NationStates Jolt Archive

Your religious drooling does not impress anyone around here. And research on Christianity only shows how primitive the faith and its supposed originator really are/were.

Way to attack the believer, not the belief. Ad hominem is not your friend.

Not buying it.

Resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and there isn't even ordinary evidence to support it, much less 'extraordinary' evidence.

The first discussion texts of Jesus are the Gospels, and they didn't appear within decades of the lleged crucifiction. As evidence for resurrection (an event which none of the scriptures actually describe as being witnessed...) they are sorely wanting.

It occurs to me that this Greenleaf fellow, may not have been entirely free of bias, himself. To the extent, that it has compromised his testimony.

Thus, its crap, I say!

What reason to we have to assume this to be the case? IF the books were really written as late as the modern minimulist would like us to believe...
The who?

Did Enkidu?

precisely. i'm not at all certain it matters. but quite probably a good many persons of both names may well have existed, each in their own historical periods.

there was a, what today we would call a movement, that began in roman occupied, or should i say colonized, palistine, at the time such a person, the charismatic one with the four litterate buddies and the woman who is almost never credited with resurecting its spirit, that did indeed take place. whether or not it was led or created by this single person with his cadray of 13 or so closest fallowers and event organizers is of course not entirely verifiable in all its fine details, not that there are all THAT many fine details given to attempt to veryfy. suffice it to say however, that it grew, as movements do, and in little more then three short centuries, effectively and defacto, brought down earth's very first (or possibly second or third, depending on what else you wish to consider one) superpower. the very one, who'se colonial puppet govenment, had so wrongfully exicuted him in the first place.

it is an interesting and fascinating story, and a parable of warning to governments of any ilk, who wrongfully abuse charismatic leaders. something of which his story was neither the first, and certainly by no means the last, example.

=^^=
.../\...

Got a lot to write, bear with me here:

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

Aside from the obvious "appeal to authority" it should be noted that historians have long held that parts of the stories concerning figures such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are *truly* made up. Just because Luke can be considered a great geographer doesn't mean that historically speaking a resurrection *did* occur.

That can only be true if we assume people like Irenaeus or Eusebius and the like are liars or already sucked into the falsehoods of NT authorship as early as the second century. Odd isn't it? It would be like saying Abraham Lincoln couldn't properly identify the difference between Thomas Jefferson writings and George Washington's writings...

Just because the stories themselves exist does not mean they happen to be true- it just means that the stories exist and the version of those stories are reliable. However, the stories fail the "contemporary evidence" and "independent verification" tests- nothing about the NT stories exists from when they actually happened, meaning it's a stretch to assume that they did, in fact, happen. Doesn't mean that they didn't (abscence of proof is not necessarily abscence of existence) but without contemporary evidence you'd be hard-pressed to prove the stories truly happened.

Define long time. The time that most of the New testament(the 13 or so epistles) were written within 35-50 years of the death of Christ. Much of the people that knew the disciples, or Christ, were still alive at the time to attest to the truth that the letters were saying. The rest of the New Testament was written within 75ish years of when Christ was crucified. Now, in historical terms, I have been told by many history professors that this type of dating is excellent to prove that the writings were very reliable, in the sense that the were written so close to the actual event, that there could be very little chance that anything was changed, thrown out, or made up. Furthermore, the writings of the early church fathers, that is in the 100 or so years after the death of Christ, quote the new testament scriptures accurately THOUSANDS of times, which further proves that the new testament was written not a LONG TIME after the events happened.

So if I photocopy a sheet of paper 1,000 times that reads "Nepal is the capital of Cuba" it must be correct, right?

And why were there Christians? How did they come about? Did one day, 12 guys come together and just make something up, then go about risking their lives talking about this thing they made up? Does that make any sense at all? No it doesn't. What makes sense, and is logical, is that there was a man they believed to be a messiah. They believed in him so much, that they decided to spread this message about him..But it was only because there was this man, that they did this.

That's still not historical proof of the NT character of "Jesus Christ"- that's proof of the existence of people who followed someone named "Christ", which is a title, not a personal name. There were many "Messiahs" floating around at the time of Jesus, meaning that "Christians" could very well apply to followers of any of those "Messiahs", not necessarily Jesus. Regardless, the sources you are referring to are not contemporary to Jesus, meaning the origin of those "Christians" could very well have come at any time prior to those writings- even as close as a year prior, if you'd like.

As for the OP: I've got to be careful here (since I got attacked for this the last time I said it since I misstated it), but I believe that, historically speaking, there had to have been a figure for which the Christian tradition came out of and got applied to- otherwise, I doubt it would have survived this long. Whether or not this figure actually performed miracles and rose from the dead is a matter of debate (and, historically speaking, unlikely), but to me, the existence of a charismatic leader to which these stories eventually got applied to is unquestioned, even if it is unsourced.

Now, as a final point, way back when James Blunt first released "Wiseman" I was convinced that part of the song was written to slam the existence of Jesus. This is what I wrote on my music review site at the time, and I'll put it here for any interested parties:

Link (http://www.geocities.com/corneriarocks/puttingitbluntly.html)

Christianity is the first to meet Blunt’s talons, with the first verse dedicated to what appears to be a bizarre theory created entirely by Blunt himself that the “Three Wise Men”- or the Magi- got high off a blunt (okay, okay, I know- I’ve got to stop making cracks based on his name) one day and decided to “create” the Jesus story. To wit:



“When they came down from Heaven (“Heaven” could be the Zagros Mountians, the mountain range the Magi needed to pass before getting into the desert area that leads to Bethlehem)
Smoked nine 'til seven (this is where they got high),
All the s**t that they could find,
But they couldn't escape from you,
Couldn't be free of you (i.e., the drugs),
And now they know there's no way out (as the story’s spread too far for it to be contained),
And they're really sorry now for what they've done,
They were three Wise Men just trying to have some fun.”



The first two lines of the first verse are a little tricky, however, since it talks about a girl who wants to know “what the Wisemen said”- presumably, this could be extrapolated in that the girl is in fact “Mary Jane”, a common synonym for marijuana. This interpretation would mean that this was a revelation that Blunt got when he was himself high (and let’s not doubt for a second that Blunt couldn’t have once used marijuana- he called one of his songs “High” and proclaimed in “You’re Beautiful” that “I was f***ing high”). Presumably then, the chorus could be about how Blunt “gave up” marijuana (“Look who’s alone now”), and the “semi by the sea” may be an allusion to Israel, which is itself a coastal country and is wracked by constant internal warfare (the “semi”). Personally, though, I’m choosing not to read too much into the chorus though, since the exact same lines will be used later, and here the chorus is kind of sketchy.

Now, no one else picked up on this, so it is probably just me, although I really think "Wiseman" couldn't be more clear here in its intent, anyway.

Way to attack the believer, not the belief. Ad hominem is not your friend.If the belief is shit then the believer is as well. No need to make the distinction.

If the belief is shit then the believer is as well. No need to make the distinction.

Nah. Dont hate the player, hate the game.

If the belief is shit then the believer is as well. No need to make the distinction.

that would presume no one is ever gullable and gullability is never innocent.

clearly you are refering to some other species then the humans of earth.

=^^=
.../\...

that would presume no one is ever gullable and gullability is never innocent.

clearly you are refering to some other species then the humans of earth.

=^^=
.../\...this is not about gullibility, this is about ignorance.

Nah. Dont hate the player, hate the game.well, if the player isn't smart enough to quit the game...

If the belief is shit then the believer is as well. No need to make the distinction.
What an absolutely ridiculous and stuck-up position to hold.

Perhaps if we were omnipotent beings your statement would stand, but as we quite clearly aren't, I'd get down off of that high, high horse.

this is not about gullibility, this is about ignorance.

well, if the player isn't smart enough to quit the game...

Look, no one on this forum is more staunch atheist than I am, but even I know better than to think all christians are stupid for believing.
Einstein was a theist.

Its not about smart, its about need.
Some people have an inherent need to believe. It provides comfort to them to think that theres a "big brother" watching out for them.

Look, no one on this forum is more staunch atheist than I am, but even I know better than to think all christians are stupid for believing.
Einstein was a theist.

Its not about smart, its about need.
Some people have an inherent need to believe. It provides comfort to them to think that theres a "big brother" watching out for them.Why the fuck would anybody have a need to believe? Replacing reason by faith is the exact opposite of smart.

Why the fuck would anybody have a need to believe? Replacing reason by faith is the exact opposite of smart.

The same way people need to be loved.

The same way monkeys need to be groomed socially by other monkeys.
It could even be a social disorder.

Point is, some people may have a biochemical, and subconcious need for religion.
Obviously, some dont.

Look, no one on this forum is more staunch atheist than I am, but even I know better than to think all christians are stupid for believing.
Einstein was a theist.

Its not about smart, its about need.
Some people have an inherent need to believe. It provides comfort to them to think that theres a "big brother" watching out for them.

its also about ambient social coersion, familiarity, and going along to get along,
espeically with something that might otherwise sound mostly harmless,
and or, in many cases, what one's survival might depend upon.

not so much what the individual actually believes as what they must go along with allowing those arround them to believe that they believe.

there are many many places in this world, where if one pokes one's head up as a nonfallower of the locally dominant belief, whatever that belief might happen to be, they stand an excellent chance of getting it chopped off.

so i for one, would not be in any big hurry to condem someone else for not being willing to be martyred for using their own whatever good sense they might have, about what to choose to appear to believe in.

what someone does or does not go along with in their own heart is a different matter, but that's still between themselves and whatever they do or do not believe in.

one wonders, just out of idle speculation, if beleriand were faced with the choice of being martyred for their stand on the beliefs of others, or pretending to go along with them in order to survive, which road would be taken?

certainly people of all faiths and lacks of them HAVE allowed themselves to be martyred for the sakes of them, but would someone making such a statement be likely among them, when staring into the face of their exicutioner's ax?

=^^=
.../\...

its also about ambient social coersion, familiarity, and going along to get along,
espeically with something that might otherwise sound mostly harmless,
and or, in many cases, what one's survival might depend upon.



Very true.

I think for many its the sense of community they recieve. Church groups tend to be a tightly knit bunch. One dies, and flowers and casseroles come out of the woodwork.
I think for many, they appreciate the sense of belonging, and the religion is secondary.

The same way people need to be loved.Being loved is not at all comparable to having a belief. And people do not need to be loved.

Point is, some people may have a biochemical, and subconscious need for religion.Biochemical? Then someone could come up with a cure. Cool.

I think Jesus definately existed...though I dont believe he was the son of god

I believe he was a very influential raconteur who stirred up trouble for the romans and was therefore executed for his views...I suppose you could call him an olden day Malcolm X

I think Jesus definately existed...though I dont believe he was the son of god

I believe he was a very influential raconteur who stirred up trouble for the romans and was therefore executed for his views...I suppose you could call him an olden day Malcolm XA black supremacist?

A black supremacist?

Nah...just a man who thought outside the box...like an influential politician of his day...but you are right about one thing...Jesus wouldnt have been white which is a popular misconception amongst christians...he was born in the middle east for gods sake (no pun intended)

Why the fuck would anybody have a need to believe? Replacing reason by faith is the exact opposite of smart.

Genetics and brain mechanics.

A belief system is obviously a way to improve a social unity of a group.

Believers can't easily help themselves when there's a postive feedback system hardwired into their brains which they can attribute as divine: The experience is absolutely true for them, even if misattributed according to others.

Even atheists and agnostics can achieve something similar through meditation, introspection and, erm, consciousness affecting substances.

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian, Flavius Josephus.

Why the fuck would anybody have a need to believe? Replacing reason by faith is the exact opposite of smart.

Reason/faith aren't mutually exclusive.

I believe that the air outside my building is breathable, I have reasoned this because it was breathable this morning.

I have faith in God, because I have seen evidence that to me proves he exists. I have reasoned that he exists, and so I believe.

I believe that you are an offensive moron. I have reached that belief through the evidence quoted on this message board.

Reason/faith aren't mutually exclusive.
I have faith in God, because I have seen evidence that to me proves he exists. I have reasoned that he exists, and so I believe.

Id go to the press with this...its the scoop of the century...proof that god exists!

Like Roswell...I question the authenticity of your evidence

I have faith in God, because I have seen evidence that to me proves he exists.Show me the evidence.

A few points those who argue against the existence of a god or God on scientific grounds have a solid argument. The reason is that the scientific method is conducted to eliminate all 'known' false information that may be correlated to a phenomena but are not causal. Since this method can not prove that an go or God do not exist it assumes they do not.
The old adage, for those who believe no proof is needed for those who do not believe there is no proof. Ok so I modified the last part.
I remember the film, "The last Temptation of Christ" at one point in the film the deceived Jesus hears Paul preaching and inquires, Paul tells Jesus that he speaks of the one called Christ, Jesus knowing this was him is a bit confused and argues with Paul. In the end Paul says something, which many have in some way repeated here. It matters not whether this man was Jesus, because the idea of Jesus was out there and the idea of Jesus is more powerful than any man.

