussion is not about faith but merely about the very existence of the most influential person in history, so why cannot we all accept the Bible (as none of it has been disproven but much of it has been confirmed).

Also, have a look at this everyone: 'Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.' (from http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html). Does that not confirm the Bible's truth of the census? Why would that lesson the truth behind Jesus' existence?
im sorry pink, the link you provided didnt work for me

and as to the rest

<what Pyrodeustan and candelar said>

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 think that there was a man named Jesus born in bethlamham. Besides I'm getting confimed today, so I belive

DIE non believers!:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

DIE non believers!:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

This is a very unchristian like post from a supposed christian who is getting confirmed today. I suggest you go to confession and confess your sins.

DIE non believers!:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Everybody dies.

I think that there was a man named Jesus born in bethlamham. Besides I'm getting confimed today, so I belive

congratulations!

DIE non believers!:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
*Selfish Christian Alert*

You have much to learn about the faith you profess, young Padawan.

Quote by Grave_n_idle: 'If you say so... tell you what, why don't you educate me, by showing all the Messiah prophecies he fulfilled... and how he fulfilled them?'

Why don't you check this website out: http://www.preservedwords.com/prophecies.htm

That should answer your question...

That does not answer my question, at all.

First - I am not going to answer anything as nebulous as 'a link'.

Second - The site you link to, fails to explain the verses in question, and how the New Testament verse (in each situation) 'fulfills' the Old.

Now - I have my OWN collection of Bibles... and I've done my own research - but I want YOU to explain what convinces YOU that Jesus fulfils any given requirement for Messiah.

Theres supposed to be a fair bit of evidence that a man called Jesus existed but considerably less on whether he was the son of god or not.

"Jesus" is documented as a historical figure - by that I mean the existence of a radical reformist Rabbi who was executed is recorded in sources other than the Bible approved at Nicea.

Theres supposed to be a fair bit of evidence that a man called Jesus existed but considerably less on whether he was the son of god or not.
There's no more evidence for the one than for the other. The earliest evidence we have for both are the NT texts, and that's not good enough evidence to be certain, as has been explained already on this thread.

The only difference between the two things is that the possible existence of Jesus the man is at least feasable, whereas claims that he was a miracle-working semi-divine being belong in the realms of fantasy.

There is no need to discuss this topic

There is NO proof that Jesus existed, if there was then the world would have been told.
:headbang:

many scholars are not, in fact, debating whether he lived...every scholar i've ever heard say anything on the topic is convinced he did, the atheists just as much so as the christians...like was said earlier, the question is whether or not he was the son of god. i think if he performed miracles, then he must have been the son of god. and since all the manuscripts which are critical of jesus don't deny that he did miracles, but instead claim he did them through to power of the devil, i think it's safe to say he performed the miracles, and hence, was the son of god...rather simple if you look at it like that.

"Jesus" is documented as a historical figure - by that I mean the existence of a radical reformist Rabbi who was executed is recorded in sources other than the Bible approved at Nicea.

By all means name those sources then...

many scholars are not, in fact, debating whether he lived...every scholar i've ever heard say anything on the topic is convinced he did, the atheists just as much so as the christians...like was said earlier, the question is whether or not he was the son of god. i think if he performed miracles, then he must have been the son of god. and since all the manuscripts which are critical of jesus don't deny that he did miracles, but instead claim he did them through to power of the devil, i think it's safe to say he performed the miracles, and hence, was the son of god...rather simple if you look at it like that.
what critical manuscripts are you writing about and what year were they written in?

many scholars are not, in fact, debating whether he lived...every scholar i've ever heard say anything on the topic is convinced he did, the atheists just as much so as the christians
Then you haven't heard of enough scholars! Some are debating Jesus's existence, but, of course, most scholars have never researched the question, because it is of no real relevance to their own work.
...like was said earlier, the question is whether or not he was the son of god.
Uh, no … the question in this discussion is his existence, and that can't be dismissed simply by citing the authority of unnamed scholars.

Before there's much point in discussing whether he was the son of god, we first need to establish whether he really existed (and that question is not settled) and whether god himself exists (that question will probably never be settled).

i think if he performed miracles, then he must have been the son of god.
Why must he have been the son of god if he performed miracles? According to Christian belief, others performed miracles too, e.g. St.Paul. So either Paul et al was also the son of god (which is heresy) or it's not necessary to be the son of god in order to perform miracles.

i think it's safe to say he performed the miracles, and hence, was the son of god

By that logic, Apollonius of Tyana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana) was the son of God too. He was born to a virgin, angels heralded his birth, he healed the sick, altered the weather, chased out devils, raised the dead, died and was resurrected...and nobody worships him.

Then you haven't heard of enough scholars! Some are debating Jesus's existence, but, of course, most scholars have never researched the question, because it is of no real relevance to their own work.

I think a few of them choose not to answer the question because it's a controversial subject. I asked my Roman History Professor about the existence of Jesus and he declined to answer, thinking (I believe) that I'd be offended (which I wouldn't be).

That does not answer my question, at all.

First - I am not going to answer anything as nebulous as 'a link'.

Second - The site you link to, fails to explain the verses in question, and how the New Testament verse (in each situation) 'fulfills' the Old.

Now - I have my OWN collection of Bibles... and I've done my own research - but I want YOU to explain what convinces YOU that Jesus fulfils any given requirement for Messiah.

The reason I personally believe that Jesus fulfilled requirements for the Messiah realistically comes down to my faith in the Bible. With all the evidence supporting the Bible's historical truth, I believe the many of the prophecies in the Old Testament (a list of which can be found easily after a Google search) were fulfilled by Jesus, and it has been confirmed by many scholars that the quantity (at least 300) of the prophecies fulfilled was remarkable for a normal person. Thus, I believe Jesus had and still has a divine nature. You asked for my reason, and that is it. You may now ask why I believe the Bible at all; the reason for that is simply because I have never found any evidence refuting the Bible's historical relevance - but rather have found that much of it has been proven to be the opposite; that is is of extreme historical relevance and accuracy. Faith to many people is a foolish concept, by I personally have faith in the truth of the Bible because no other explanation of the world, life, death and so forth is anywhere near as satisfying as the Christian explanation. Buddhism, Hinduism, other Eastern Religions, Humanism, Islam, so on and so forth seems to me to have no assurance of this world, life and death. All of their founders and key thinkers have no solid backup for their claims about anything, let alone these ultimate issues; at least the Bible has extensive historical evidence to back it up - which puts me in a position to accept its claims concerning more important issues (life, deat het cetera) over any other explanation as I believe it has more right to do so.

Did Jesus ever really exist? Yes.

Was he really the son of God? Does it matter?

Now, I'm no Christian (I say that based on my lack of faith), however, most of the morals and guidelines for life that Jesus set up are excellent structures for any modern human to incorporate into their life. Sadly, I have to say that I adhere to most of Jesus' teachings more closely than do most of the "Christians" I know.

Because the key to eternal paradise has nothing to do with chilling out, letting other people be, and not being a jackass, and everything to do with believing in voodoo magic, right?

The reason I personally believe that Jesus fulfilled requirements for the Messiah realistically comes down to my faith in the Bible. With all the evidence supporting the Bible's historical truth, I believe the many of the prophecies in the Old Testament (a list of which can be found easily after a Google search) were fulfilled by Jesus, and it has been confirmed by many scholars that the quantity (at least 300) of the prophecies fulfilled was remarkable for a normal person. Thus, I believe Jesus had and still has a divine nature. You asked for my reason, and that is it. You may now ask why I believe the Bible at all; the reason for that is simply because I have never found any evidence refuting the Bible's historical relevance - but rather have found that much of it has been proven to be the opposite; that is is of extreme historical relevance and accuracy. Faith to many people is a foolish concept, by I personally have faith in the truth of the Bible because no other explanation of the world, life, death and so forth is anywhere near as satisfying as the Christian explanation. Buddhism, Hinduism, other Eastern Religions, Humanism, Islam, so on and so forth seems to me to have no assurance of this world, life and death. All of their founders and key thinkers have no solid backup for their claims about anything, let alone these ultimate issues; at least the Bible has extensive historical evidence to back it up - which puts me in a position to accept its claims concerning more important issues (life, deat het cetera) over any other explanation as I believe it has more right to do so.


Sorry, but everything youre saying, is "I believe becuase I want to believe".

You have mentioned the bible historical accuracy, wich tells me you really havent looked into it.
If anything, the bible is incredibly innacurate, and mesleading.
Particularly so, becuase of the lack of certainty of its creation.

Even the top scholars dont really know.
The closest dates that can agreed to are anywhere from 60 years after Jesus' supposed ressurection, and 200 A.D.

This means its very credibility as a historical reference, is cast in extreme doubt, as there is no way to prove supposed "eye witness" accounts.

If I say I saw Jesus rise from the dead, and 200 years later, you write about what I said...how on earth would you know what I told others two centuries ago?

Not possible.

You instead, would write what you think others would want to hear, and pretend I said them.

I think that there was a man named Jesus born in bethlamham.
I suspect there were quite a few men called Jesus (or, rather, Yahshua, in Hebrew) who were born in Bethlehem. It was a fairly common name.

Now, I'm no Christian (I say that based on my lack of faith), however, most of the morals and guidelines for life that Jesus set up are excellent structures for any modern human to incorporate into their life. Sadly, I have to say that I adhere to most of Jesus' teachings more closely than do most of the "Christians" I know.
Although I'm an Atheist, I've been told by at least one Christian that I am more Christian than most of the Christians she knows. It was well meant, but actually pretty insulting, partly because of the implication that good, caring, moral behaviour is particularly Christian. It isn't - it's human, and very little that Jesus said was new or unique.

It seems to me that most Christians follow their own instincts on morality even while crediting it to their faith. Because they're following their own inclinations, they also deliberately defy Jesus's teachings when appropriate. Just how hypocritical and absurd can it be when the leaders of a religion whose Messiah said "turn the other cheek" send their followers into violent aggressive crusades?

This debate is entirely stupid. It can be summed up like this:

There is no evidence that says that the Historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)never existed.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Historical Jesus did exist.

Why, then, is there still debate? I'm not asking you to accept that what is in the NT is all true, but the Historical Jesus is a real historical figure.

I was told in school that there was a man called Jesus due to Roman death certificates or something. But to say that therefore he is the one that did all the magical Christian things is a bit biased.
I think I remember someone saying the prophet Muhammad also existed, whether he was "the perfect man" or not is disputed the same way this arguement is.

Since there is no sound 'proof' that Jesus ever existed I wondered what your thoughts are on this subjects.
That was probably the worst researched question I've ever seen. There is piles of "proof" of a man Jesus who lived and taught all over Israel around the year 30 AD. Whether you want to believe the Bible or not, The Bible itself is a trusted historic source. The Old Testiment history of Israel has been backed up, and trusted by archaeologists. So why not the New Testiment events? The Gospels (first 4 books of the NT) were four seperate accounts written by four different people. Each one is incredibly similar to eachother and include many of the same things down to the smallest details. To not trust that these things happened is like buying four different newspapers, and each one reporting on the same story and giving the same account of the events and including very similar details, and then you saying "pssh, I bet this story isn't true."

But, if you're one of these people who won't believe the Bible no matter how obviously accurate it's historical accounts, there are still piles of evidence not included in the Bible. People back then, as people today do, kept journals and records of happenings. There are roughly (I can't remember the exact number) 300 records found in archaeological sites around Israel that report on similar happening of a man named Jesus coming into town and teaching things more powerfully than any rabi ever had. Some of them recorded very specific events, which was verified by similar accounts in other records.

There's so much evidence to back up the exsistance of the man Jesus, that it really shouldn't even be a debate on it. If you even took it to court facing all the evidence support him, there is no way the judge could deny that the evidence supports the exsistance of Jesus.

As earlier stated, the ONLY part of Jesus that can possibly be debated is whether He is who He said He was. Archaeology obviously cannot prove His miracles or His ressurection (although no body was ever found in His tomb), that's something you have to decide for yourself or experience yourself...but they CAN prove, and have proved, that He did live.

That was probably the worst researched question I've ever seen.

Your answer fits the question nicely then.

There is piles of "proof" of a man Jesus who lived and taught all over Israel around the year 30 AD.

Show us then.

Whether you want to believe the Bible or not, The Bible itself is a trusted historic source.

Trusted by whom ? *Parts* of it do indeed fit with what we know of the time through other sources, but that doesn't mean it by itself is completely accurate. Many people have their doubts about the "truth" of Genesis, the age of Methusalem, Noahs ark and so on.

But, if you're one of these people who won't believe the Bible no matter how obviously accurate it's historical accounts, there are still piles of evidence not included in the Bible.

Again: name them. And please don't mention the ones already dealt with in this topic. There are indeed quite a few historical documents about Jesus Christ written well after 100 AD, or documents talking about Christians. But what I want is a document from the time when the Biblical Jesus from Nazareth was alive (or busy dying), mentioning him specifically and written by a reputable source with no signs of tampering.

The Gospels (first 4 books of the NT) were four seperate accounts written by four different people. Each one is incredibly similar to eachother and include many of the same things down to the smallest details.

Excuse me.. have you actually read the gospels ? They contradict eachother rather heavily where things lke chronology and geneology are concerned. That doesn't matter much if you read them as a religious text, but it does make them worthless as historical documents.

People back then, as people today do, kept journals and records of happenings. There are roughly (I can't remember the exact number) 300 records found in archaeological sites around Israel that report on similar happening of a man named Jesus coming into town and teaching things more powerfully than any rabi ever had. Some of them recorded very specific events, which was verified by similar accounts in other records.

Name of these records and where we can find them ? Not that I don't trust you purely based on what you say, but this other guy I met in a pub yesterday told me about *400* texts found in Arabia containing details of the deeds of the noble Spaghetti Monsterism.

There's so much evidence to back up the exsistance of the man Jesus, that it really shouldn't even be a debate on it.

And yet everyone seems to be unable to actually *provide* this evidence, other then by some vague references. Not saying you are wrong, just that it seems a tad bit odd that we are on page 26 and still have not seen it.

This debate is entirely stupid. It can be summed up like this:

There is no evidence that says that the Historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)never existed.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Historical Jesus did exist.

Why, then, is there still debate? I'm not asking you to accept that what is in the NT is all true, but the Historical Jesus is a real historical figure.
what ample evidence is that? everything mentioned on THIS thread has been shown to be suspect. do you have some OTHER evidence that no one has brought up yet?

I was told in school that there was a man called Jesus due to Roman death certificates or something. But to say that therefore he is the one that did all the magical Christian things is a bit biased.
I think I remember someone saying the prophet Muhammad also existed, whether he was "the perfect man" or not is disputed the same way this arguement is.
if such a document existed, there would be a copy of it on the wall of every church and in the back of every bible. it would be the FIRST thing that comes up when you enter "proof of jesus' existance" into google.

That was probably the worst researched question I've ever seen. There is piles of "proof" of a man Jesus who lived and taught all over Israel around the year 30 AD. Whether you want to believe the Bible or not, The Bible itself is a trusted historic source. The Old Testiment history of Israel has been backed up, and trusted by archaeologists.

SOME of the old testament has been backed up as historically accurate to some extent. SOME of it is backed up by archaeology. most has not.


So why not the New Testiment events? The Gospels (first 4 books of the NT) were four seperate accounts written by four different people. Each one is incredibly similar to eachother and include many of the same things down to the smallest details. To not trust that these things happened is like buying four different newspapers, and each one reporting on the same story and giving the same account of the events and including very similar details, and then you saying "pssh, I bet this story isn't true."
try googling some story on googlenews. as you look down the list of hits you quickly see that most stories are exactly the same on every site. that is because while everyone has the story, they all took it from the same AP wire story. that makes it ONE source not 100.


But, if you're one of these people who won't believe the Bible no matter how obviously accurate it's historical accounts, there are still piles of evidence not included in the Bible. People back then, as people today do, kept journals and records of happenings. There are roughly (I can't remember the exact number) 300 records found in archaeological sites around Israel that report on similar happening of a man named Jesus coming into town and teaching things more powerfully than any rabi ever had. Some of them recorded very specific events, which was verified by similar accounts in other records.

There's so much evidence to back up the exsistance of the man Jesus, that it really shouldn't even be a debate on it. If you even took it to court facing all the evidence support him, there is no way the judge could deny that the evidence supports the exsistance of Jesus.

As earlier stated, the ONLY part of Jesus that can possibly be debated is whether He is who He said He was. Archaeology obviously cannot prove His miracles or His ressurection (although no body was ever found in His tomb), that's something you have to decide for yourself or experience yourself...but they CAN prove, and have proved, that He did live.
<what the squeaky rat wrote>

The reason I personally believe that Jesus fulfilled requirements for the Messiah realistically comes down to my faith in the Bible. With all the evidence supporting the Bible's historical truth, I believe the many of the prophecies in the Old Testament (a list of which can be found easily after a Google search) were fulfilled by Jesus, and it has been confirmed by many scholars that the quantity (at least 300) of the prophecies fulfilled was remarkable for a normal person. Thus, I believe Jesus had and still has a divine nature. You asked for my reason, and that is it. You may now ask why I believe the Bible at all; the reason for that is simply because I have never found any evidence refuting the Bible's historical relevance - but rather have found that much of it has been proven to be the opposite; that is is of extreme historical relevance and accuracy. Faith to many people is a foolish concept, by I personally have faith in the truth of the Bible because no other explanation of the world, life, death and so forth is anywhere near as satisfying as the Christian explanation. Buddhism, Hinduism, other Eastern Religions, Humanism, Islam, so on and so forth seems to me to have no assurance of this world, life and death. All of their founders and key thinkers have no solid backup for their claims about anything, let alone these ultimate issues; at least the Bible has extensive historical evidence to back it up - which puts me in a position to accept its claims concerning more important issues (life, deat het cetera) over any other explanation as I believe it has more right to do so.