Merry Christmas...

Did you have any pertinent details that can't be true, in mind? I'm not sure if I agree with the premise or not.

I would also ask her the same question. It should be interesting?

consider the few facts about jesus' life that could be verified. obviously there would be no independant record of him walking on water, for example, but there are some few incidents mentioned that should be part of the historical record.


leaving out things that can obviously not be verified:

the romans ordered a census of the whole world. mary and joseph were required by the romans to go to bethlehem to register for the census. 3 "magi" from the east followed a star to find the baby. they told king herod why they were there and he ordered the death of every boy under the age of 2. on the day jesus died there was a simultaneous eclipse and earthquake in jerusalem. the earthquake was so severe that it cracked open graves and the dead left their graves and walked into the city.


there was no roman census of the whole world and the romans didnt give a damn what jewish line anyone came from. there are no ancient writings by "wise men" of any stripe who undertook a journey to find a jewish king. (they being the only ones in the story that would be expected to be literate or important enough that someone else might jot down a record of their deeds). there was no star, there was no grouping of planets that might qualify as a star for story purposes that came at the proper time. you cant follow a star. stars dont shine on specific locations. herod made no such order. there was no earthquake/eclipse that happened at the same time. there was no zombie invasion of jerusalem (the only detail that would be freaky enough to have a chance to be jotted down by a literate person)

bits and pieces can be grabbed but they dont match up to the necessary timeline of other pieces. the story doesnt hold together.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

thats an interesting quote but what is he referring to? what part of luke is so historical that it puts other ancient histories to shame?

and, if the author of luke was so historically accurate, what of his story of jesus then makes it necessary to believe that jesus existed?

There actually is more evidence that Jesus exsisted than George Washington did. You can read the leading historians of that time period. I can't find my references right now, but there is a historian of that time who in his writings documents a teacher by the name of Jesus with a large following who was crucified etc. I will try to find that name and repost. Even so, most other religions will also admit to the exsistence of Jesus. The question becomes the belief in His teachings and His deity. God leaves that responsibility to each person to accept or not accept and then to deal with the consquences of. The question was did he exsist and the answer is yes.

The second question does it matter is one of great debate for many centuries. I myself as a born again Christian, (one who follows the teachings of Christ) believe it matters greatly. The answer to this question is personal though. God gave each person the free will to decide to believe in God and Christ. According to Christ's words the belief or disbelief has eternal consequences and deserves serious consideration before a decision is made one way or the other. My hope and God's is that you would choose to believe. Telegram me if you want more information about that decision.

Sounds more than interesting. Tell me more. A source (preferably of medical kind) describing this actually happening would be appreciated.

mary took drugs and someone climbed n her window and said he wanted to make her pregnant.:eek:

this is not the truth!:rolleyes:

i was joking so dont get all :upyours::mad::gundge: on me

impossible that gabriel was just a randomer wanting some :fluffle:

impossible for mary to get :D on drugs.

i would like more info plz.:cool:

just because i want god to :(:mp5:

Genetics and brain mechanics.



I sense a Richard Dawkins fan here, yes?

(But if you haven't read them already, you'd probably love his books.)

lets all ask wikipedia


Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions. He is also called Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One," which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah". The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH rescues".

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.[3][4] Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]

Christian views of Jesus (see also Christology) center on the belief that Jesus is the Messiah whose coming was promised in the Old Testament and that he was resurrected after his crucifixion. Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is God incarnate, who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God. Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity (see below). Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming.

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, a worker of miracles, and the Messiah. However, Muslims do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus' crucifixion was a divine illusion and that he ascended bodily to heaven. Most Muslims also believe that he will return to the earth in the company of the Mahdi once the earth has become full of sin and injustice at the time of the arrival of Islam's Antichrist-like Dajjal.

but this is all :upyours:ing rubbish probably.

Do you mean this Barbara Thiering? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering)

Looks like it

"Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique," without substance."

It seems it didn't go well with the scholars. Can't please them all, I guess...

True, but that would only be some scholars and experts. You cant please them all, but I've met some (admitedly not field leaders, but still) who are happy with the theory. One actually recomended the book to me. There are experts who believe the bible is complete fact and some who say Jesus never existed (hence this conversation). If the entire field, or even most of it, suddenly agrees on anything it would be a miracle, forget the walking on water thing.

I recomend reading it. It is controversial, but judge it yourslef if you have the time. I personally cant talk about the justification of the pesher code, but its not that abstract and it explains a lot.

THe bit on the crusafixion is very neat for example. I may discuss later.

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian, Flavius Josephus.

From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

"Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen." (Remsberg, Ibid.)
1. But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.
The first "Jesus Passage" is discussed below. The paragraph on Jesus was added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

How can the entire world calendar be predicated on the life and death of an allegedly fictional person? Where do you think B.C. and A.D. come from? But today, we are forced to use the politically correct C.E. (common era) to appease those who doubt Jesus' existence.

Others have already pointed out how silly this 'argument' is, so I'll restrict myself to pointing out that the Bible most certainly does NOT say Jesus was born in 1 AD: it claims either 6AD (Quirinius's census in Luke) or before 4BC (before the death of King Herod in Matthew). The two are not reconcilable and neither of them fits a 1AD birth.

I know that historians have been debating Jesus' existence for a long time but I'm sure that he existed because if he didn't then he would have had no followers. People at some point had to have seen the guy speak, write, act, etc. or else they would have had no basis to form the religion around him and it would been formed around Peter, maybe. Maybe some other apostle, I don't know.

Nice post. I'm not a Mythicist myself, but as I understand it they argue that the earliest Christians believed in Jesus as a spiritual entity with the man being tacked on later.

Others have already pointed out how silly this 'argument' is, so I'll restrict myself to pointing out that the Bible most certainly does NOT say Jesus was born in 1 AD: it claims either 6AD (Quirinius's census in Luke) or before 4BC (before the death of King Herod in Matthew). The two are not reconcilable and neither of them fits a 1AD birth.


wrong.

either 6bc or 8ad because a census was every 14 years and the closest recorded one to 0 is 6bc.

sorry for that correction;)

Its not about smart, its about need.
Some people have an inherent need to believe. It provides comfort to them to think that theres a "big brother" watching out for them.
Some might suggest that the atheist has an even greater "inherent need" to disbelieve, than the Christian has to believe for obvious reasons.

Some might suggest that the atheist has an even greater "inherent need" to disbelieve, than the Christian has to believe for obvious reasons.

Why? In the absence of proof as to God's existence, I see atheism as a completely natural viewpoint.

there was no roman census of the whole world and the romans didnt give a damn what jewish line anyone came from.
Contemporary census were done of Roman citizens (apparently ever 14 years in Egypt as well), taking a census of Judea was done more than once. Wiki Census says: Rome conducted censuses to determine taxes (see Censor). The word 'census' origins in fact from ancient Rome, coming from the Latin word 'censere', meaning ‘estimate’. The Roman census was the most developed of any recorded in the ancient world and it played a crucial role in the administration of the Roman Empire. The Roman census was carried out every five years. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.

Ancient Roman Census of Egyptian property shows who lives there, who’s home and who’s away, they very much do seem to care which household a person came from.

there are no ancient writings by "wise men" of any stripe who undertook a journey to find a jewish king. (they being the only ones in the story that would be expected to be literate or important enough that someone else might jot down a record of their deeds).
Caravans traveled from the east through Judea all the time, from as far away as Iran and possibly China from time to time. However, I’m under the impression that the 3 wise men were from Arabia myself. The gifts they brought are products that exist there. Arabia records from that timeframe are next to nil, entire cities and cultures are rediscovered via archaeology in the region between Mesopotamia an Judea, it would be no small wonder that we have lost records of three wise men who might have lived there, no matter how rich and powerful or wise and cultured they may have been.
there was no star, there was no grouping of planets that might qualify as a star for story purposes that came at the proper time. you cant follow a star. stars dont shine on specific locations.
Interestingly enough… I just so happen to have read a recent article about this very topic link http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RELIGION_TODAY?SITE=ORROS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Some points of contention with your statement that there was no object…
~As a theoretical astrophysicist, Grant Mathews had hoped the answer would be spectacular - something like a supernova. But two years of research have led him to a more ordinary conclusion. The heavenly sign around the time of the birth of Jesus Christ was likely an unusual alignment of planets, the sun and the moon.
~"In principle, we can see any star that was ever made from the beginning of time if we knew where to look. So the question is, could we find a star that could be a good candidate for what showed up then?" he said.
Mathews found several possibilities. He began by posing three questions he would ask when trying to find the answer to any astronomical event: When did it occur? What were its characteristics? Did anyone else see it?
herod made no such order. I assume you mean that he made no order to kill the infant boys in Bethlehem? If so, what do you base that statement on? If Bethlehem was a small town at the time, and we are talking about killing all the boys 2 or younger, how many could that have been? Six, Two dozen? It’s not like it would have been out of Herod’s character to do such a thing, Herod's is said to have executed his own two sons AND his wife because he believed they posed a threat to his rule because they were Jewish heritage and he was not. How nonchalant would he have been to order the killing of the infant boys of a small village of peasants? I see no reason to assume the event didn’t take place.
there was no earthquake/eclipse that happened at the same time. Because you said earthquake with the eclipse, I assume the you mean the darkness that fell over the whole land, at the time of Jesus crucifixion and not the eclipse that is used for the timing of Herod’s death. I agree that the eclipse argument is easy to dismiss, but the scripture doesn’t say there was an eclipse, it says a darkness fell over all the land at the sixth hour and lasted until the ninth hour, three hours is too long for an eclipse anyway, it wouldn’t explain the darkness even if there was an eclipse at the time of Jesus death. Something other than an eclipse caused the darkness or it didn’t happen, but just because it wasn’t an eclipse doesn’t prove the darkness didn’t occur. As to the earthquake, how do we ascertain that there was no tremor in Jerusalem at the time? That’s a pretty bold assertion, I can’t imagine how someone could back it up beyond a reasonable doubt, and especially so when people still dispute what year Jesus death occurred it.


there was no zombie invasion of jerusalem (the only detail that would be freaky enough to have a chance to be jotted down by a literate person)
We may find the story incredulous, we may find the story unexplainable, we may even dispute what this story says (did they rise when Jesus rose or when Jesus died?). But the main problem with not believing it is that that no one argues that this wasn’t an original part of Matthew (which means we can trust that it was in the original version) and we don’t have a motive for ‘making it up.’ Why put it in the story at all if you are making it up? It’s going to confound your readers and serves no real theological lesson for them.

Contemporary census were done of Roman citizens (apparently ever 14 years in Egypt as well), taking a census of Judea was done more than once. Wiki Census says: Rome conducted censuses to determine taxes (see Censor). The word 'census' origins in fact from ancient Rome, coming from the Latin word 'censere', meaning ‘estimate’. The Roman census was the most developed of any recorded in the ancient world and it played a crucial role in the administration of the Roman Empire. The Roman census was carried out every five years. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.

Then the system must have been changed (like a lot of things) after the Republic died. In republican times, only the censor could call a census, and iirc censors were only elected at irregular and infrequent intervals.

Nice post. I'm not a Mythicist myself, but as I understand it they argue that the earliest Christians believed in Jesus as a spiritual entity with the man being tacked on later.

i have read (but not checked for myself) that st paul NEVER mentions jesus by name and that he never mentions any incident from jesus' life (except for the crucifiction and ressurection) or quotes any sayings of jesus that occur in the gospels.

i am hoping that one of our bible experts can tell me if thats true or not and if not, give me some bible verses from the epistles that call jesus by name.

usually there is some truth in myth...so its entirely plausible that he lived...but son of god...no...I dont think so...a prophet? probable...look at the rastafarians and their worship of the king of Ethiopia...he's a mortal man yet revered by a certain culture...the similarities are too good to pass ;-)

Did you have any pertinent details that can't be true, in mind? I'm not sure if I agree with the premise or not.

The two nativity stories:

Luke says that the Annunciation took place during the reign of Herod, with the actual birth being after Quirinius called a census of the province. If we give Luke the benefit of the doubt and assume he was refering to Archelaus (son of Herod the Great and commonly called Herod himself) then this would place Jesus' birth in 6AD, the year Archelaus was dethroned as ethnarch and Quirinius was appointed governor (if we don't give Luke the benefit of the doubt then Mary went through a ten year pregnancy :eek:).

For Matthew's account to be true, Herod must have been alive after the birth in order to order the Massacre of the Innocents (this has to be the Herod, Herod the Great, as Matthew 2:18-22 explicitly refers to Archelaus ruling after Herod's death and the family's return to Judea). Herod died in 4BC so he was more than a little mouldy by the time Quirinius was in charge, so barring vampirism he can't have ordered any massacres.

We therefore have a ten year discrepency between the two accounts and they can't both be true. What do I win? :p

Then the system must have been changed (like a lot of things) after the Republic died. In republican times, only the censor could call a census, and iirc censors were only elected at irregular and infrequent intervals.

The last 'censor' person was concluded in 22BC.

wrong.

either 6bc or 8ad because a census was every 14 years and the closest recorded one to 0 is 6bc.

sorry for that correction;)

Think you can out-pedant me do you. :p

The 4BC date is derived from the death of Herod rather than a census. Judaea was a client kingdom and as such governed its own affairs without Roman interference; as far as I know the 6AD census was the first one in the region, marking as it did the beginning of direct Roman rule with the departure of Archelaus.

Contemporary census were done of Roman citizens (apparently ever 14 years in Egypt as well), taking a census of Judea was done more than once. Wiki Census says: Rome conducted censuses to determine taxes (see Censor). The word 'census' origins in fact from ancient Rome, coming from the Latin word 'censere', meaning ‘estimate’. The Roman census was the most developed of any recorded in the ancient world and it played a crucial role in the administration of the Roman Empire. The Roman census was carried out every five years. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.

Ancient Roman Census of Egyptian property shows who lives there, who’s home and who’s away, they very much do seem to care which household a person came from.


Caravans traveled from the east through Judea all the time, from as far away as Iran and possibly China from time to time. However, I’m under the impression that the 3 wise men were from Arabia myself. The gifts they brought are products that exist there. Arabia records from that timeframe are next to nil, entire cities and cultures are rediscovered via archaeology in the region between Mesopotamia an Judea, it would be no small wonder that we have lost records of three wise men who might have lived there, no matter how rich and powerful or wise and cultured they may have been.

Interestingly enough… I just so happen to have read a recent article about this very topic link http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RELIGION_TODAY?SITE=ORROS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Some points of contention with your statement that there was no object…
~As a theoretical astrophysicist, Grant Mathews had hoped the answer would be spectacular - something like a supernova. But two years of research have led him to a more ordinary conclusion. The heavenly sign around the time of the birth of Jesus Christ was likely an unusual alignment of planets, the sun and the moon.
~"In principle, we can see any star that was ever made from the beginning of time if we knew where to look. So the question is, could we find a star that could be a good candidate for what showed up then?" he said.
Mathews found several possibilities. He began by posing three questions he would ask when trying to find the answer to any astronomical event: When did it occur? What were its characteristics? Did anyone else see it?
I assume you mean that he made no order to kill the infant boys in Bethlehem? If so, what do you base that statement on? If Bethlehem was a small town at the time, and we are talking about killing all the boys 2 or younger, how many could that have been? Six, Two dozen? It’s not like it would have been out of Herod’s character to do such a thing, Herod's is said to have executed his own two sons AND his wife because he believed they posed a threat to his rule because they were Jewish heritage and he was not. How nonchalant would he have been to order the killing of the infant boys of a small village of peasants? I see no reason to assume the event didn’t take place.
Because you said earthquake with the eclipse, I assume the you mean the darkness that fell over the whole land, at the time of Jesus crucifixion and not the eclipse that is used for the timing of Herod’s death. I agree that the eclipse argument is easy to dismiss, but the scripture doesn’t say there was an eclipse, it says a darkness fell over all the land at the sixth hour and lasted until the ninth hour, three hours is too long for an eclipse anyway, it wouldn’t explain the darkness even if there was an eclipse at the time of Jesus death. Something other than an eclipse caused the darkness or it didn’t happen, but just because it wasn’t an eclipse doesn’t prove the darkness didn’t occur. As to the earthquake, how do we ascertain that there was no tremor in Jerusalem at the time? That’s a pretty bold assertion, I can’t imagine how someone could back it up beyond a reasonable doubt, and especially so when people still dispute what year Jesus death occurred it.


We may find the story incredulous, we may find the story unexplainable, we may even dispute what this story says (did they rise when Jesus rose or when Jesus died?). But the main problem with not believing it is that that no one argues that this wasn’t an original part of Matthew (which means we can trust that it was in the original version) and we don’t have a motive for ‘making it up.’ Why put it in the story at all if you are making it up? It’s going to confound your readers and serves no real theological lesson for them.

all very interesting but it still shows that there is NO outside verifyable proof of anything in the story of jesus that could possibly be verified.

sure there are reasons why stuff might not have been written down. but they still werent.

there still was no census (at the right time). the romans still didnt give a damn what jewish line anyone came from. there is still no record that herod order the murder of babies. did you SAY what "star" (and i did note that planets could qualify) fit the correct period? was there an earthquake in jerusalem at the right time? and if "darkness fell" for several hours that was NOT an eclipse, im pretty sure someone would have jotted it down. stormclouds really wouldnt qualify. didnt SOMEONE in jerusalem notice dead guys walking the streets? thats the kind of event that makes "the news" in an area where there are some literate people.

i have read (but not checked for myself) that st paul NEVER mentions jesus by name and that he never mentions any incident from jesus' life (except for the crucifiction and ressurection) or quotes any sayings of jesus that occur in the gospels.

i am hoping that one of our bible experts can tell me if thats true or not and if not, give me some bible verses from the epistles that call jesus by name.

I can't think of any direct quotes off the top of my head, but I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. :D

The two nativity stories:

Luke says that the Annunciation took place during the reign of Herod, with the actual birth being after Quirinius called a census of the province. If we give Luke the benefit of the doubt and assume he was refering to Archelaus (son of Herod the Great and commonly called Herod himself) then this would place Jesus' birth in 6AD, the year Archelaus was dethroned as ethnarch and Quirinius was appointed governor (if we don't give Luke the benefit of the doubt then Mary went through a ten year pregnancy :eek:).

For Matthew's account to be true, Herod must have been alive after the birth in order to order the Massacre of the Innocents (this has to be the Herod, Herod the Great, as Matthew 2:18-22 explicitly refers to Archelaus ruling after Herod's death and the family's return to Judea). Herod died in 4BC so he was more than a little mouldy by the time Quirinius was in charge, so barring vampirism he can't have ordered any massacres.

We therefore have a ten year discrepency between the two accounts and they can't both be true. What do I win? :p

as i said, 6bc or 8ad, not 6ad.

The two nativity stories:

Luke says that the Annunciation took place during the reign of Herod, with the actual birth being after Quirinius called a census of the province. If we give Luke the benefit of the doubt and assume he was refering to Archelaus (son of Herod the Great and commonly called Herod himself) then this would place Jesus' birth in 6AD, the year Archelaus was dethroned as ethnarch and Quirinius was appointed governor (if we don't give Luke the benefit of the doubt then Mary went through a ten year pregnancy :eek:).

For Matthew's account to be true, Herod must have been alive after the birth in order to order the Massacre of the Innocents (this has to be the Herod, Herod the Great, as Matthew 2:18-22 explicitly refers to Archelaus ruling after Herod's death and the family's return to Judea). Herod died in 4BC so he was more than a little mouldy by the time Quirinius was in charge, so barring vampirism he can't have ordered any massacres.

We therefore have a ten year discrepency between the two accounts and they can't both be true. What do I win? :p

Actually most theories that I've read assume Luke made a mistake and Matthew is correct.

Some create elaborate schemes to make both still be correct, and others say none of it ever happened anyway... I tend to keep an open mind about it, I 'know' that we don't know everything about it, maybe never will, but I keep hoping that new archeaolgical discoveries will help us figure out what did happen.

The last 'censor' person was concluded in 22BC.

Which doesn't help us to date the 'Jesus' census, if it ever happened, since the republic was gone in all but name by that point. Unless you know when the five year interval system began?

of course he was real. Science has proved that Jesus really existed. The only thing it can't prove is that he was God's son. The way Christians take Jesus is their own, but even the jewish people, for example, who don't take him as sacred, believe he was REAL.

Saying Jesus Christ exists is like saying that God has to exist because someone had to have told Moses to rescue the Israelites and collect the stone tablets; SOMEONE must have made the stone tablets, etc. There is no proof of it. Apart from the words of a religion and whatever whackjob that decided to write the Bible all those years ago. And that still isn't proof. None of these people have ever seen Jesus or God, let alone actually talked to them.

And some of you are saying that God and Jesus are the most kind-hearted, er, people ever to have existed. That's bollocks. Because they never existed. Proof of this: There is no concrete proof that they DID exist, or were related to each other. Good night.

I'm getting a martini...

of course he was real. Science has proved that Jesus really existed. The only thing it can't prove is that he was God's son. The way Christians take Jesus is their own, but even the jewish people, for example, who don't take him as sacred, believe he was REAL.

well point us to the scientific report and we can be done with this thread.

Throwing this out there for consideration: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

1. As your source says, Greenlead was a lawyer rather than a historian and the two disciplines have very different methodologies. If you don't believe me, try going into court and saying "M'lud, I would like to call as my first witness, an anonymous dead guy from several millenia ago", see how far that gets you...

2. If you've read Testimony of the Four Evangelists (which I suspect you haven't) you'll find that Greenleaf didn't seem to require much evidence at all when it came to Biblical claims. It's actually quite an amusing read, because he begins by declaring

In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction.

before going on to say just a couple of paragraphs later:

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true.

So despite his claims to be open minded, he's taking the existence of God and the truth of Christianity as a given? Yep, this guy's objective...

Greanleaf then goes on to demonstrate his credulity and indifference towards actual evidence by rambling on at great length about the Creation (yes, he is a Creationist), the Flood and the Tanach in general before he gets started on any pretence of scholarship.

If anybody feels like consigning a few million of their braincells to clueless oblivion and can't afford sufficient alcohol, the full text can be read for free here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html), just don't say I didn't warn you.

Saying Jesus Christ exists is like saying that God has to exist because someone had to have told Moses to rescue the Israelites and collect the stone tablets; SOMEONE must have made the stone tablets, etc. There is no proof of it. Apart from the words of a religion and whatever whackjob that decided to write the Bible all those years ago. And that still isn't proof. None of these people have ever seen Jesus or God, let alone actually talked to them.

And some of you are saying that God and Jesus are the most kind-hearted, er, people ever to have existed. That's bollocks. Because they never existed. Proof of this: There is no concrete proof that they DID exist, or were related to each other. Good night.

I'm getting a martini...

what time zone are you in that a martini is appropriate? its 11am friday here. not a good time of day for major alcohol consumption.

well point us to the scientific report and we can be done with this thread.Except there hasn't been one. Good Cap has been articulated into believing that there has been one when, in fact there was none such.

what time zone are you in that a martini is appropriate? its 11am friday here. not a good time of day for major alcohol consumption. China? Philippines? Japan?

China? Philippines? Japan?

it is 6pm here.

Actually most theories that I've read assume Luke made a mistake and Matthew is correct.

Some create elaborate schemes to make both still be correct, and others say none of it ever happened anyway... I tend to keep an open mind about it, I 'know' that we don't know everything about it, maybe never will, but I keep hoping that new archeaolgical discoveries will help us figure out what did happen.

Indeed, I was merely presenting it as a pertinant detail which simply could not be true.

it is 6pm here.where are you?

I'm trying to make a post about Simon Greenleaf but Jolt claims it's already been posted. Can anyone else see it, or am I going mad?

The who?

He was the sidekick to Captain Caveman but the two split for 'artistic reasons' before CC became famous.

how come the earliest drawings of him are like 30 years after his death!

as i said, 6bc or 8ad, not 6ad.

I'm afraid I'm not sure where you're coming from: Josephus clearly places the census in 6AD (or possibly 7AD at a stretch).

where are you?

The UK probably...same as me :cool:

I'm trying to make a post about Simon Greenleaf but Jolt claims it's already been posted. Can anyone else see it, or am I going mad?Don't spam, because it has nothing to do with this discussion

I'm trying to make a post about Simon Greenleaf but Jolt claims it's already been posted. Can anyone else see it, or am I going mad?

because you have fewer than 10 posts jolt puts you on some kind of spam alert thingy designed to prevent bots from overwhelming the place.

so make one more post that gets through and youre home free to continue posting without any strange delays.

Don't spam, because it has nothing to do with this discussion

If you read the thread you'll see that Canuck Heaven brought it up...

because you have fewer than 10 posts jolt puts you on some kind of spam alert thingy designed to prevent bots from overwhelming the place.

so make one more post that gets through and youre home free to continue posting without any strange delays.

Thanks.

where are you?
knaresborough, yorkshire, england,europe, earth, solar system, milky way, super cluster, universe, string of parralell universes.

that is the truth!:eek:

I'm afraid I'm not sure where you're coming from: Josephus clearly places the census in 6AD (or possibly 7AD at a stretch).

jesus was apparently born in a census year, and the two of those closest to the year zero ere 6bc and 8ad. there is a space of fourteen years between each census. if you don't believe me, read some info books (i would advise horrible histories)

if you need more proof, tell me.:):):):)

A few posters have offered up the notion that Jesus' existence is more secure historically than anyone else alive in the period, including Julius Ceasar. Well, the Ceasar's had their fair share of writings about them, true. But when there are coins with your visage on them, it adds credibility. Sacajawea not withstanding.

Also, its important to note what this debate is about. Namely is the Christian religion based on a historical figure who was described in the Gospels. Obviously there was someone named (Hebrew equivalent) Jesus in that time. Also, someone likely preached the Sermon on the Mount or something like it.