Well... you UTTERLY avoided ANY of the content of my post...

"That does not answer my question, at all.

First - I am not going to answer anything as nebulous as 'a link'.

Second - The site you link to, fails to explain the verses in question, and how the New Testament verse (in each situation) 'fulfills' the Old.

Now - I have my OWN collection of Bibles... and I've done my own research - but I want YOU to explain what convinces YOU that Jesus fulfils any given requirement for Messiah".

First - you still failed to provide even ONE prophecy of messiah, that YOU believe Jesus fulfilled...

Second - you failed to cite the fulfillment of the prophecy, or, at least, why YOU think it is fulfilled.

I didn't 'ask for your reason' for believing what you are being told, I asked for YOUR reson for why you believe SPECIFICALLY that Jesus fulfilled EACH of the SPECIFIC prophecies that YOU believe he fulfilled.

Or... have you never even thought about that for yourself?

Which, I must admit... seems to be the case... and yet you ALSO consider yourself well enough versed in Islam, to understand the truth of it's basis? Do you not realise, then, that the Bible is PART OF the faith of Islam? What about Judaism? How do you find Judaism unsatisfying? Are you aware that their scripture is your scripture?

My final point.. since it seems you are unprepared, or not content, to actually deal with even one SINGLE prophecy that YOU claim is fulfilled in Jesus... is that 'satisfying' is not enough reason for me to believe something. Yes, I'm SURE I'd get a lovely comfy feeling from convincing myself that Jesus had existed, and was some kind of incarnation of God... but, I'm not prepared to place my faith in something with so little evidence.

im agnostic

This debate is entirely stupid. It can be summed up like this:

There is no evidence that says that the Historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)never existed.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the Historical Jesus did exist.

Why, then, is there still debate? I'm not asking you to accept that what is in the NT is all true, but the Historical Jesus is a real historical figure.

Delusions of grandeur much? I have spoken, quail foolish mortals?

Instead of your hollow rhetoric, how about something of substance? How about an independent, contemporary source that corroborates the Gospels?

In absence of that, all you have is a patronising attitude, and a high horse.

Wow I never thought that this would go on this long. Holy mother of God.

Of course Jesus exists. He's my gardener.

Sorry, but everything youre saying, is "I believe becuase I want to believe".

You have mentioned the bible historical accuracy, wich tells me you really havent looked into it.
If anything, the bible is incredibly innacurate, and mesleading.
Particularly so, becuase of the lack of certainty of its creation.

Even the top scholars dont really know.
The closest dates that can agreed to are anywhere from 60 years after Jesus' supposed ressurection, and 200 A.D.

This means its very credibility as a historical reference, is cast in extreme doubt, as there is no way to prove supposed "eye witness" accounts.

If I say I saw Jesus rise from the dead, and 200 years later, you write about what I said...how on earth would you know what I told others two centuries ago?

Not possible.

You instead, would write what you think others would want to hear, and pretend I said them.

Perhaps it is you who hasn't looked into the matter:

'One of the most famous objections to the Bible is that it is corrupt, edited, and unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted. Again, this statement only reveals a person's bias and/or lack of knowledge.

There are 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts that agree 99.5%, this insures that what we have been handed down is reliable and faithful to the original inspired autographs, which were, "GOD breathed." That .5% has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our faith, but minor issues which in no way, affect Christianities unique claims and precepts.

As you can see by the graph below, in order to dismiss the Bible as, "corrupt" they must also dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer. Our copies are far superior in number and accuracy, so as you can see, they have no footing on which to stand, we might as well dismiss all of history if we deny the Bibles accuracy as we have it.

Works Date Written Earliest Copy # Manuscripts


Aristotle's poetics 384-322 B.C 1100 A.D 49

Plato's tetralogies 427-347 B.C 900 A.D. 7

Herodotus 488-428 B.C. 900 A.D. 8

Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 20

Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 8

Homer's lliad 800 B.C. 400 b.c. 643

Caesar's Gallic war 58-50 B.C. 900 A.D. 10

Livy roman history 59 B.C.-17 A.D. 900 A.D. 20

New Testament 48-95 A.D. 200 A.D 5,500+

Old Testament 1500-200 B.C125 B.C. 1,000+'

(taken from http://www.myfortress.org/manuscriptevidence.html)

Once again, there is a magnitude of evidence for the Bible's historical accuracy; more for it than other ancient texts we consider to be reliable. Honestly, by your logic that the Bible is inaccurate, so too are all the texts listed above; amongst others. Of course I believe it because I want to - it's the same with you not believing - because you don't want to. It's as simple as that and I can't change people's attitudes; I can of course try, but I was simply asked to respond on the matter of my belief in the Bible; and I gave it to you all.

Perhaps it is you who hasn't looked into the matter:

'One of the most famous objections to the Bible is that it is corrupt, edited, and unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted. Again, this statement only reveals a person's bias and/or lack of knowledge.

There are 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts that agree 99.5%, this insures that what we have been handed down is reliable and faithful to the original inspired autographs, which were, "GOD breathed." That .5% has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our faith, but minor issues which in no way, affect Christianities unique claims and precepts.

As you can see by the graph below, in order to dismiss the Bible as, "corrupt" they must also dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer. Our copies are far superior in number and accuracy, so as you can see, they have no footing on which to stand, we might as well dismiss all of history if we deny the Bibles accuracy as we have it.

Works Date Written Earliest Copy # Manuscripts


Aristotle's poetics 384-322 B.C 1100 A.D 49

Plato's tetralogies 427-347 B.C 900 A.D. 7

Herodotus 488-428 B.C. 900 A.D. 8

Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 20

Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 8

Homer's lliad 800 B.C. 400 b.c. 643

Caesar's Gallic war 58-50 B.C. 900 A.D. 10

Livy roman history 59 B.C.-17 A.D. 900 A.D. 20

New Testament 48-95 A.D. 200 A.D 5,500+

Old Testament 1500-200 B.C125 B.C. 1,000+'

(taken from http://www.myfortress.org/manuscriptevidence.html)

Once again, there is a magnitude of evidence for the Bible's historical accuracy; more for it than other ancient texts we consider to be reliable. Honestly, by your logic that the Bible is inaccurate, so too are all the texts listed above; amongst others. Of course I believe it because I want to - it's the same with you not believing - because you don't want to. It's as simple as that and I can't change people's attitudes; I can of course try, but I was simply asked to respond on the matter of my belief in the Bible; and I gave it to you all.

Sorry... that's about the most feeble answer ever.

Evidence is weighed in numbers of CORROBORATING evidences... i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'.

Not, how many 'copies' were made from the original.

By your logic, if I spend the rest of my life photocopying the Satanic Bible, it will become somehow 'more true'?

Well... you UTTERLY avoided ANY of the content of my post...


First - you still failed to provide even ONE prophecy of messiah, that YOU believe Jesus fulfilled...

Second - you failed to cite the fulfillment of the prophecy, or, at least, why YOU think it is fulfilled.

I didn't 'ask for your reason' for believing what you are being told, I asked for YOUR reson for why you believe SPECIFICALLY that Jesus fulfilled EACH of the SPECIFIC prophecies that YOU believe he fulfilled.

Or... have you never even thought about that for yourself?

Which, I must admit... seems to be the case... and yet you ALSO consider yourself well enough versed in Islam, to understand the truth of it's basis? Do you not realise, then, that the Bible is PART OF the faith of Islam? What about Judaism? How do you find Judaism unsatisfying? Are you aware that their scripture is your scripture?

My final point.. since it seems you are unprepared, or not content, to actually deal with even one SINGLE prophecy that YOU claim is fulfilled in Jesus... is that 'satisfying' is not enough reason for me to believe something. Yes, I'm SURE I'd get a lovely comfy feeling from convincing myself that Jesus had existed, and was some kind of incarnation of God... but, I'm not prepared to place my faith in something with so little evidence.

First - I believe Jesus fulfilled all of them that were listed on the site I provided (I could copy and paste it all but people would see my reponse and not read it because of its length.)

Second- The site provides where they were first cited and then later fulfilled.

I believe SPECIFICALLY that Jesus fulfilled EACH of the SPECIFIC prophecies because, once again, I have faith in the Bible and believe its claims concerning Messianic prophecies and their fulfillments. I believe these myself; plus countless others: The Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14/Luke 1:34-35
Others would rise to life at the resurrection of the Messiah. Isaiah 26:19/Matthew 27:52-53.
I really could go on about it, but I have already given you the reason for my faith - I believe because the Bible tells us all we need to know; and I believe that Bible because, as I have said already, its extensive historical accuracy (if you believe it inaccurate, can you prove, inconclusively, that any part of it is false?).

Excuse me, but what do you mean the 'Bible is PART OF the faith of Islam'?

And, by the way, I am prepared to put faith in something that has a magnitude of evidence supporting it.