What would be nice is if the writings in the episitles looked and read like someone who was following in the footsteps of a recent human being who died. But aside from speaking of "Christ Jesus" dying for us, the author never/rarely talk about what he said and did, never talks about his life and ministry as an example to the rest of us, never talk about the miracles or the virgin birth or Potius Pilate. Paul visits Jerusalem twice without reporting his visting the empty tomb, wouldn't you visit the empty tomb if you were in Jerusalem in the 1st century? Paul and the other epistles seems strangely silent about all of this.

Christianity has been changing since its inception to fit the world view of the people around it. Is it that hard to believe that Christ Jesus was some ancient Judaic hero messiah in the eyes of Paul and the 1st century Christians? Is it hard to believe that after Paul was dead and gone someone wrote the book of Mark and put the sermons and miracles and historical individuals and places into the context of Christianity? Have you read any other historical fiction?

Believe your religion if you want, but your faith in Jesus is just that. Don't pretend that you went on an archeological expedition for the true religion and came up with Christianity.

I'm pretty sure there was a guy named Jesus. There was an ancient Jewish historian named Josephus who wrote about Jesus and his followers. Later, a 1st century Roman historian also wrote about Jesus including the fact that he was crucified. So there are at least 2 sources outside the bible that a man named Jesus existed. But so what? There are people walking around today named Jesus.

Elvis didn't do no drugs.

I'm willing to bet he did. A 2000 year old book of great historical value referances him. (why would a random name be referenced? my logic is the name had to come from somewhere)

Was he the son of god? No. That's bullshit. Did he heal(use medicine stuff) people? Probably. Was what he did completely blown out of proportion? Totally.

Either that. Or Jesus Christ is the best con-artist of the world.

Those are my two guesses.

I'm willing to bet he did. A 2000 year old book of great historical value referances him. (why would a random name be referenced? my logic is the name had to come from somewhere)

Was he the son of god? No. That's bullshit. Did he heal(use medicine stuff) people? Probably. Was what he did completely blown out of proportion? Totally.

Either that. Or Jesus Christ is the best con-artist of the world.

Those are my two guesses. Every other name ever created is random! Jesus is just another one of millions of random names.And that 2000 year old "historical reference" you were talking about isn't what you would call "reliable" since it was created 200 years after Jesus was supposed to have lived and was created by a bunch of preists (or people who said they were) so they could spread their myth.

jesus was apparently born in a census year, and the two of those closest to the year zero ere 6bc and 8ad. there is a space of fourteen years between each census. if you don't believe me, read some info books (i would advise horrible histories)

if you need more proof, tell me.:):):):)

Horrible Histories are excellent at what they do (getting young people interested in history) but they should not be viewed as a serious source of information (although they are better than the Murderous Maths series, which challenged children to find a way of tri-secting the angle :D). The census under Quirinius wasn't a regular census, it was done because the province was coming under direct Roman rule for the first time. It was the only census to be conducted during his governorship. I'd recommend Robin Lane Fox's Epic History of the Ancient World, or possibly The Unauthorised Version, both of which mention the census (although I don't like the latter much: too much assertion and not enough rigorous argument for my taste).

I'm pretty sure there was a guy named Jesus. There was an ancient Jewish historian named Josephus who wrote about Jesus and his followers.

For the 37th time in this topic: who might have written about Jesus. We do not know that, since it is almost certain a certain church changed the relevant passage to "validate" their own claims.
What he really wrote we sadly do not know. Just that it is almost certain some Christians found it necessary to create a forgery.

For the 37th time in this topic: who might have written about Jesus. We do not know that, since it is almost certain a certain church changed the relevant passage to "validate" their own claims.
What he really wrote we sadly do not know. Just that it is almost certain some Christians found it necessary to create a forgery.I don't think he wrote anything. One of the reasons why is because he most likely did not exist

I don't think he wrote anything. One of the reasons why is because he most likely did not exist

The existence of the historian Josephus is quite certain. The authenticity of the Jesus passages we currently know of however is extremely questionable.

The existence of the historian Josephus is quite certain. The authenticity of the Jesus passages we currently know of however is extremely questionable.The "Jesus passage" doesn't actually say very much.

Which means we know very little, and when you don't know enough, then you assume it's not real

I'm willing to bet he did. A 2000 year old book of great historical value referances him. (why would a random name be referenced? my logic is the name had to come from somewhere)

Was he the son of god? No. That's bullshit. Did he heal(use medicine stuff) people? Probably. Was what he did completely blown out of proportion? Totally.

Either that. Or Jesus Christ is the best con-artist of the world.

Those are my two guesses.
I'm guessing you're talking about the Bible when you say "2000 year old book of great historical value". The Bible contains equal amounts of fact and pizza. Mine contains almost neither of either and that's just because I like to eat in bed whilst I read my good book before using the damn Bible to put me to sleep.

Also, it is pretty easy to duplicate his so-called "miracles" and usually in more ways than one with simple stage magic. And when you consider all of the other self-styled messiahs running amok in the Middle East during that era it makes you wonder what was so special about the wood-working preacher to get him remembered by all while Apollonius of Tyana and all the other saviors get overlooked. Jesus was a cultist, a cult leader and a threat to Roman power in Jerusalem so he was told to cut the bull and refused. When that happened, Jesus, like Monty Python's Brian and Apollonius Christ, got the nails. And ropes. And logs. That's it.

There are few things more dangerous than cults because there are few other things that can make people leave their families, give up their money, surrender their bodies, their lives, and even kill in the name of a man (or woman) they consider God. Christianity is a cult because the central figure is not a mythic deity, it is a man. And a dead one at that so whoever is running the show now can get away with just about anything by saying it's what the leader would have wanted without fear of contradiction.

It doesn't matter either way to me personally. However I think he did actually exist. Was he the son of god? I don't think so but it's everyone's right to believe what they want.

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

You'd be surprised what the Left will turn a blind eye to.

You'd be surprised what the Left will turn a blind eye to.There is no "Blind eye" there's no evidence!

There is no "Blind eye" there's no evidence!


:rolleyes:


Believe what you want, I got better things to do than educate you. There was a man saying he jesus, if he was the son of god is what is not known. But keep your head in the sand son.

:rolleyes:


Believe what you want, I got better things to do than educate you. There was a man saying he jesus, if he was the son of god is what is not known. But keep your head in the sand son.

ya but what is the evidence and what does that have to do with "the left"?

:rolleyes:


Believe what you want, I got better things to do than educate you. There was a man saying he jesus, if he was the son of god is what is not known. But keep your head in the sand son.

All you have managed to prove that there was A man who called himself Jesus at roughly the time the biblical jesus was supposedly around. This, however, weighs very little on the question of "did jesus exist", no more than the fact that I have a friend named Mohammed does to the question of "did mohammed exist?"

There was some guy that might have been named jesus who might have been executed by the romans. That's all that's known, and it isn't even known if this is referencing to the same person, or whether the people who wrote the bible even knew this fellow existed.

The fact that there might have been someone who might have had the same name and might have been in rome is in no where near "proof"

The New Testament is poorly edited Fanfic.

All you have managed to prove that there was A man who called himself Jesus at roughly the time the biblical jesus was supposedly around. This, however, weighs very little on the question of "did jesus exist", no more than the fact that I have a friend named Mohammed does to the question of "did mohammed exist?"

There was some guy that might have been named jesus who might have been executed by the romans. That's all that's known, and it isn't even known if this is referencing to the same person, or whether the people who wrote the bible even knew this fellow existed.

The fact that there might have been someone who might have had the same name and might have been in rome is in no where near "proof"

What else is there to prove? All I can tell you is Jesus was a real man, is he the son of god? Fuck if I know...Did he do what the bible said? Fuck if I know. Did he say what the bible said he did? Fuck if I know.

All that can be proven is Jesus was a real man, beyond that nobody knows anything beyond what the Bible said, and that book as been altered so many times he could have been saying eat my penis for all we know.

What else is there to prove? All I can tell you is Jesus was a real man, is he the son of god? Fuck if I know...Did he do what the bible said? Fuck if I know. Did he say what the bible said he did? Fuck if I know.

All that can be proven is Jesus was a real man, beyond that nobody knows anything beyond what the Bible said, and that book as been altered so many times he could have been saying eat my penis for all we know.

So basically, you're saying that at some point there was somebody named jesus.

Well...no shit. There are several people in the world right now named Jesus. Several named Mohammed. Several named steve, earl, and suzanna too. However, the question "did jesus really exist" is, I believe, seeming more than simply "was there at one point someone named jesus?"

So basically, you're saying that at some point there was somebody named jesus.

Well...no shit. There are several people in the world right now named Jesus. Several named Mohammed. Several named steve, earl, and suzanna too. However, the question "did jesus really exist" is, I believe, seeming more than simply "was there at one point someone named jesus?"



What else can I say? I don't have a time machine so other than what I said I can't tell you. Was there a man saying he was jesus...yes....did that mean what the bible says is true about? I would guess no...but that is a guess.

So basically, you're saying that at some point there was somebody named jesus.

Well...no shit. There are several people in the world right now named Jesus. Several named Mohammed. Several named steve, earl, and suzanna too. However, the question "did jesus really exist" is, I believe, seeming more than simply "was there at one point someone named jesus?"

Not to mention that the name Yeshua was extremely common in that time period. It'd almost be like speculating on the existence of someone named Bob who had magical powers. Yes, we have several very well-documented Bobs in history, but none of them have magical powers attributed to them by their contemporaries.

...I may or may not have had alittle too much celebritory Rieslin, so bear with.

or

ive made up this great story about a guy with magical powers, what should i name him?

how about BOB?

yeah! there are lots of great guys named bob, it will be more believeable if i call him bob.

tha works too.

Not to mention that the name Yeshua was extremely common in that time period. It'd almost be like speculating on the existence of someone named Bob who had magical powers. Yes, we have several very well-documented Bobs in history, but none of them have magical powers attributed to them by their contemporaries.

...I may or may not have had alittle too much celebritory Rieslin, so bear with.

or

ive made up this great story about a guy with magical powers, what should i name him?

how about BOB?

yeah! there are lots of great guys named bob, it will be more believeable if i call him bob.

What else can I say?

So basically this little flame on "the left" because they won't listen to evidence was completely fucking pointless? You went on this little rant about "the left" doesn't listen to evidence, and then basically said you have absolutly no evidence other than "there was this guy named jesus".

Well, again, no shit. That's a no brainer, and not a single person on "the left" will deny this fact, based purely on just statistical likelihood. Jesus was not an all together unheard of name. The fact that about 2000 years ago in the roman empire there was a guy named jesus is probably as much a truism as "in 1997 in Saudi Arabia there was a man named Akbar" or "in 1840s virginia there was a woman named Polly".

The idea that if a name was popular at a certain place at at a certain time, someone at that time in that place had that name is a given. The question of relevance is "was there a rabbi named Jesus who was executed by crucifixion by the Roman Empire 2000 years ago" and is a question you admit you can't answer due to lack of evidence.

you're not particularly clever by chiding the "left" for somehow missing the obvious when, in fact, everybody here recognized the obvious, and found it so obvious it wasn't even worth mentioning. There's really no pride in being three steps behind the rest of the class.

If the belief is shit then the believer is as well. No need to make the distinction.

Deciding whether to even respond to this took me a little while. I had to work out if you were for real or not.

We don't get to 'choose' what we believe. There is nothing empirically superior about either accepting a belief, or rejecting it. And - well, beliefs of any kind can be considered 'shit' by others. Example - the explicit atheist position might be considered 'shit' to either a theist, or an implicit atheist. The implicit atheist position might be equally inexplicable to both explicit atheists and theists.

The only difference between the 'believer' and the 'non-believer' (unless the non-believer is one of those non-believers that is REALLY a believer rebelling against what he (or she) 'knows' to be true) is what they can accept as evidence.

Example - I'm an atheist, and books written by faceless strangers just don't cut it for me. On the other hand, if I find god in my garden tomorrow, it's entirely possible I'll be swayed.

Belief and believer are two different things. Sin and sinner are two different things.

Some might suggest that the atheist has an even greater "inherent need" to disbelieve, than the Christian has to believe for obvious reasons.

They might suggest that, but it would be pretty silly. I was happy with my christianity, although I had questions, until I found that the text no longer made sense to me. Atheism was no choice, nor anything I looked for - it was what was left when the belief was gone, and no other options presented any better reason to believe.

Actually most theories that I've read assume Luke made a mistake and Matthew is correct.


A mistake? In God's word? The inerrant scripture has errors! Bears shit in the woods!

Obviously there was someone named (Hebrew equivalent) Jesus in that time. Also, someone likely preached the Sermon on the Mount or something like it.


The Sermon on the Mount is actually another of those sources of conflict - one account has Jesus leaving a crowd, climbing a hill, and appaerntly talking to a few of his closest buddies... another has Jesus making his way DOWN from a hill, into the crowd, and beginning his speech there.

The fact that the contents of the Sermon versions differ, could be editorial... the fact that the two accounts seem to serve very different purposes (one is Jesus leaving the masses to give private instruction to his inner circle - the other is Jesus leaving his inner circle to give a mass public address) appears less easy to resolve.

I'm willing to bet he did. A 2000 year old book of great historical value referances him. (why would a random name be referenced? my logic is the name had to come from somewhere)

Was he the son of god? No. That's bullshit. Did he heal(use medicine stuff) people? Probably. Was what he did completely blown out of proportion? Totally.

Either that. Or Jesus Christ is the best con-artist of the world.

Those are my two guesses.

Worth pointing out that 'Jesus' (ignoring the fact that that's a translation, not his actual name... let's pretend we were discussing his real name) just wasn't that uncommon a name.

Your argument about the random name thing, is about as compelling as arguing that Harry Potter must be true, because who would write fiction about a random guy called 'Harry'?

Was there a man saying he was jesus...yes....

Actually - this little part still hasn't been proved to be true.

There was ALLEGEDLY a man that OTHERS say was this 'Jesus'.. and a host of other little claims. We still don't know that THAT 'Jesus' existed. We don't know if 'he' said he was Jesus - because we don't know if 'he' said anything, because we don't know if 'he' even existed.

Yes - there were people with the right name - that's not a big surprise... it's not an uncommon name. That doesn't make any of them in any way conneected to the biblical Jesus figure, or any of the stories told about him.

If you want proof, go back to Maths.


Here is the Maths proof.

Jesus [did/did not, pick one] exist. It's TRIVIAL! QED.

well...

i'm am proudly a christian, and will stick to my faith on this matter.

Yes: Jesus did exist. Yes: Jesus was the Son of God.

the most irritating thing about this thread is that no matter what you may say, most people will stubbornly stick to their opinion and continue to flame against others for no reason other than the fact that their views are different. bash at me all you want, but under the basis of faith, i believe that he was God. if you have anything worth saying other than something unthoughtfully rude, or a question about my views, i'll try my best to answer it. i'm not as intelligent as most of you, and i'm not a great debater, but i'd like to say what i will to those who'll listen.

well...

i'm am proudly a christian, and will stick to my faith on this matter.

Yes: Jesus did exist. Yes: Jesus was the Son of God.

the most irritating thing about this thread is that no matter what you may say, most people will stubbornly stick to their opinion and continue to flame against others for no reason other than the fact that their views are different. bash at me all you want, but under the basis of faith, i believe that he was God. if you have anything worth saying other than something unthoughtfully rude, or a question about my views, i'll try my best to answer it. i'm not as intelligent as most of you, and i'm not a great debater, but i'd like to say what i will to those who'll listen.

The problem with this is - you admit that your answer is based on faith.

For thse of us lacking in that faith, there is nothing concrete to assure us - even of the existence of a literal Jesus, let alone claims to Messiah, or any of the miraculous stuff.

You say 'yes, Jesus did exist'... but what you mean is, 'I believe Jesus did exist'... which is a VERY different prospect.

well...

i'm am proudly a christian, and will stick to my faith on this matter.

Yes: Jesus did exist. Yes: Jesus was the Son of God.

the most irritating thing about this thread is that no matter what you may say, most people will stubbornly stick to their opinion and continue to flame against others for no reason other than the fact that their views are different. bash at me all you want, but under the basis of faith, i believe that he was God. if you have anything worth saying other than something unthoughtfully rude, or a question about my views, i'll try my best to answer it. i'm not as intelligent as most of you, and i'm not a great debater, but i'd like to say what i will to those who'll listen.

No one here gives a crap if he was God, the Devil, or a soda can. Just if he existed.

A few posters have offered up the notion that Jesus' existence is more secure historically than anyone else alive in the period, including Julius Ceasar. Well, the Ceasar's had their fair share of writings about them, true. But when there are coins with your visage on them, it adds credibility. Sacajawea not withstanding.

Well, Julius Caesar died anywhere between 40 and 50 years before the accepted birth of Jesus Christ (depending on which date you believe is more accurate), but that's beside the point- the fact of the matter is this isn't much of an argument. I know you're not making it, but the truth is anyone making a claim that there are more sources for Jesus Christ than for Genghis Khan, George Washington, Caesar, Vercingetorix, Attila the Hun or Adolf Hitler is simply wasting their time- regardless of the historical accuracy of the other characters (which are pretty accurate but that's another argument), just because their records may be "dubious" does not mean that the NT character of Jesus Christ had to definitively exist- proof still has to be provided for the NT character for it to be considered for the historical record. The absence of one character does not mean the other had to exist- you still have to provide proof of that character for that character to have existed.

It's similar to the Creationist arguments that claim "Evolution has X wrong with it, so Creationism must be true"- no, something "wrong" in one argument doesn't mean the other must be true- the other argument has to prove its merit first before it can be accepted as an alternative.

I can't find my references right now, but there is a historian of that time who in his writings documents a teacher by the name of Jesus with a large following who was crucified etc. I will try to find that name and repost.

Please post it. I'm curious.

I've already addressed your point about Geroge Washington earlier in my post so I won't reply to it here.

The problem with this is - you admit that your answer is based on faith.

For thse of us lacking in that faith, there is nothing concrete to assure us - even of the existence of a literal Jesus, let alone claims to Messiah, or any of the miraculous stuff.

You say 'yes, Jesus did exist'... but what you mean is, 'I believe Jesus did exist'... which is a VERY different prospect.

yes it is.

my question is if anyone cares for me to answer.

Worth pointing out that 'Jesus' (ignoring the fact that that's a translation, not his actual name...

Do you know what it was? I'm curious.

Bullshit.



Even more bullshit. Say, do you stage corridas?



You don't know who Enkidu is? *shakes head*

The Roman Historian Tacitus notes the trial of a man named Christus under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate.

Do you know what it was? I'm curious.

Yeshua.

It's not generally all that important... except in terms of Hebrew. By which I mean - 'Jesus' means nothing, but Yeshua (as a Hebrew name) actually has a specific meaning ('salvation' or 'he is saved').

Also - 'Jesus' (an artifact name - a Greek attempt to get close to Hebrew name) is out of place, but 'Yeshua' is of the time and place. The Old Testament contains 29 'Yeshua' references (not translated as 'Jesus'), including six different people, and a town... 'Joshua' (of 'Jericho fame') is one example of the name, as it appears in our English versions.

The Roman Historian Tacitus notes the trial of a man named Christus under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate.

It isn't even certain that the Tacitus passage is entirely authentic - although current opinion leans towards it's aunthenticity. The simple fact that other historians completely fail to address Tacitus' text when discussing the same raw material, is a worrying exception.

That doesn't mean that Tacitus definitely WAS amended to contain this information by a later editor... but it is possible evidence to support that premise.

A thorough examination of New Testament texts shows a process of 'migration'.. where text NOT originally found in one part, get's absorbed from another part... information from one gospel 'migrating' into another over time. It is entirely possible that Tacitus was similarly redacted, although the cause of such redaction would be unknown... deliberate conflation? An editorial attempt to explain something? The first century equivalent of 'tooltips'?)


Other than that - there are a number of other worrying problems with Tacitus - not least being that he apparently didn't know Pilate's rank of 'prefect'. In the text, he claims Pilate as 'procurator'. Other details either conflict historical evidence (Tacitus claims a huge bodycount for 'Christian' deaths, ina time when there just weren't a huge number of Christian bodies, let alone dead ones), or Tacitus' own text.

I'm curious how many of you know who "Yeshu ben Pandera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Ben-Pandera_and_ben-Stada)" is...I just came across it now. The figure died too late to have been definitely Jesus (AD 62), but it's certainly a very different angle for the Jesus story.

Yeshua.

It's not generally all that important... except in terms of Hebrew. By which I mean - 'Jesus' means nothing, but Yeshua (as a Hebrew name) actually has a specific meaning ('salvation' or 'he is saved').

Also - 'Jesus' (an artifact name - a Greek attempt to get close to Hebrew name) is out of place, but 'Yeshua' is of the time and place. The Old Testament contains 29 'Yeshua' references (not translated as 'Jesus'), including six different people, and a town... 'Joshua' (of 'Jericho fame') is one example of the name, as it appears in our English versions.

Ah. I thought it was something entirely different- I don't know why but that's what your post suggested to me. I've come across "Yeshua"- from what I understand, it was a common name at the time.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, "Joshua"="Jesus" in Hebrew. That is pretty interesting...I wonder if the Joshua story could have been used for the NT story, because some of it could be tied to the story of Jesus Christ, as Joshua led the Israelites, and so too did Jesus.

<snip>

It's been asserted that Tacitus' passage on Christians couldn't have been a forgery since it isn't very flattering- that may be true, but I do think the part where Tacitus "explains" Christ- having been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate- could have been added in. As you've already pointed out, Tacitus should have known Pilate was more accurately a prefect and while it's possible Tacitus himself made a mistake, the fact that Christian tradition asserts Pilate is a procurator is too glaring to ignore.

It's been asserted that Tacitus' passage on Christians couldn't have been a forgery since it isn't very flattering

In all honesty I consider that silly. Forgers are not imbeciles after all - and praising Jesus into heaven would be a tad obvious.

It's been asserted that Tacitus' passage on Christians couldn't have been a forgery since it isn't very flattering- that may be true, but I do think the part where Tacitus "explains" Christ- having been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate- could have been added in. As you've already pointed out, Tacitus should have known Pilate was more accurately a prefect and while it's possible Tacitus himself made a mistake, the fact that Christian tradition asserts Pilate is a procurator is too glaring to ignore.

The 'christian' content of Tacitus wouldn't have to be 'forgery', per se... just redaction. The text could have been redacted by a later author, combining Severus with Tactius, to explain perceived questions left unanswered in Tacitus.

The existence of 'Christians' would not be an unreasonable detail for Tactius to mention - Suetonius also discusses persecution of Christians... it's the additional material that queers the pitch.

The New Testament is poorly edited Fanfic.
Oooh, nice angle... I've not seen that one used before. Think there's a Mary Sue in there somewhere?

Belief and believer are two different things. Sin and sinner are two different things.The criminal is punished for his crime, not the crime. The sinner is punished for his sin, not the sin. The believer must be despised for his belief if the belief is crap. If someone believes that the sky is checkered green and black then that one is nuts, no matter how nice such a sky would in fact look like.

In all honesty I consider that silly. Forgers are not imbeciles after all - and praising Jesus into heaven would be a tad obvious.

I thought that too. In most cases, I'd say that a passage like that is probably authentic- ostensibly, Christians wouldn't serve their cause very well if the history books showed their group to be as silly as Tacitus made them out to be (why join a cause if it's not honourable or meritous?). However, a deeper glance shows that the passage writer had to have a knowledge of Christianity in order to write it- Tacitus labels Pilate a procurator (not a prefect, Pilate's actual title and one Tacitus, a senator, would have known), and Christianity is labelled a "mischievious superstition", not a far-fetched assessment of the rabble-rousing Christianity would generate when it talks about "a better life after death" (as if this one isn't worth living) and "rejecting worldly authority" (well, at least some *would* interpret it that way). Thus, I too believe that the forgers intended to display Christianity in a bad light to disguise themselves.

What seals it for me is that Tacitus labels Pilate a "procurator"- Tacitus is known for his meticulousness, and missing something as glaring as an official title (and a Roman one, no less) is quite peculiar given the cirucmstances.

The 'christian' content of Tacitus wouldn't have to be 'forgery', per se... just redaction. The text could have been redacted by a later author, combining Severus with Tactius, to explain perceived questions left unanswered in Tacitus.

The existence of 'Christians' would not be an unreasonable detail for Tactius to mention - Suetonius also discusses persecution of Christians... it's the additional material that queers the pitch.

I wonder if "Christians" has to necessarily refer to "Jesus Christ's followers" in these contexts- given that there many "Messiahs" floating around in Judea at the time and the fact that these people are Christians and not "Jesusians" (or some facsimile thereof- "Jesuits" didn't appear until the 16th century so they're irrelevant here) leads me to believe that "Christians" could refer to any follower of a "Messiah", not the follower of Jesus Christ. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

well...

i'm am proudly a christian, and will stick to my faith on this matter.

Yes: Jesus did exist. Yes: Jesus was the Son of God.

the most irritating thing about this thread is that no matter what you may say, most people will stubbornly stick to their opinion and continue to flame against others for no reason other than the fact that their views are different. bash at me all you want, but under the basis of faith, i believe that he was God. if you have anything worth saying other than something unthoughtfully rude, or a question about my views, i'll try my best to answer it. i'm not as intelligent as most of you, and i'm not a great debater, but i'd like to say what i will to those who'll listen.

i dont have a problem with your answer.

your belief is fine with me.

all im saying is that the common assumption that the existence of jesus is proven beyond all doubt is wrong. there IS no good evidence that jesus christ actually existed. there are some very curious things that point to him being made up over time. at the same time, there is no proof that jesus DIDNT exist.

that doesnt have to matter to you but you should be willing to face the lack of evidence.

i dont have a problem with your answer.

your belief is fine with me.

all im saying is that the common assumption that the existence of jesus is proven beyond all doubt is wrong. there IS no good evidence that jesus christ actually existed. there are some very curious things that point to him being made up over time. at the same time, there is no proof that jesus DIDNT exist.

that doesnt have to matter to you but you should be willing to face the lack of evidence.But about which Jesus is it? The historical figure that is very likely to have existed, or the apotheotic figure he was made into by his followers in later centuries?