(taken from http://www.myfortress.org/manuscriptevidence.html)

Once again, there is a magnitude of evidence for the Bible's historical accuracy; more for it than other ancient texts we consider to be reliable. Honestly, by your logic that the Bible is inaccurate, so too are all the texts listed above; amongst others. Of course I believe it because I want to - it's the same with you not believing - because you don't want to. It's as simple as that and I can't change people's attitudes; I can of course try, but I was simply asked to respond on the matter of my belief in the Bible; and I gave it to you all.
i went to your linke and took this quote

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.



The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.



the interesting part of that is that it doesnt address when the parts of the new testament were written, just that after it was finished, it hasnt changed much from the earliest known copies most of which are "100 years after original manuscripts" which were 20-80 years (or more?) after jesus died. so 180-280 years after the ressurection, the bible was set in stone.

is anyone debating that?

Sorry... that's about the most feeble answer ever.

Evidence is weighed in numbers of CORROBORATING evidences... i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'.

Not, how many 'copies' were made from the original.

By your logic, if I spend the rest of my life photocopying the Satanic Bible, it will become somehow 'more true'?

So you are stating that there were originals, then?

Sorry... that's about the most feeble answer ever.

Evidence is weighed in numbers of CORROBORATING evidences... i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'.

Not, how many 'copies' were made from the original.

By your logic, if I spend the rest of my life photocopying the Satanic Bible, it will become somehow 'more true'?


Also, The New Testament is corroborated: The Four Gospels were written by four different persons ('i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'')!

Well In my world history book Jesus was mentioned quite often and was actually refered to as a real person who lived in ancient Rome. I think that Jesus is believed to have lived even by people who aren't religious. The disputed part is whether he was holy.

Also, The New Testament is corroborated: The Four Gospels were written by four different persons ('i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'')!

Which I'd still take with a grain of salt, especially as they were all written at different times. Plagiarism happens even now, and writing different takes on a story does not necessarily make that story true, though it might add mroe weight to it.

First - I believe Jesus fulfilled all of them that were listed on the site I provided (I could copy and paste it all but people would see my reponse and not read it because of its length.)

Second- The site provides where they were first cited and then later fulfilled.

I believe SPECIFICALLY that Jesus fulfilled EACH of the SPECIFIC prophecies because, once again, I have faith in the Bible and believe its claims concerning Messianic prophecies and their fulfillments. I believe these myself; plus countless others: The Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14/Luke 1:34-35
Others would rise to life at the resurrection of the Messiah. Isaiah 26:19/Matthew 27:52-53.
I really could go on about it, but I have already given you the reason for my faith - I believe because the Bible tells us all we need to know; and I believe that Bible because, as I have said already, its extensive historical accuracy (if you believe it inaccurate, can you prove, inconclusively, that any part of it is false?).

Excuse me, but what do you mean the 'Bible is PART OF the faith of Islam'?

And, by the way, I am prepared to put faith in something that has a magnitude of evidence supporting it.

First - I dount if you've even READ all of the scriptural references on that source... am I wrong?

Second - copying and pasting the SOURCE would not answer MY questions... which you have been singularly failing to do. The source lists verses, sure - but does not QUOTE the verses (and it CERTAINLY does not approach ANY of the translation issues). It also doesn't explain WHY any given Messiah prophecy is being claimed as 'fulfilled'.

Again - you argue a broadcloth argument to a specific question. I ask why YOU believe any SINGLE prophecy, and your ONLY response is a cop-out... "The Bible is ALL true" kind of response. I don't CARE what your 'faith' tells you, or how trustworthy YOU THINK the scripture IS... I want you to EXPLAIN WHY, for example, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the fire and sword?

Next point: One assumes you have ONLY read English translations... which IS unfortunately, the case for most 'Christians'. So - you cannot be expected to know that the word TRANSLATED as 'virgin' in Isaiah, means "Young Woman"... not "virgin".

Being born a virgin is NOT a requirement of Isaiah's prophecy.

I could go on to explain that, according to what the Jews believed about 'Messiah', not only is Jesus NOT the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy... but that he wouldn't WANT to be... the 'messiah' is not a saviour.

Can I prove any part of the Bible to be non factual? Are you kidding me? The book is LITTERED with inconsistency, and plain falsehoods, if one only cares to look. Straight off the top of my head - how many legs do insects have? (Scripture says four)... and what genus does a bat belong to? (Scripture says bats are birds, not mammals)


Last point - I have to ask... are you seriously asking how the Bible is an element of Islam, considering you were claiming to know something ABOUT Islam a page or so ago? One should really get to KNOW a little something about a religion, before one derides it, don't you think?

To answer the question, while the Qu'ran is the MOST holy scripture in Islam, they ALSO consider Torah and the Greek Scriptures to be holy texts in their faith.

Also, The New Testament is corroborated: The Four Gospels were written by four different persons ('i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'')!

Indeed?

Where is your evidence?

I hope you have SOMETHING more concrete than the names they are given?

It is commonly argued in biblical circles, that Matthew and Luke are copied from one single scripture... which is as-yet undiscovered... and thus merely bears the name "Q". (If you don't believe me, try Googling it).

Also - The John text differs from the details in the other three scriptures quite drastically, and was written by someone who didn't even MEET Jesus.

But - even if the four Gospels WERE indpendent of each other (which they are clearly not), that would only be a total of four pieces of evidence... no matter how MANY times each one was 'copied out'.

As it is, the fact that two of them are heavily drawn from a common scripture, that a third seems fairly tightly based on the same material - and was written (allegedly) in the same group as the first (two), and that the fourth is obviously not even a witness account, so MUST be based on the other scriptures, or on common stories of the time... means that it is questionable if even FOUR accounts exist to corroborate each other.

Well In my world history book Jesus was mentioned quite often and was actually refered to as a real person who lived in ancient Rome. I think that Jesus is believed to have lived even by people who aren't religious. The disputed part is whether he was holy.

No - ONE disputed part is whether he existed, and ANOTHER disputed part is: If he DID exist, what 'was' he?

You history book may well have referred to Jesus as a real person... but there is no independent, contemporary evidence to support such claims.

You history book, then, is a victim of cultural bias of some kind.

So you are stating that there were originals, then?

Don't be silly... it was you who was suggesting that there were original scriptures... and you stated the figures to 'prove it'.

However, since there are (clearly) not 5000-something books in the Bible, we MUST be talking about duplicates, must we not?

I accept that there were original scriptures of the Christian faith... but, I lack the hubris to attempt to assert that the canonised scripture is NECESSARILY any relation to the ORIGINAL scripture...

Further... we have no way of knowing WHAT was in the original 'scriptures', such as they were... except for what shows up in the latter scriptures. (Such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke).

http://www.myfortress.org/

Did a little research on that site...it's clearly a Christian site, hence I'm less inclined to believe it because it's biased. Besides, as others have pointed out, just because the manuscripts themselves have very little or no changes isn't proof that what's written actually happened- it's just proof that the manuscript itself has undergone little changes since it was written down (I'm not sure if the accuracy is 99.5% as the site says, since not even the most accurate of copiers will get every word right, and because not every copier would necessarily be *always* that accurate). We can thus be *fairly* certain what the Bible says is what it actually said, but it's not certain that what the Bible says is actually true- outside sources are needed for that.

Furthermore, I'd like to say that even Plato is questioned by today's scholars- I mean, how many people actually believe that when he talks about Atlantis he's describing a true country?

As you can see by the graph below, in order to dismiss the Bible as, "corrupt" they must also dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer.

You are reasoning from the precept "if some/the majority of the Bible is true, all of it must be true". There is nothing wrong with this viewpoint when you look at it from a believers perspective - but it is a VERY wrong attitude for a historian.

Fact: significant details of the Bible do not agree with what we think we know with a reasonably high degree of certainty. The problems with Genesis are all over this forum. The earth being less than 10 000 years old as some scholars claim clashes with the sciences of physics, astronomy, biology, archeology and geology (see e.g. continental drift). Methusalems age somewhat upsets our ideas on gerontology. Noahs ark with a pair of every landdwelling animalspecies baffles engineers - and the evidence for a world wide flood is "somewhat shaky". Does this mean the Bible is completelywrong ? Of course not. But it does mean you cannot trust it fully AND be a good historian.

Fact 2: none of the non-biblical extra evidence you named is from the time Jesus lived. For some reason I think a text written 1100 years after a person supposedly died detailing every aspect of his life has used some.. how shall I put it.. "poetical liberties". In any case it is evidently not a contemporary source..

Also, The New Testament is corroborated: The Four Gospels were written by four different persons ('i.e. DIFFERENT sources that corroborate the SAME 'facts'')!

Really ? Please give me an accurate genealogy of Jesus then, using both the first and third gospel.

Did a little research on that site...it's clearly a Christian site, hence I'm less inclined to believe it because it's biased. Besides, as others have pointed out, just because the manuscripts themselves have very little or no changes isn't proof that what's written actually happened- it's just proof that the manuscript itself has undergone little changes since it was written down (I'm not sure if the accuracy is 99.5% as the site says, since not even the most accurate of copiers will get every word right, and because not every copier would necessarily be *always* that accurate).
I'm sure 99.5% is a gross exaggeration. If you look at a New English Bible or Revised English Bible, most pages have footnotes, many of which are giving alternative wordings found in different early manuscripts. The NEB and REB are "official" translations sponsored by all the major British churches, but there was no one definitive manuscript from which they could work.