But about which Jesus is it? The historical figure that is very likely to have existed, or the apotheotic figure he was made into by his followers in later centuries?

Define "the historical figure" in this context. A Jew called Yeshua who preached two thousand years ago probably existed yes. In fact, several of them probably did since the name was not uncommon.

What actions of the Biblical Jesus would you consider part of the historical figure ?

The Roman Historian Tacitus notes the trial of a man named Christus under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate.

remember that CHRIST is not jesus' last name. he was not the son of joseph and mary christ.

christ is a title that can be used for anyone that someone thought deserved the title.

... Tacitus labels Pilate a procurator (not a prefect, Pilate's actual title and one Tacitus, a senator, would have known), ...

...What seals it for me is that Tacitus labels Pilate a "procurator"- Tacitus is known for his meticulousness, and missing something as glaring as an official title (and a Roman one, no less) is quite peculiar given the cirucmstances.

Nonsense. There isn't a single governing body today, anywhere in the world, that has senators (or representatives of any other name) that don't make technical mistakes not just occasionally but with regularity. It’s simply a hypocritical insinuation to place the expectation of perfection on Tacitus and then use any shortcoming of his thereafter as an indicator that maybe something accredited to him might in fact be added later by others.

IF the church wanted to ‘add’ things to the Roman records to validate the existence of Christ, they would have had over five hundred years to do it and they would have come up with something far more substantial than adding a few bad lines to a passage of Tacitus' work.

Tacitus was only about eight years old when it occurred (Nero prosecuting the Christians), Tacitus topic on the matter was Nero persecuting the Christians, not the Christians themselves, he only seems to have mentioned this tidbit as clarification for his readers who and what Christians were, and he likely used Josphus (or the same source Josphus used) when he cited Pilate as a procurator because Joseph too made the SAME mistake. It's was not uncommon for historians to use the material of those that wrote before them, we still do it today.

IF this passage of Tacitus’ was faked on purpose or added it later innocently, the usage of the title procurator by him for Pilate is not evidence of that forgery, that usage is no reason to suspect the passage was not written by Tacitus.

But about which Jesus is it? The historical figure that is very likely to have existed, or the apotheotic figure he was made into by his followers in later centuries?

well now, ub, that might matter to you or me but it doesnt have to matter to the true believer. in his mind they are one and the same.

its just this "you can't make the slightest suggestion that anything we think about jesus isnt literally true" mindset that bugs me.

Did Enkidu?

Of Course, the epic of Gilgamesh is the word of the Gods!!

remember that CHRIST is not jesus' last name. he was not the son of joseph and mary christ.

christ is a title that can be used for anyone that someone thought deserved the title.

You know, that's vaguely reminiscent of Jerry Christ, the bit Robin Williams did in his Robin Williams: Live at Broadway show.

What actions of the Biblical Jesus would you consider part of the historical figure ?The preaching. But even that is hard to say. Of course after the historical figure's death quite a number of people wrote about him and added their own belief and what they wanted Yeshua to be to the text.

The preaching. But even that is hard to say. Of course after the historical figure's death quite a number of people wrote about him and added their own belief and what they wanted Yeshua to be to the text.

Yes, but it's pretty likely there were several preachers, even several contraversial preachers, in that era who were named Yeshua. Again, it was a very common name in that time period.

remember that CHRIST is not jesus' last name. he was not the son of joseph and mary christ.

christ is a title that can be used for anyone that someone thought deserved the title.christos is the greek rendition of hebrew messiah, the anointed one, used to designate the hero that would "rescue" the Jews from foreign rule. (iirr in Isaiah, Daniel, and some Psalms)

You know, that's vaguely reminiscent of Jerry Christ, the bit Robin Williams did in his Robin Williams: Live at Broadway show.

i may well have heard the bit some time in the past. if not from him then certainly from someone else.

its still a rather important point that "christ" is no more a certain reference to a particular person than "bishop" is.

Bullshit.



Even more bullshit. Say, do you stage corridas?



You don't know who Enkidu is? *shakes head*

I do believe the issue here is that people are conflating the name Jesus and the term Christ. Whether the Jesus of the bible and of archeological history in the area governed by Rome is in fact the 'Christ' is a matter of faith. Whether a person named Jesus is real is a matter of existential perspective. Do any of us exist? How do we know? If your answer is empirical evidence, than what you're saying is that any electrical impulse received by the receptors in my brain makes an object real. In such a case a belief like faith also sends electrical signals to the brain, vise vie no difference, to the brain whether it be physical or emotional or a belief.
So did Jesus exist?
There have been many people named Jesus whether any of them existed to you depends on your definition of existence, whether or not one of them was the Christ is a matter of faith.

Merry Christmas.

christos is the greek rendition of hebrew messiah, the anointed one, used to designate the hero that would "rescue" the Jews from foreign rule. (iirr in Isaiah, Daniel, and some Psalms)

And an often abused title to boot. I believe it is safe to say there were at least 15 Christs/annointed ones walking around at any given time.

Nonsense. There isn't a single governing body today, anywhere in the world, that has senators (or representatives of any other name) that don't make technical mistakes not just occasionally but with regularity. It’s simply a hypocritical insinuation to place the expectation of perfection on Tacitus and then use any shortcoming of his thereafter as an indicator that maybe something accredited to him might in fact be added later by others.

IF the church wanted to ‘add’ things to the Roman records to validate the existence of Christ, they would have had over five hundred years to do it and they would have come up with something far more substantial than adding a few bad lines to a passage of Tacitus' work.

Tacitus was only about eight years old when it occurred (Nero prosecuting the Christians), Tacitus topic on the matter was Nero persecuting the Christians, not the Christians themselves, he only seems to have mentioned this tidbit as clarification for his readers who and what Christians were, and he likely used Josphus (or the same source Josphus used) when he cited Pilate as a procurator because Joseph too made the SAME mistake. It's was not uncommon for historians to use the material of those that wrote before them, we still do it today.

IF this passage of Tacitus’ was faked on purpose or added it later innocently, the usage of the title procurator by him for Pilate is not evidence of that forgery, that usage is no reason to suspect the passage was not written by Tacitus.

Worth pointing out that Tacitus' own father was a procurator.... it is very unlikely to be a mistake that Tacitus is likely to make, given his intimacy with the relevent ranking.

well point us to the scientific report and we can be done with this thread.


Here you go: http://www.wsmv.com/news/13358825/detail.html

christos is the greek rendition of hebrew messiah, the anointed one, used to designate the hero that would "rescue" the Jews from foreign rule. (iirr in Isaiah, Daniel, and some Psalms)

Utter wank.

Messiah is anointed, and christos is the Greek for anointed - but 'messiah' isn't some term cooked up to designate the saviour of the Jews. David was 'messiah'. Read through your hebrew scripture and you'll see it is not that unusual for prophets, kings or priests to be 'anointed'. There were dozens of messiahs listed in the scripture. There does seem to be (in latter Hebrew scripture) a tendency to look towards a kind of 'ultimate' messiah, but that's not what 'messiah' is defined by.

I wonder if "Christians" has to necessarily refer to "Jesus Christ's followers" in these contexts- given that there many "Messiahs" floating around in Judea at the time and the fact that these people are Christians and not "Jesusians" (or some facsimile thereof- "Jesuits" didn't appear until the 16th century so they're irrelevant here) leads me to believe that "Christians" could refer to any follower of a "Messiah", not the follower of Jesus Christ. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Sounds a little dubious to me for two reasons:

Firstly, the term 'Christian' was a neologism invented specifically to mock the early followers of Jesus; I'm not aware of the phrase being used before New Testament times and I can't imagine any other group acquiring the term.

Secondly, Christos is a Greek term rather than a Hebrew one. Sure, educated Jews and scribes usually spoke Greek, but the average man on the street in Judea spoke Aramaic. Most would-be messiahs had little if any impact in diaspora or gentile communities so it's unlikely that they'd become associated with Greek speakers and thus 'Xpistos' (Christos) in the same way that the international Christian religion did.

These are just my uninformed musings on the subject so I'm prepared to be proved wrong; maybe Grave can shed some light on the situation when he next logs on.

Worth pointing out that Tacitus' own father was a procurator.... it is very unlikely to be a mistake that Tacitus is likely to make, given his intimacy with the relevent ranking.

It's also worth noting that the governor of Judea during the time of Christ was a Prefect position, but in 44AD after Herod’s death, that governor position took over direct control and became a procurator position. The governor of Judea held a procurator title for twelve years before Tacitus was even born and assuming Tacitus was much older than a new born when he wrote that tidbit, the position Pilate held in Judea would have been a procurator position by common memory. The mistake was miniscule and an entirely normal type of mistake and common for historians to make.

Firstly, the term 'Christian' was a neologism invented specifically to mock the early followers of Jesus; I'm not aware of the phrase being used before New Testament times and I can't imagine any other group acquiring the term.

As pointed out, the title "christos" predates Jesus (assuming he existed ;)) and was used by quite a few people. Somewhat like "boss" nowadays.

So what the question "did Jesus Christ exist" actually amounts to is "Was there a Jew with the common name Yeshua (or a derivative) that some called by the common title Christ alive 2000 years ago".

Answer: quite possibly.

Yes He did. Yes, because it proves that He did exist, and that He was a actual living person.:

cool: Spartan Rome

This is Sparta

It's also worth noting that the governor of Judea during the time of Christ was a Prefect position, but in 44AD after Herod’s death, that governor position took over direct control and became a procurator position. The governor of Judea held a procurator title for twenty years before Tacitus was even born and assuming Tacitus was much older than a new born when he wrote that tidbit, the position Pilate held in Judea would have been a procurator position by common memory. The mistake was miniscule and an entirely normal type of mistake and common for historians to make.

interesting point.

and a good example of how human memory is influenced by things that come afterwards.

And an often abused title to boot. I believe it is safe to say there were at least 15 Christs/annointed ones walking around at any given time.sources?

As pointed out, the title "christos" predates Jesus (assuming he existed ;)) and was used by quite a few people. Somewhat like "boss" nowadays.

I wasn't disputing that. 'Christos' was around before Christianity, but 'Christian' wasn't.

sources?

All high priests and kings were by definition christos, since they were annointed during their inauguration. The meaning "savior"was added later. The Bible itself (e.g. Daniel) mentions several examples of messiahs/christs.

I wasn't disputing that. 'Christos' was around before Christianity, but 'Christian' wasn't.

What is the latin word for Christian ;) ?

interesting point.

and a good example of how human memory is influenced by things that come afterwards.

Agreed.

Minor side point, I looked it up and found it was twelve years later that Tacitus was born, not twenty, and I don't think it changes my position one iota, but if I don't make the correction and someone else finds it first, I'm likely to be crucified for the mistake in this forum! ;) So I'm officially fixing it now before it damns me.

What is the latin word for Christian ;) ?

The Latin word for Christian? Surely everyone knows that!

...

Hey look! Over there! *points*


*flees thread before his abysmal grasp of Latin can be revealed*

What is the latin word for Christian ;) ?Christianus. And?? You mean as a name or what?

The Romans and the Jews were compulsive record keepers. There is no record extant in Roman or Jewish histories, that I know of, that he existed.

Yes He did. Yes, because it proves that He did exist, and that He was a actual living person.:

cool: Spartan Rome

This is SpartaAll these "He"s! Who is "He"? Why does "He" exist just because "He" did?

The Romans and the Jews were compulsive record keepers. There is no record extant in Roman or Jewish histories, that I know of, that he existed.There isn't. You're right.

What is the latin word for Christian ;) ?

the word tacitus uses seems to be "Chrestianos".

taken from http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm section 44

i dont know latin, i just picked the word i thought he used.

the word tacitus uses seems to be "Chrestianos".


Uh-huh. I seem to recall my history teacher saying that it meant 'followers of Chrestus'. Which could mean that Tacitus was referring to Christians, and got the name wrong. Or it could mean that he was referring to the followers of somebody called Chrestus, which according to my teacher was quite a common name.

Uh-huh. I seem to recall my history teacher saying that it meant 'followers of Chrestus'. Which could mean that Tacitus was referring to Christians, and got the name wrong. Or it could mean that he was referring to the followers of somebody called Chrestus, which according to my teacher was quite a common name.

hmmmmm so does that mean that later when actual christians were writing in latin they called themselves christianos?

and, since i didnt take new testament greek, does "christ", which seems to refer to the jewish savior in various ways that have already been discussed, have a non-jewish/christian meaning or was it made up just for the purpose of talking about these specific religious issues?

just hoping SOMEONE knows the answer. not you specifically.

hmmmmm so does that mean that later when actual christians were writing in latin they called themselves christianos?

and, since i didnt take new testament greek, does "christ", which seems to refer to the jewish savior in various ways that have already been discussed, have a non-jewish/christian meaning or was it made up just for the purpose of talking about these specific religious issues?


Christianos? I think so, but I'm afraid both questions are well outside my A level knowledge - Christians weren't a significant group until after the period I was studying.

and, since i didnt take new testament greek, does "christ", which seems to refer to the jewish savior in various ways that have already been discussed, have a non-jewish/christian meaning or was it made up just for the purpose of talking about these specific religious issues?



As mentioned ;) : it means "annointed". Which was something people did to kings and other high placed figures during their initiation.
Hence probably the reference "king of the jews" for Jesus the annointed (by God).

And to answer your other question: I don't believe Christian is a Christian word, but something used by nonbelievers to describe them. They probably used "disciples" or something similar to describe themselves.

there had already been 2 (I think) Messiahs or "christs". King Solomon was one of them.

there had already been 2 (I think) Messiahs or "christs". King Solomon was one of them.only for the batty rastafarians... :D

of course Jesus was real any one with eyes can see that

of course Jesus was real any one with eyes can see thathow? he's long dead and gone.

I'm assuming that the majority of the people how have said no to this don't believe in god. Most probably on the lack of evidence. Which is bullshit of course. As for not believing in Jesus because of lack of evidence, well this is bullshit as well. Why are people so picky about evidence when it comes to Jesus? There are plenty of people in history who don't have solid evidence to their existence. If you haven't been to Russia do you assume it doesn't exist? No.

If you haven't been to Russia do you assume it doesn't exist? No.
No, but I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that Russia exists.

Apart from an unverifiable religious text that assigns Jesus with traits that mythical characters throughout the history of humanity have been assigned with, I see no evidence for his existence.

I am prepared to believe that either:
the character of Jesus is an amalgam of prior religious and mythical characters with no basis in a historical personage.
the character of Jesus is based on one or more actual persons, perhaps a Jewish rebel, who's life story was heavily embellished with mystical powers and portents that recur in many religious traditions, after his death.

But I am not prepared to believe, on evidence not faith, that Jesus was a real person who did the things the Bible says he did, any more than I am prepared to believe Buddha, Beowulf, Achilles, Oedipus, etc., were real persons who acted exactly in the way their respective texts say they did.

But why is faith in something without evidence such a shunned thing nowadays? It is a trend throughout history that it is men of faith that compelled scientific research (and therefore providing the term "evidence"). Don't get me wrong i'm no zealous christian and i believe that most of the bible is a metaphor at the most. I do however believe in Christ and God

But why is faith in something without evidence such a shunned thing nowadays? It is a trend throughout history that it is men of faith that compelled scientific research (and therefore providing the term "evidence"). Don't get me wrong i'm no zealous christian and i believe that most of the bible is a metaphor at the most. I do however believe in Christ and God If I told you that the Bible said that The World had no chickens on it, and the chickens we see are just illusions, would you beleive that?

No, i believe i already explained that i believ most of the bible is a metaphor. So unless you have some sort of deeper meaning behind visions of chickens then i can't see the point in your post.

No, i believe i already explained that i believ most of the bible is a metaphor. So unless you have some sort of deeper meaning behind visions of chickens then i can't see the point in your post.It's the faith without evidence thing

But why is faith in something without evidence such a shunned thing nowadays?

I have often wondered that myself. Why do so many Christians need to believe there is lots and lots of evidence for Jesus /Creation/anything we often have heated debates over on these forums ? Why is their faith insufficient ? Why do they need to make things up ?

After all, all the false evidence and claims are what peeves me off. If they did not do that, I would have no problem with their beliefs*

* Except that I dislike Christian morals and such - but no problems with the act of believing itself.

Ah, well it's just my personal preference to believe in hope. I believe in him because i want to and because it gives me a sense of hope and actual goodness rather than modern day corruption and lies. If everyone based their descisions on logic and evidence the world would have fallen apart along time ago.

But why is faith in something without evidence such a shunned thing nowadays?
Because it's generally thought of as a terrible way of examining our lives and the world around us. Or at least, believing on something without evidence and without justification seems faulty at best.

It is a trend throughout history that it is men of faith that compelled scientific research (and therefore providing the term "evidence").
Surely this is because these 'men of faith' were rich enough and educated enough to conduct scientific studies, especially during the Late Middle Ages and early Enlightenment period, not that they came across scientific facts and constructed scientific theorems because they were 'men of faith'.

Also, note that these people used reason and evidence, not their faith, to come to their conclusions. That's why I kinda admire Aquinas, even though I disagree with him theologically -- he saw the need for reason-based enquiry.

Don't get me wrong i'm no zealous christian and i believe that most of the bible is a metaphor at the most. I do however believe in Christ and God
And that's groovy for you. I just can't believe without, at the very least, justification; which I don't get from the Bible.

I used to, when I was a child and young teenager, but once I examined my beliefs, I found a lot of Christin teachings hard to swallow.

As mentioned ;) : it means "annointed". Which was something people did to kings and other high placed figures during their initiation.
Hence probably the reference "king of the jews" for Jesus the annointed (by God).


i understand that part from the thread. but "christ" refers to a jewish/christian concept that would have been a hebrew word. in the greek new testament they used the word "christ" (in greek) but the word IN GREEK would not have that exact meaning when not in the new testment. the greeks had no reason to have a word for the jewish messiah.

or did they?

so what did the greek word for christ mean outside of a christian context, if anything?


And to answer your other question: I don't believe Christian is a Christian word, but something used by nonbelievers to describe them. They probably used "disciples" or something similar to describe themselves.

but there came a time when christians started to describe themselves as christians. probably in greek. when they did so in latin, what word was used?

Christadelphi?

Brothers of christ?

Christadelphi?

Brothers of christ?
Whowhatwherewhy?

Incidentally, what's with the religious threads bringing out all the fresh blood?

Jesus does exist. He has a frequent role on South Park.

Whowhatwherewhy?

Incidentally, what's with the religious threads bringing out all the fresh blood?I would have thought that there's been many in NSG over the years, but they are always fresh! :p

Jesus does exist. He has a frequent role on South Park.Finally, Proof! :D

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Listen, people:

JESUS CERTAINLY DID, AND DOES, EXIST.

HE WAS, AND IS, THE SON OF GOD.

HE DIED BY CRUCIFIXION, WAS BURIED, AND CAME OUT OF HIS GRAVE THREE DAYS LATER.

HE IS ALIVE TODAY.

SOMEDAY HE WILL COME BACK TO RULE THE EARTH.

YES, I BELIEVE ALL OF THAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, FINE; BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED TO PAY FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND, AND HE IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RECORD THAT GOD GAVE OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST (the Bible).

And any claims that He did not exist are nothing but desperate attempts to suppress the truth with lies in order to soothe guilty consciences. There is historical proof that Jesus did, in fact, live on this earth.

And there's Scriptural proof. (YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

Any refutation of the historically established FACT of Jesus' life on the earth is nothing but politically correct propaganda.

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Listen, people: .....rant, rant,blah, blah.

Your beliefs are based upon fairy tales, and do not exist. There is no historical proof that any such being existed. You cannot prove this, nor any supposed divinty.
Becuase theres nothing to it.

No such person ever existed.

...

ah, the old 'argument from bold lettering'. always a winner, that.

(YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

even the parts that are demonstrably inaccurate?

BUT I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED TO PAY FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND, AND HE IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR.

And I choose to believe that this tissue I have in my hand is the Grand Tissue of Bokil-Gor, the Tissue of Eternity that will save us all from fiery destruction at the hands of the mighty dragon Valrusius.

May we all have perfect faith in Its salvation, lest It change its mind and condemn us all to be burned to ash by that fearsome wyrm.

you can call me a stupid mush brain christian if you want to and YEA i AM a christian and PROUD of it because when Jesud died on the cross he SAVED me from eternal death in HELL do some research on christianity maybe you might see how real he was and IS

Thou doth protesteth too much, methinks.

I think he means it doesn't matter.

It matters to HotRodia! :p

not one of them has any writings of Jesus actually existing, except one that has been proved to be a fraud.:eek:
Say it ain't so! They would never misrepresent ANYTHING so important, blah blah blah ...

Sounds a little dubious to me for two reasons:

Firstly, the term 'Christian' was a neologism invented specifically to mock the early followers of Jesus; I'm not aware of the phrase being used before New Testament times and I can't imagine any other group acquiring the term.

Secondly, Christos is a Greek term rather than a Hebrew one. Sure, educated Jews and scribes usually spoke Greek, but the average man on the street in Judea spoke Aramaic. Most would-be messiahs had little if any impact in diaspora or gentile communities so it's unlikely that they'd become associated with Greek speakers and thus 'Xpistos' (Christos) in the same way that the international Christian religion did.

These are just my uninformed musings on the subject so I'm prepared to be proved wrong; maybe Grave can shed some light on the situation when he next logs on.

Well, the first usage of the term "Christian" comes from Tacitus' account of The Great Fire of Rome, and it's debatable concerning what Tacitus truly meant in the passage- did he mean "Christus" (Christ) or "Chrestus", a common name for slaves at the time? That's one question.

Now, regarding the impact of the other messiahs- how do you *know* none of them left an impact? Just because we know of no other messiahs other than Jesus that left an impact doesn't mean that they didn't exist- it just means we don't know about them yet (if we ever do). I also doubt these other messiahs needed a huge following to get themselves a footing in Rome itself- think of all the minority groups that float around a place like New York City or Toronto and you'll see why.

Nonsense. There isn't a single governing body today, anywhere in the world, that has senators (or representatives of any other name) that don't make technical mistakes not just occasionally but with regularity. It’s simply a hypocritical insinuation to place the expectation of perfection on Tacitus and then use any shortcoming of his thereafter as an indicator that maybe something accredited to him might in fact be added later by others.

IF the church wanted to ‘add’ things to the Roman records to validate the existence of Christ, they would have had over five hundred years to do it and they would have come up with something far more substantial than adding a few bad lines to a passage of Tacitus' work.

Tacitus was only about eight years old when it occurred (Nero prosecuting the Christians), Tacitus topic on the matter was Nero persecuting the Christians, not the Christians themselves, he only seems to have mentioned this tidbit as clarification for his readers who and what Christians were, and he likely used Josphus (or the same source Josphus used) when he cited Pilate as a procurator because Joseph too made the SAME mistake. It's was not uncommon for historians to use the material of those that wrote before them, we still do it today.

IF this passage of Tacitus’ was faked on purpose or added it later innocently, the usage of the title procurator by him for Pilate is not evidence of that forgery, that usage is no reason to suspect the passage was not written by Tacitus.

I grant that it may have been a mistake, but it's a very curious one for two reasons.

First, Tacitus was known for his meticulousness, so the fact an error even exists at all raises eyebrows. Not much, mind you, but it does.

Secondly, Tacitus was a Roman senator on top of being a historian, so if anyone knew the correct terms of Roman politicians, it would be Tacitus. If he made an error with regards to the title of the king of Dacia or the king of Parthia then it doesn't reflect so bad on him- after all, he's not talking about fellow Romans here, he's talking about foreigners he cares little about. However, for a fellow Roman he'd take the time to get his title right- even if he quoted someone else- since he wouldn't look very good in his fellow Romans' eyes (who all revered him). It'd be like an American historian incorrectly labelling Colin Powell a "Foreign Affairs Minister" instead of "Secretary of State" while writing about George W. Bush' Presidency- of all the people who should know about the proper titles, it's an American historian. Similarly, if anyone should know about the proper titles of Roman officials, it's Tacitus. A Christian forger, however, wouldn't- given how Christian tradition labels Pontius Pilate a procurator and how locals at the time probably saw him as a procurator due to his visibility in the region, it's easy for the Christian forger to make that mistake.

Now, it is possible that the passage is still authentic- we're not talking about whole pages here, just a single line, and it's doubtful that Tacitus, no matter how meticulous he is, caught EVERYTHING- but seeing how much of the passage "fits" into Christian thought the idea of it being a forgery or a redaction is still very plausible.

And any claims that He did not exist are nothing but desperate attempts to suppress the truth with lies in order to soothe guilty consciences.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There's no suppression going on, and to even argue suppression instead of providing evidence is tantamount to admitting defeat, because only the soundly trounced would ever believe the other side is "holding them down" instead of attempting to counter.

There is historical proof that Jesus did, in fact, live on this earth.

So provide it.

And there's Scriptural proof. (YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

I'm going to guess you also hold true Creationism, the Great Flood, Joshua literally stopping the Sun, and the idea that bats are birds, right? Because that's also in the Bible.

The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, which dates to the earliest period of composition (Tannaitic period) contains the following:

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

The account does not offer you your concrete proof, but it gives you a glimpse, some sort of evidence.
Credit for your attempt :)
since most people who declare themselves to be authorities on the subject couldn't have pulled that one out.