First - I dount if you've even READ all of the scriptural references on that source... am I wrong?

Second - copying and pasting the SOURCE would not answer MY questions... which you have been singularly failing to do. The source lists verses, sure - but does not QUOTE the verses (and it CERTAINLY does not approach ANY of the translation issues). It also doesn't explain WHY any given Messiah prophecy is being claimed as 'fulfilled'.

Again - you argue a broadcloth argument to a specific question. I ask why YOU believe any SINGLE prophecy, and your ONLY response is a cop-out... "The Bible is ALL true" kind of response. I don't CARE what your 'faith' tells you, or how trustworthy YOU THINK the scripture IS... I want you to EXPLAIN WHY, for example, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the fire and sword?

Next point: One assumes you have ONLY read English translations... which IS unfortunately, the case for most 'Christians'. So - you cannot be expected to know that the word TRANSLATED as 'virgin' in Isaiah, means "Young Woman"... not "virgin".

Being born a virgin is NOT a requirement of Isaiah's prophecy.

I could go on to explain that, according to what the Jews believed about 'Messiah', not only is Jesus NOT the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy... but that he wouldn't WANT to be... the 'messiah' is not a saviour.

Can I prove any part of the Bible to be non factual? Are you kidding me? The book is LITTERED with inconsistency, and plain falsehoods, if one only cares to look. Straight off the top of my head - how many legs do insects have? (Scripture says four)... and what genus does a bat belong to? (Scripture says bats are birds, not mammals)


Last point - I have to ask... are you seriously asking how the Bible is an element of Islam, considering you were claiming to know something ABOUT Islam a page or so ago? One should really get to KNOW a little something about a religion, before one derides it, don't you think?

To answer the question, while the Qu'ran is the MOST holy scripture in Islam, they ALSO consider Torah and the Greek Scriptures to be holy texts in their faith.

1) It is impossible to read all the sources on any subject. However, I have completed a major assignment on Messianic Prophecies and Their Fulfillments and am familiar with the Greek script of the verses provided.
2) I could have just written exactly what I copied and pasted - what was pasted was exactly what I intended to say. When I provide the scriptural references it shouldn't be too hard for you to open a Bible a read them for yourself; it hardly took away the authenticity of the verses I provided. If you read the Old Testament reference and then read the New Testament one, the verses explain themselves.
My 'Bible is ALL true' approach still stands - because I believe the entire Bible; I believe the truth behind individual Messianic fulfillments. If you have problems with translation issues, I suggest you learn Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek before you refute my argument (or at least seek parallel translations of the Bible; as I have done). If you do this, you will discover the verses I provided concerning the Messianic prophecies do not deviate significantly, or in any way remove vital passages (despite so-called 'translation issues').
Also, with the prophecy of the 'fire and sword', I suggest you research Hebrew eschatology and symbolic language. You may discover that the Holy Spirit fulfilled those in a symbolic nature.
Despite 'virgin' meaning 'young woman', it is clear that Mary was a virgin, in the English sense of the word.: 'This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, BUT BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.' (Matthew 1:18). If you claim that Isaiah's prophecy was for the Messiah to be born of a 'young woman', scholars and theologians agree that Mary would have been about 14 years of age at this time (qualifies for a 'young woman').
If the Bible is 'LITTERED with inconsistency', provide your evidence! About the insects and the bats, where are your references to Scripture to support that, and when you do find the verses, perhaps you should read them according to their context.

I do understand that Islam considers the Torah and Greek Scriptures important; I misread what you had written - my mistake. I am in fact travelling to Africa this January to a Muslim village in Malawi and as preparation have studied Islam. I have also just completed an extensive unit in Islam, so I am well versed on the subject.

Now, I have argued with you and others for pages now, and as much evidence and support I provide, you blatently refuse to accept it, and I realise that no matter what I say on the matter, you will never consider what I have said. I truly pity you that you cannot accept the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ, and all I can do now is to leave it to God and pray that you will see the light.

'The Silent Papacy' is, by the way, run by the same person as 'The Pink City'.
Sorry, I didn't realise I was signed in as that.

My 'Bible is ALL true' approach still stands - because I believe the entire Bible;

Again: that is a good attitude for a believer, but a very bad one for a historian. And this topic is intended to look at the existence of Jesus from a historians point of view...

Yes, he did. And any non-christian psychiatrist will tell you he was either a very good con artist, or had a severe messiah complex. Or both.

I'm not sure if the accuracy is 99.5% as the site says, since not even the most accurate of copiers will get every word right, and because not every copier would necessarily be *always* that accurate.

I find the 99.5% figure bizarre for another reason... being that there are DIFFERENT translations of the Bible... so there must be different INTERPRETATIONS possible of the original scripture?

If one looks at a King James Version bible, and compares it to a Youngs bible... one can find some VERY different translations of the same verses..

So - if we can't be sure NOW, which words should be translated how... HOW can we be '99.5% sure' that our scripture NOW, is accurate to the native script?

I truly pity you that you cannot accept the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ, and all I can do now is to leave it to God and pray that you will see the light.
Love the attitude.

I talked to God about this once. You know what he said? "God reveals himself in different ways to different people."

Yeah, he refers to himself in the third person. It's an interesting phenomenon, but one that is reasonable given his legionic nature.

Biblical scripture is necessary only to those who require it to perceive. If it takes a book for you to find God, then so be it. But if you can find Him and divine His knowledge without it, then it is worthless to you. Jesus was a man of unparalleled awareness of God. But regardless of his actions, he is merely God's mouthpiece.

If you can find through deafness, your discovery is no less valid than one who finds through hearing. In fact, it is all the more valuable; he who relies not on one sense can focus with more consciseness on the others. Similarly, he who finds God through neither Sight of Scripture nor Sound of Preacher has accomplished a feat of incredible greatness. And he who realises that God can be found without these senses and does so even with his ears and eyes intact has performed that same feat. For noises and images can be deceiving, but the insight of the spirit does not lie, and he who is deaf to the rantings of evil and blind to the hallucinations of darkness is best positioned to perceive the object for what it truly is.

For not all that claims to be light is not dark, and not all that claims to be true is not false.

1) It is impossible to read all the sources on any subject.


You admit defeat so readily? Just because you might never get to read ALL of them, doesn't mean you CAN'T read some of them...

What is your point, anyway?


However, I have completed a major assignment on Messianic Prophecies and Their Fulfillments and am familiar with the Greek script of the verses provided.
2) I could have just written exactly what I copied and pasted - what was pasted was exactly what I intended to say.


And yet, it wouldn't have addressed what I asked for (which I have had to repeat about 3 times now), or satisfied the purpose of the thread.

What another site has listed, has nothing to do with what another individual believes, or, more importantly, WHY they believe that.


When I provide the scriptural references it shouldn't be too hard for you to open a Bible a read them for yourself;


Don't patronise me, my friend. If you'd been around a little longer before you decided to get condescending, or if you'd read back over the threads I HAVE debated in previously, you'd have seen that I am not incapable of 'cracking open a bible'...


it hardly took away the authenticity of the verses I provided. If you read the Old Testament reference and then read the New Testament one, the verses explain themselves.


No. You BELIEVE they do... which is not the same thing. A verse in Hebrew says something. A verse in Greek says something. Then, you can either CHOOSE to believe that one supports the other, or you can CHOOSE not to believe that. One assumes you will have evidence, and reasoning behind your 'choice' either way.

And it is THAT 'reason', that 'evidence', that is the subject of debate... not how many messianic prophecies there might BE... but WHY you believe they were ALL fulfilled.

My 'Bible is ALL true' approach still stands - because I believe the entire Bible; I believe the truth behind individual Messianic fulfillments.


Blind faith is not evidence, my friend.


If you have problems with translation issues, I suggest you learn Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek before you refute my argument (or at least seek parallel translations of the Bible; as I have done).


Once again with the sanctiminious attitude? What makes you think I do NOT have some Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek? What makes you think I do not have alternate translations of the bible?

Most long-term posters can probably tell you that I argue scripture in the Greek, the Hebrew, the Aramaic... from the Vulgate translation, and from about 30 different contemporary bible versions... not all in English. Indeed, just recently, I even ventured into a thread debating Genesis (specifically, the Tree of Knoweldge) from a German Lutheran Bible...

One wonders if you can say the same thing... since you seem so willing to cry 'ignorance' on your fellow debators?


If you do this, you will discover the verses I provided concerning the Messianic prophecies do not deviate significantly, or in any way remove vital passages (despite so-called 'translation issues').
Also, with the prophecy of the 'fire and sword', I suggest you research Hebrew eschatology and symbolic language. You may discover that the Holy Spirit fulfilled those in a symbolic nature.


Again, my friend... do not patronise me. I am not unfamiliar with the multi-textural Hebrew language or Biblical symbolism.

However - you do bring me to an issue... if you are going to allow for 'symbolic' fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy... you are admitting that Jesus did not LITERALLY fulfil all of the requirements of Messiah.

Is this not, then, pleading 'special exception'?

Despite 'virgin' meaning 'young woman', it is clear that Mary was a virgin, in the English sense of the word.: 'This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, BUT BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.' (Matthew 1:18). If you claim that Isaiah's prophecy was for the Messiah to be born of a 'young woman', scholars and theologians agree that Mary would have been about 14 years of age at this time (qualifies for a 'young woman').


The point being, however, that claiming Mary was a Virgin, does NOT fulfill Messianic prophecy... since the Hebrew did not CONTAIN a Messianic prophecy that required Messiah to be 'born of a virgin'.

Indeed, if one really reads what the Hebrews believed, they fully believed 'Messiah' would be born of two mundanely human parents.

If the Bible is 'LITTERED with inconsistency', provide your evidence! About the insects and the bats, where are your references to Scripture to support that, and when you do find the verses, perhaps you should read them according to their context.


First - how can 'context' make a bird a bat? I'm not sure of the verse for that one right now... but the context for the insects (Leviticus 11:21-3) makes it clear that the Bible says insects 'go about on all four' and are 'flying creeping things, which have four feet'.

Also worthy of notice is Psalms 58:8... which says that 'snails melt'. I'd like to see the context explain that...

According to Leviticus 12:6, hares are described as ruminants... like cattle or sheep... rather than as rodents. How is this 'context'?

Regarding contradictions: Here are just a few I've found:

Jesus Grandfather on his father's side? Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob", Luke 3:23 says "Heli".

Who made David call for a census? Second Samuel 24:1-2 says "the Lord", but First Chronicles 21:1-2 says "Satan"

How many times did the cock crow, when Peter denied Jesus? Mark 14:72 says twice, but Matthew, Luke and John all say once... example: Matthew 26:74-5.

Who killed Goliath? First Samuel (verses 17:23 and 17:50) says David slew him. Second Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan slew him.

(Note: some bibles INSERT "the brother of" into Second Samuel 21:19... but it is NOT supported by the Hebrew).

Who killed Saul? First Samuel 31:4-6 says Saul killed himself. Second Samuel 1:15 says an Amalekite killed Saul.

Does god tempt men? Genesis 22:1 says 'yes', James 1:13 says 'no'.

How many horses did Solomon have? First Kings 4:26 says "40,000", Second Chronicles 9:25 says "4,000".

How many beatitudes did Jesus give on the mount? Matthew 5:3-11 says nice, but Luke 6:20-3 says only four.

What was the inscription on the cross? Matthew 27:37 says "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"; Mark 15:26 gives "The King of the Jews"; Luke 23:38 says "This is the King of the Jews"; John 19:19 says "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews".

Does every man sin? First Kings 8:46 says 'no'... Second Chronicles 6:36 says 'no'... Proverbs 20:9 says 'no'... Ecclesiastes 7:20 says 'no'... First John 1:8-10 says 'no'. And yet - First John 3:9 says "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he CANNOT sin, because he is born of God".

Who bought the Potter's field? Acts 1:18-9 says that Judas bought it. But, Matthew 27:6-8 says that the Chief Priests bought it.

Who prophecied the Potters field? Matthew 27:9-10 says that 'Jeremy' did (although there IS no 'Prophet Jeremy'... and the book of Jeremiah (the nearest version of the name) contains no such prophecy). On the other hand, there IS a prophecy that MIGHT fit, in the book of Zecariah.

Galatians 6:2 and Galatians 6:5. Paul directly contradicts himself within 4 verses.

Proverbs 26:4 and Proverbs 26:5... give contradictory instruction in SUCCESSIVE verses.

How many children did Michal have? Second Samuel 6:23 says she died with NO children... as a punishment for chastising David when he danced. But, Second Samuel 21:8 says that Michal had five sons (check the Hebrew).

Who had Adriel's children? Second Samuel 21:8 says that Michal had them, but First Samuel 18:9 implies that Merab might have.

How old was Jehoiachin when he came to the throne? Second Kings 24:8 says he was 18 years old, and that he reigned three months, but Second Chronicles 36:9 says that he was 8 years old, and reigned for three months and ten days.

Should a man marry? Solomon says 'yes' in Proverbs 18:22, but Paul says 'no' in First Corinthians 7:1.

Did Sauls' comrades hear a voice? Acts 9:7 says that they "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man", but Acts 22:9 says that they "heard not the voice of him that spake"...

Where was Jesus THREE days after the baptism? Mark 12:13 says that he went 'immediately' out 'into the wilderness', where he remained for 'forty days'. But, John 1:35 says that Jesus spent the first day recruiting Andrew and Simon Peter, spent the second day recruiting Philip and Natahaniel in Galilee, and that one the third day (John 21:11), he was at the wedding in Cana.

How many apostles were there... AFTER the resurrection, but BEFORE the ascension? First Corinthians 15:5 says there were 12. But, Matthew 27:3-5 says that Judas was already dead BEFORE the ressurection... and Acts 1:9-26 says that Matthias was not 'elected' until AFTER the ascension.

Which of Davids' sons is Jesus descended from? Matthew 1:6-7 says "Solomon", but Luke 3:31 says "Nathan".


I do understand that Islam considers the Torah and Greek Scriptures important; I misread what you had written - my mistake. I am in fact travelling to Africa this January to a Muslim village in Malawi and as preparation have studied Islam. I have also just completed an extensive unit in Islam, so I am well versed on the subject.


Not that well, apparently. But, I am willing to let it slide, since it is off-topic.


Now, I have argued with you and others for pages now, and as much evidence and support I provide, you blatently refuse to accept it, and I realise that no matter what I say on the matter, you will never consider what I have said.


No. Do not be so proud, my friend.

I have not 'blatantly refused to accept' anything... you have failed to PROVE anything. I HAVE considered what you have typed, and I have come to the conclusion that you have no solid evidence.

It is the height of hubris to assume that you are party to some truth that others are CHOOSING not to hear.

I truly pity you that you cannot accept the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ, and all I can do now is to leave it to God and pray that you will see the light.

Once again, please do not patronise, my friend. I was 'saved' before MOST of the debators on this forum were out of daipers. Perhaps it is you that is wrong?

Also - would you not be insulted, if an Atheist like myself, were to post a response that said "I truly pity that you are wasting your life serving a false god... all I can hope is that one day you get a clue, and leave blind faith in mythology behind you".... after all... that is not THAT far from your 'closing shot' in meaning.

Love the attitude.

I talked to God about this once. You know what he said? "God reveals himself in different ways to different people."

Yeah, he refers to himself in the third person. It's an interesting phenomenon, but one that is reasonable given his legionic nature.

Biblical scripture is necessary only to those who require it to perceive. If it takes a book for you to find God, then so be it. But if you can find Him and divine His knowledge without it, then it is worthless to you. Jesus was a man of unparalleled awareness of God. But regardless of his actions, he is merely God's mouthpiece.

If you can find through deafness, your discovery is no less valid than one who finds through hearing. In fact, it is all the more valuable; he who relies not on one sense can focus with more consciseness on the others. Similarly, he who finds God through neither Sight of Scripture nor Sound of Preacher has accomplished a feat of incredible greatness. And he who realises that God can be found without these senses and does so even with his ears and eyes intact has performed that same feat. For noises and images can be deceiving, but the insight of the spirit does not lie, and he who is deaf to the rantings of evil and blind to the hallucinations of darkness is best positioned to perceive the object for what it truly is.

For not all that claims to be light is not dark, and not all that claims to be true is not false.

Amen.

Perhaps this has already come up (twenty-eight pages is a lot to go through) but I thought the question was not whether Jesus existed, but whether he was divine.

Perhaps this has already come up (twenty-eight pages is a lot to go through) but I thought the question was not whether Jesus existed, but whether he was divine.

Aye - it has already come up... but it is a confusion.

IF Jesus existed... was he divine? That IS, indeed, a key question.

However, given that ALL of the evidence is either not contemporary, or was written by ONE 'cult'... how much faith can really be placed in even the assertion that Jesus even existed?

Would anyone like to know a random fact?

After posting that, Kamsaki's GoogleShots moved up as follows:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Kamsaki&word2=googlewhap

Interesting...

Would anyone like to know a random fact?

After posting that, Kamsaki's GoogleShots moved up as follows:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Kamsaki&word2=googlewhap

Interesting...

Perhaps more interesting, is that it scored "666 results"?

(oh: and, if I paired "Kamsaki" with "grave_n_idle", Kamsaki got his/her/it's ass whupped. ;))

Perhaps more interesting, is that it scored "666 results"?
That, good sir, was the point I was trying to make. <_<;

(oh: and, if I paired "Kamsaki" with "grave_n_idle", Kamsaki got his/her/it's ass whupped. ;))

*coughs* http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=grave_n_idle&word2=Secluded+Islands

::D

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 most likely did exist, but it isn't fair to blame the institution of the church on him. I mean, he was just foolin around.

*coughs* http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=grave_n_idle&word2=Secluded+Islands

::D

Well, YEAH, sure... if you are just going to pop two random-english-language-words in...

I admit defeat... Secluded Islands pwnd me like a n00b.

All of my base are belong to you.

Okay - enough off-topic-ing... I think maybe we should start a thread for this, and this alone.... :D

Aye - it has already come up... but it is a confusion.

IF Jesus existed... was he divine? That IS, indeed, a key question.

However, given that ALL of the evidence is either not contemporary, or was written by ONE 'cult'... how much faith can really be placed in even the assertion that Jesus even existed?

Can't the same be said for the existence of any ancient historical figure? The chronicles of Julius Caesar could have been manufactured with almost as much ease by the Imperial Cult of the Empire in the centuries after Caesar. The single-minded devotion that was demanded of imperial subjects would make a gradual event of creation possible.
Generally, debates regarding the historicity of Jesus are undertaken with very little knowledge of history itself. An attempted pushing of disbelief in Jesus' actual existence in actual historical studies has, I recall, been associated by a history teacher I know to the propagation of Intelligent Design. Both are generally promoted nowadays by an emotional response rather than simple reason.

As well, "I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the sort of thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse." ~ C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity

As well, "I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the sort of thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse." ~ C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity
...

*Head explodes*

Why... why... why...

Why do so many people quote this ridiculous argument over and over and over again? I'm pretty sure I've dealt with it at least once in this thread alone...

Lewis was fine for his time, but our theology changes with our rationale. As it stands, we notice many other things that Jesus could very well have been. Picking the Moral Teacher is the universally acceptable understanding; what we have is a question of What Else he was, and that question is not so easy to answer as a false triechtomy (mispelling, probably, but meh. Tired and slightly delirious).

Can't the same be said for the existence of any ancient historical figure? The chronicles of Julius Caesar could have been manufactured with almost as much ease by the Imperial Cult of the Empire in the centuries after Caesar. The single-minded devotion that was demanded of imperial subjects would make a gradual event of creation possible.
Generally, debates regarding the historicity of Jesus are undertaken with very little knowledge of history itself. An attempted pushing of disbelief in Jesus' actual existence in actual historical studies has, I recall, been associated by a history teacher I know to the propagation of Intelligent Design. Both are generally promoted nowadays by an emotional response rather than simple reason.

As well, "I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the sort of thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse." ~ C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity

It is true that ANY historical figure SHOULD be open to question. The LITERAL existence of ANY figure should always be judged according to the quality (as well as the quantity) of the evidence....

Ideally, what you want is INDEPENDENT corroboration of the existence of the figure. Since (Julius) Caesar was discussed by people FAR outside of his direct influence, one can claim a reasonable amount of independence.

Secondly, ideally, one wishes for CONTEMPORARY evidence... that is, evidence that was created AT THE SAME TIME that the 'events' in question are alleged to have taken place.

The PERFECT evidence, then - would be something that was both contemporary AND independent... and, preferably, as 'objective' as possible.

Does ANY of the evidence for Jesus (as a literal figure) meet ANY of these criteria?

Actually... no. The Gospels are close to contemporary (about half a century AFTER the events, however...so not THAT contemporary), but they are written by members of the 'Christian' movement... so they are NOT independent.

Jospehus and Tacitus are, arguably, more independent, but their accounts are MUCH later, and are based entirely on 'what they have heard'... since neither was even CLOSE to being a witness to any of the events. Indeed, it is unlikely that either even MET anyone that was a witness to any of the events.

Do I question the existence of Jesus from emotion? No, of course not. I question his existence, because there is no 'good' evidence he existed... and one always SHOULD question what one cannot be sure of.

We cannot prove or disprove Jesus' existence, because it is hypothetically possible that all the texts that reference him were forged/made up/etc.

However, the same applies to Washington, Queen Victoria, Adolf Hitler, and so on and so forth.

I still don't see any people questioning whether these individuals existed. So why question whether Jesus did?

We cannot prove or disprove Jesus' existence, because it is hypothetically possible that all the texts that reference him were forged/made up/etc.

However, the same applies to Washington, Queen Victoria, Adolf Hitler, and so on and so forth.

I still don't see any people questioning whether these individuals existed. So why question whether Jesus did?

Because there exist numerous texts from different, independant sources who lived in the time of Washington, Queen Victoria and Hitler. In the case of Hitler there also exist tv and radio recordings as well as people who were alive when he was.

The number of independent and reliable sources referencing Jesus written by people actually alive at the same time as he was supposed to be (instead of 500 years later) is very small - and according to some even equal to zero.
And the fact is that sofar noone has been able to produce a single qualifying document in this topic to prove those people wrong...

Of course, the historic documents, recordings and so on referencing Washington, Victoria and Hitler as well the testimonies of old people could all be forgeries. But there are lots of them. That there are none about Jesus does not mean Jesus did not exist, but it does make questioning it legitimate.

We cannot prove or disprove Jesus' existence, because it is hypothetically possible that all the texts that reference him were forged/made up/etc.

However, the same applies to Washington, Queen Victoria, Adolf Hitler, and so on and so forth.

I still don't see any people questioning whether these individuals existed. So why question whether Jesus did?

Well, partly because figures like Washington existed a lot MORE 'contemporarily' than Jesus did...

Partly because no one ever said that Hitler turned water into wine...

Partly because OTHER people wrote about Queen Victoria, during her life time...

It's a combination of factors.

I think the the man existed just not the myth and the legend. Kinda like Davy Crocket. Davy Crocket existed but many of the stories about him are untrue.

I think the the man existed just not the myth and the legend. Kinda like Davy Crocket. Davy Crocket existed but many of the stories about him are untrue.
which is what *I* always thought. however, it turns out that if you look at what was written first. the "god" part of the jesus story was written about WAY before any "man" part of the story got written. then much of the stories of jesus's life were cribbed either from old testament predictions or from set stories about older heros.

weird.

its as if the crazy stories of davy crocket were told 50 years before any discussion of the life of davy crocket.

its very strange. maybe its due to a different point of view of these things in ancient times, maybe its due to some other factor that we havent idenitified yet. but it sure makes ME think.

It's seems rather silly to suggest that the Christian religion could have taken root in a city (Jerusalem) where Jesus was allegedly arrested and crucified if nothing of the sort ever happened. Even sillier that so many people (e.g. Peter, James, the other disciples) would have allowed themselves to be killed because of someone they themselves knew never even existed. Given the other evidence of Christ's historical existence one would require a lot of substantial evidence to make an opposite claim. The questions that remains is whether or not Jesus said and did the things that are attributed to him. The only textual records we have for that is the Bible.

It's seems rather silly to suggest that the Christian religion could have taken root in a city (Jerusalem) where Jesus was allegedly arrested and crucified if nothing of the sort ever happened.

Why not ? Lots of people got crucified. Why should people disbelief a story about someone special suffering from the same faith ? Especially if that supposedly happened 50 years earlier.

Given the other evidence of Christ's historical existence one would require a lot of substantial evidence to make an opposite claim.

What "other evidence" ? Most of this topic is about how there seem te be no documents from that specific time speaking of the person Jesus Christ. Those that exist were written much later...

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 believe he existed as a revolutionary leader of an Essene sect around 40BC
Of course he had nothing tot do with a god or other stupidities

It's seems rather silly to suggest that the Christian religion could have taken root in a city (Jerusalem) where Jesus was allegedly arrested and crucified if nothing of the sort ever happened. Even sillier that so many people (e.g. Peter, James, the other disciples) would have allowed themselves to be killed because of someone they themselves knew never even existed. Given the other evidence of Christ's historical existence one would require a lot of substantial evidence to make an opposite claim. The questions that remains is whether or not Jesus said and did the things that are attributed to him. The only textual records we have for that is the Bible.

My friend.... you need to look more closely at the things people do...

Just for an example, I have lived in London... which is a fairly big, cosmopolitan city. (A lot like Jerusalem in it's day).

Now, while I realise the specifics of the situation are (obviously) different, one of the things I noticed while I was a Londoner is that: There is a museum, guided tours, etc... for the home of Sherlock Holmes.

You can visit it, you know? 221b Baker Street, London. Look it up, maybe.

(Do you even understand why this situation is relevent to your point?)


One ALSO has to point out that many people (especially 'other' Christians, it seems) believe that the Church of the Latter Day Saints is based on a fiction... and yet, Joseph Smith made converts in Palmyra, the Susquehanna Valley and Seneca Lake area, (Effectively, a 'prophet' who WAS known in his own town, in his own time) before the Church spead further West.

Perhaps it is ALSO worth pointing out that Joseph Smith was 'killed by his enemies', and that his last words COULD be taken as a benediction ("Oh, my God"). It is not hard to paint Joseph Smith's death as that of a martyr.


But, on with your post... what 'other evidence' do you believe you have for the life of Jesus? There is NO contemporary evidence, at all. The EARLIEST evidence is almost half a century AFTER the alleged crucifixion... and the earliest 'independent' source is even later than that, and is based entirely upon second-hand information).

Also - how do you KNOW that Jesus' followers died for their belief? Where are your records of THEIR lives, and deaths?

Do you have ANY evidence for ANY of them, from outside of Biblical sources?

Yeek

I stand so corrected. I just noticed the responce my post got up above. And I thought I had a clue on the subject.

my belief:

did jesus exist: yes

was he the true king of jews: yes, and the romans didnt like the challenge it posed to their puppet

was he the son of god: no, i dont believe so

It's seems rather silly to suggest that the Christian religion could have taken root in a city (Jerusalem) where Jesus was allegedly arrested and crucified if nothing of the sort ever happened.
Far from it - that's where it's most likely to have happened. It doesn't take much to start rumours, myths and urban legends based upon people's own surroundings, but would be rather more difficult to get people elsewhere to start them (as opposed to catching on when the myth is more fully developed).

Even sillier that so many people (e.g. Peter, James, the other disciples) would have allowed themselves to be killed because of someone they themselves knew never even existed.
Allowed themselves to be killed?! I must have missed the History class where it was explained that the Romans asked permission of their victims before executing or slaughtering them! :)

And what is the evidence for the deaths of Peter, James, et.al.? Nothing, as far as I know. It's what the Christians call "tradition", which is a euphemism for "myth".

Given the other evidence of Christ's historical existence one would require a lot of substantial evidence to make an opposite claim.
What "other evidence"? We're still waiting for anyone, anywhere, to produce a single bit of primary contemporary evidence.

Nobody is making the opposite claim - we're simply saying that the case for Jesus's existence is not proven. It is up to those who assert that he did exist to prove it.

The questions that remains is whether or not Jesus said and did the things that are attributed to him. The only textual records we have for that is the Bible.
If you take away the things that are attributed to Jesus, there's nothing left. They define the man. There were probably dozens or hundreds of young men in Palestine called Jesus, but so what?

Well, what can I say. OF COURSE Jesus existed. Actually there were many men named Jesus in that time. As it was such a common name it would be foolish to state that Jesus didn't exist.

A little more seriously thought, I have no doubt that there were many self-proclaimed prophets and messiahs. One or more of them might have even carried the name Jesus. But what does that prove? Nothing else than that there were religious lunatics in that time too.

So, as said, the argument comes to wrether there was a son of god (what ever his name was) to which I can only answer "no" due my personal beliefs.

Do continue to debate however :p

Well, what can I say. OF COURSE Jesus existed. Actually there were many men named Jesus in that time. As it was such a common name it would be foolish to state that Jesus didn't exist.
It would be foolish to claim that some people called Jesus didn't exist, but the question is whether Christians began as followers of a particular man called Jesus, who lived in the early 1st century; or whether, perhaps, their Jesus was some ethereal being (as Earl Doherty suggests), or someone who lived a hundred or more years earlier and only appeared to first century desciples in "visions" (as Prof. Alvar Ellegård suggests - http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=429) ...

And then, if we could establish his existence (which we can't), we could start asking whether he was a peace-loving rabbi, violent revolutionary, or one of the many deluded self-proclaimed prophets of the time whose later followers got lucky instead of passing quietly into the mists of history.

my belief:

did jesus exist: yes

was he the true king of jews: yes, and the romans didnt like the challenge it posed to their puppet

was he the son of god: no, i dont believe so
what in the world does it mean that he was the "true king of the jews"??? do you think he was undiscovered royalty?

my belief:

did jesus exist: yes

was he the true king of jews: yes, and the romans didnt like the challenge it posed to their puppet

was he the son of god: no, i dont believe so

If Jesus DID literally exist, and we take the Bible as an authority... then there is NO WAY he was King of the Jews.. and that is just ONE of the reasons why he failed to meet the requirements for Messianic Prophecies.

He could not be King of the Jews, because the Gospels give his lineage as being through Jeconiah (or Coniah, as some versions translate)... and the book of Jeremiah explicitly states that NO CHILD of Jeconiah's line can EVER sit on the 'Throne of David'.

Jeremiah 22:30 "Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah".

So - being a descendent of Jeconiah effectively guarantees that Jesus could NOT be the 'King of the Jews', as he was (erroneously) termed.

(Incidentally... some have argued that only Matthew's Gospel lists Jeconiah among Jesus ancestors... so the whole 'different lineage for mother and father argument could be used... HOWEVER, The Luke lineage shows Jesus as being descended from offspring of Jeconiah's line (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel)... so still no dice).

What became of Silent Papacy?

I was really hoping he/she/they/it would respond...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9999641&postcount=408

If Jesus DID literally exist, and we take the Bible as an authority... then there is NO WAY he was King of the Jews.. and that is just ONE of the reasons why he failed to meet the requirements for Messianic Prophecies.

He could not be King of the Jews, because the Gospels give his lineage as being through Jeconiah (or Coniah, as some versions translate)... and the book of Jeremiah explicitly states that NO CHILD of Jeconiah's line can EVER sit on the 'Throne of David'.

Jeremiah 22:30 "Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah".

So - being a descendent of Jeconiah effectively guarantees that Jesus could NOT be the 'King of the Jews', as he was (erroneously) termed.

(Incidentally... some have argued that only Matthew's Gospel lists Jeconiah among Jesus ancestors... so the whole 'different lineage for mother and father argument could be used... HOWEVER, The Luke lineage shows Jesus as being descended from offspring of Jeconiah's line (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel)... so still no dice).

See here

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

See here

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

An apologist who has an entire argument that basically consists of... "Well, I don't think so..."?

Hardly a refutation.

The scripture is quite explicit... no descendent of Jeconiah will ever sit on the 'Throne of David'.

Thus, Jesus, who is claimed as being of that lineage, can NOT be the legitimate king.

An apologist who has an entire argument that basically consists of... "Well, I don't think so..."?

Hardly a refutation.

The scripture is quite explicit... no descendent of Jeconiah will ever sit on the 'Throne of David'.

Thus, Jesus, who is claimed as being of that lineage, can NOT be the legitimate king.

That article does a great many things. It makes the point that firstly the Matthew Genolgy refers to Joseph's line, the Luke to Mary's. And also it shows that the point regarding Jeconiah only refered to immidate decendents.

1.The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;
2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).

You just refuse to accept them

That article does a great many things. It makes the point that firstly the Matthew Genolgy refers to Joseph's line, the Luke to Mary's. And also it shows that the point regarding Jeconiah only refered to immidate decendents.

1.The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;
2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).

You just refuse to accept them

1) The assertion that the lineages are of Joseph and Mary, respectively, is spurious, at best. It is certianly not explicit in the text. This sounds like the sort of 'theological wriggling' which many Christians will do, just to try to prove points. As though, their faith NEEDS every element to be true?

2) The phrase CAN be translated as 'in his days'. It can also be translated as ONE day. It can also mean an epoch. It is folly to try to assert that, in this ONE case, it means something which DISAGREES with the context it is in, and then use THAT 'disagreement' as a basis for a logical refutation.

3) Again, quibbling over 'for' proves nothing of the like, to what is implied. If one reads it straight, rather than in the almost reversed sense you offer, it basically says, "Jeconiah will never have much going for him, because NONE of his descendents can EVER be king". The 'for' IS important, perhaps, but you apply the causality of the clause in reverse.

4) Another quibble over the meaning of forever... but that quibble is only a disagreement if you chose to see it that way.

Example: God will never change NEEDS a 'big' never... because God is eternal... from everlasting to everlasting.

The descendents of Jeconiah needs no such definitively 'eternal' ever... because there will not always BE mortal kings.

We do the same thing in English all the time "Never, in recorded history"... "Never in my life"... "I can never go back".

5) Yet ANOTHER spurious claim. Jeremiah 22:30 ends the chapter with God cursing Jeconiah. There is no automatica continuation of the content into Jeremiah 23... indeed, it seems that the subject matter has changed to the WHOLE entirety of Israel, rather than Jeconiah's ruin.

But, even if the one DID follow the other... it doesn't say that this 'Davidic Branch' will be of Jeconiah's line. Indeed not ONLY does the passage neglect to mention WHICH 'branch' of David's house will be elevated... it isn't ABSOLUTELY certain that the Davidic Branch will even be a blood relative.

The ONLY way to make ALL the assumptions this site claims... is to have decided BEFORE HAND that those are what you are going to believe. They certainly are not explicit in the scripture.

Jesus... hmm... Jesus?
Do I have to remember all my sons?

"Did Jesus ever exist ?"
Uuhmmm... is that a serious question !? You also believe in Santa don't you ?:rolleyes:

tsssss.... christians...

If Jesus did exist, did he ever tell Joseph, "You're not my real father!"?

"Did Jesus ever exist ?"
Uuhmmm... is that a serious question !? You also believe in Santa don't you ?:rolleyes:

tsssss.... christians...

Oddly enough there is in fact more evidence for the existence of Saint Nicholas of Myra ("Santa Clause") than there is for Jesus...