There is more concrete evidence that Jesus existed than any other occurance in ancient times bar none.
+
Don't accept pre-chewed beliefs my friend! Do your own homework and find things out for yourself.

Ever hear the one about the perpetual energy machine of the peanut butter-covered bread strapped to the back of the cat?

Credit for your attempt :)
since most people who declare themselves to be authorities on the subject couldn't have pulled that one out.

...and it's already been addressed:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13309377#post13309377

...and it's already been addressed:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13309377#post13309377

Oh, i noticed. That's not exactly why i complimented them. :)

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972

Might be a good idea to watch that If it hasn't been posted already.

Oh, i noticed. That's not exactly why i complimented them. :)

My bad...may I ask why then?

It's also worth noting that the governor of Judea during the time of Christ was a Prefect position, but in 44AD after Herod’s death, that governor position took over direct control and became a procurator position. The governor of Judea held a procurator title for twelve years before Tacitus was even born and assuming Tacitus was much older than a new born when he wrote that tidbit, the position Pilate held in Judea would have been a procurator position by common memory. The mistake was miniscule and an entirely normal type of mistake and common for historians to make.

How is it a common mistake to make? If you are saying that Tacitus wrote 'procurator' because he was writing a piece where he was 'filling in blanks' (like the rank of Pilate)... well then, just how reliable can we really find his work? After all - if he's not aware that Pilate was a prefect, it's not unreasonable to assume that he's working entirely from hearsay.

interesting point.

and a good example of how human memory is influenced by things that come afterwards.

It is an interesting point, but mainly because it shows that Tacitus was (likely) writing NOT from primary sources, but from some kind of testimony... maybe even nothing more than speculation or rumour.

Maybe


In all likely hood, He did exist, but wasn't at all related to the tales in the bible. For example, he may have been a doctor-ish type person, or such, and the bible is nothing more then a sort of collection of myths.

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Listen, people:

JESUS CERTAINLY DID, AND DOES, EXIST.

HE WAS, AND IS, THE SON OF GOD.

HE DIED BY CRUCIFIXION, WAS BURIED, AND CAME OUT OF HIS GRAVE THREE DAYS LATER.

HE IS ALIVE TODAY.

SOMEDAY HE WILL COME BACK TO RULE THE EARTH.

YES, I BELIEVE ALL OF THAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, FINE; BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED TO PAY FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND, AND HE IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RECORD THAT GOD GAVE OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST (the Bible).

And any claims that He did not exist are nothing but desperate attempts to suppress the truth with lies in order to soothe guilty consciences. There is historical proof that Jesus did, in fact, live on this earth.

And there's Scriptural proof. (YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

Any refutation of the historically established FACT of Jesus' life on the earth is nothing but politically correct propaganda.

Most people are less 'claiming he didn't exist'... and more 'claiming there is simply no good evidence'.

If your god fails to leave anything convincing behind, that's hardly a fault in the non-believer.

It's nothing to do with political correctness. It's everything to do with the fact that there is just no good evidence. How do you expect people to believe something you can't even show them?

So I think it's odd to be having this argument, considering its almost overwhelmingly believed that he did exist, whether as a Divine Being or a Mortal. Before I make my case, I will admit I am a Christian, and I do Believe in Christ. But I have to go one further and admit that no more than a year and a half ago I was a Militant Athiest, so you can't use the "You were born into it and Brain Washed" tactic here.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

This article, admittedly from a Christian Web Site, presents an argument proving the physical existence of Jesus. They sight the Bible initially, which many will not accept as proof therein, and then move to secular sources of the era, mainly Roman and Gentile, so that its clearly stated what their argument is.

For those of you too lazy to read it, they sight the overwhelming number of Gentile and Jewish Christians dating from the time right after the year of his supposed death. Could someone who never existed have caused such a wide spread conversion?

This seems to be a solid argument in my opinion. The fact that more than 12,000 recorded Christians existed in more than twenty places only four years after the year of his supposed death, that roman officials made mention of a Jewish Rabbi who had created a sect whose teachings were moralistic and peaceful in nature, and was crucified at the order of the Jewish King, who had been tried by Pilate, yet found innocent and released, and that Twelve Men, claiming to be his apostles, traveled the lands for many years spreading his teachings and making converts, all seem to point in the direction of having at least a physical being in the form of Jesus, whether you believe he was the Son of God or not.

Its just like there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that Buddha(s) lived over the various centuries. Or the fact that Muhammad existed 1200 years ago, or that Gerald Gardener, founder of the Wiccan Religion, was born only about 170 years ago, or Joseph Smith was born 200 years ago. Religions don't simply appear. They have to have a beginning, and something solid enough that at least someone is going to say, "Hey, I like the way that sounds".

So, I propose this counter argument.

Without a real person, who may or may not have been named Jesus of Nazareth, how could Christianity have started, let alone spread till it became the widest spread religion on earth?

Most people are less 'claiming he didn't exist'... and more 'claiming there is simply no good evidence'.

If your god fails to leave anything convincing behind, that's hardly a fault in the non-believer.

It's nothing to do with political correctness. It's everything to do with the fact that there is just no good evidence. How do you expect people to believe something you can't even show them?

Faith?

All god asks is to believe in your heart and your mind. I was a militant atheist no more than a year and a half ago, and he changed my heart. I used to say I'd never even begin to believe until I saw him and he smote me. But all it took was his touch upon my heart.

It sounds like magic, or something from a fairytale but Its true, and there's nothing these pathetic little letters on your computer screen can do to describe it to you. Its something, in my mind, that has to be experienced, rather than known.

Faith?

One can have faith in many things. Why have specific faith in this and not one of the thousands of other religions ? Why have faith in a God that seems to be a jerk according to his own holy book ?

Some of us silly nonbelievers just need that extra push. Like many Christians only follow Jesus because he supposedly came back to life - not because his teachings convinced them.

My bad...may I ask why then?
Believe it or not, the whole reason behind my nations' participation in the general forum arena is to see what interesting links people provide when properly motivated. It "helps" certain arguments along.
;)

Some of us silly nonbelievers just need that extra push. Like many Christians only follow Jesus because he supposedly came back to live - not because his teachings convinced them.
I always thought Doubting Thomas (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Caravaggio_-_The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas.jpg) was the most sensible chap in the Bible.

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Personally I am vaguely shocked, appalled and disgusted that otherwise intelligent people are so willing to believe in fairy tails.

If you want to participate in a dillusional faith in make believe go right ahead, just don't expect the rest of us to be so foolish.

All god asks is to believe in your heart and your mind.

A god who desires to smear faeces upon the faces of its own creation, to drown, flail, slay and torture its own creation due its own horribly misplaced sense of being will simply remain removed from any possible taint of touch to my heart.
The mind simply disavows the OT versions' existence, and rightly so.
"God" asks too much, and is too much the coward to have so many people defend its so-called righteousness while hiding behind the murder of its own son.
Seriously, it's not worth it.

It sounds like magic, or something from a fairytale

There's a good reason for that.

There's a good reason for that.

Looks like, walks like, quacks like .... :)

There is no historical evidence for his existence. The Bible does not constitute historical evidence. His purported existence is a matter of opinion, unsupported by facts. Period!

Looks like, walks like, quacks like .... :)

Hah, quite, I was thinking just that.

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

...

AND IF YOU DON'T, FINE; BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT

... ah, does not compute?

Hah, quite, I was thinking just that.

Thought ya might be

Endiku, Jesus. It is pronounced "Heah-Zues" and he is my landlord, if he finds out all of this hubbub he is going to be pissed and probably kick me out of my apartment. Corinthians is not the issue dude, 11 pages of this C'mon let the saviour of the world rest, I hope to God and his lumber laying son that this is the last post.

Endiku, Jesus. It is pronounced "Heah-Zues" and he is my landlord, if he finds out all of this hubbub he is going to be pissed and probably kick me out of my apartment. Corinthians is not the issue dude, 11 pages of this C'mon let the saviour of the world rest, I hope to God and his lumber laying son that this is the last post.

Int'restin' first post. Welcome to NS, assuming you're not a puppet or something.

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Listen, people:

JESUS CERTAINLY DID, AND DOES, EXIST.

HE WAS, AND IS, THE SON OF GOD.

HE DIED BY CRUCIFIXION, WAS BURIED, AND CAME OUT OF HIS GRAVE THREE DAYS LATER.

HE IS ALIVE TODAY.

SOMEDAY HE WILL COME BACK TO RULE THE EARTH.

YES, I BELIEVE ALL OF THAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, FINE; BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED TO PAY FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND, AND HE IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RECORD THAT GOD GAVE OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST (the Bible).

And any claims that He did not exist are nothing but desperate attempts to suppress the truth with lies in order to soothe guilty consciences. There is historical proof that Jesus did, in fact, live on this earth.

And there's Scriptural proof. (YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

Any refutation of the historically established FACT of Jesus' life on the earth is nothing but politically correct propaganda.

EVIDENCE??

Faith?

All god asks is to believe in your heart and your mind. I was a militant atheist no more than a year and a half ago, and he changed my heart. I used to say I'd never even begin to believe until I saw him and he smote me. But all it took was his touch upon my heart.

It sounds like magic, or something from a fairytale but Its true, and there's nothing these pathetic little letters on your computer screen can do to describe it to you. Its something, in my mind, that has to be experienced, rather than known.Got drunk?

Christadelphi?

Brothers of christ?Salami?

EVIDENCE??

Oh come now, it's a "faith" issue. :p

Oh come now, it's a "faith" issue. :pNo, it's a claim that certain events took place in a specific way. I want evidence that Yeshua was resurrected. And I want evidence that he died at all (since a couple of hours on a cross don't kill a young healthy man).

No, it's a claim that certain events took place in a specific way. I want evidence that Yeshua was resurrected. And I want evidence that he died at all (since a couple of hours on a cross don't kill a young healthy man).

Wasn't that why he supposedly died of a broken heart?
What with supping of him and all, surprise he lasted that long.

Wasn't that why he supposedly died of a broken heart?
What with supping of him and all, surprise he lasted that long.
Do you read a Disney edition of the bible??

Do you read a Disney edition of the bible??

Disney has better fireworks. :p
'sides, i don't have time for it 'cept on Sundays, where i get the happy condensed version that makes me feel better about myself over tea & cookies, in my best garb nonetheless.

Whowhatwherewhy?

Incidentally, what's with the religious threads bringing out all the fresh blood?

I can't speak for the rest but I'm not fresh: I used to post under the name RLI Rides Again but I forgot to log in frequently enough and my nation got deleted. The Mods ressed it, but for some reason it can no longer post on the forum so I took a break and then started this account yesterday.

Well, the first usage of the term "Christian" comes from Tacitus' account of The Great Fire of Rome, and it's debatable concerning what Tacitus truly meant in the passage- did he mean "Christus" (Christ) or "Chrestus", a common name for slaves at the time? That's one question.

Very interesting, thank you.

Now, regarding the impact of the other messiahs- how do you *know* none of them left an impact? Just because we know of no other messiahs other than Jesus that left an impact doesn't mean that they didn't exist- it just means we don't know about them yet (if we ever do). I also doubt these other messiahs needed a huge following to get themselves a footing in Rome itself- think of all the minority groups that float around a place like New York City or Toronto and you'll see why.

Fair point, but from what we know it seems that the only reason Christianity really reached a gentile audience was because of Paul, apparently the others had little interest in preaching to non-Jews. Might other groups have been more inclusive? I guess it's possible, but given their nature as religious fundamentalists it doesn't seem too likely to me.

It is an interesting point, but mainly because it shows that Tacitus was (likely) writing NOT from primary sources, but from some kind of testimony... maybe even nothing more than speculation or rumour.

grave grave grave

i set up a trap, balderdash falls into it, and you dont even notice.

he agreed with me that time alters human memory.

think about it.

For those of you too lazy to read it, they sight the overwhelming number of Gentile and Jewish Christians dating from the time right after the year of his supposed death. Could someone who never existed have caused such a wide spread conversion?


think about it, lasc, we DO have "someones" who started christianity much like joseph smith started mormonism.

the christian evangelists probably DID exist. st paul preached for many years and set up many christian communities.

and he NEVER mentions jesus by name. only "christ" which is the messiah/savior.

the message of christianity and a god who is personally concerned about even the lowest person is was very powerful and spread all around the mediterranean area through the actions of several christian evangelists.

the various communities they set up ended up with various understandings of god and jesus. there was no unity of belief until the roman emperor signed on to the religion and the council of nicaea standardized belief. then the rest of christian beliefs were brutally suppressed.

I can't speak for the rest but I'm not fresh: I used to post under the name RLI Rides Again but I forgot to log in frequently enough and my nation got deleted. The Mods ressed it, but for some reason it can no longer post on the forum so I took a break and then started this account yesterday.

welcome back!

ill try to remember that you are someone i know.

So I think it's odd to be having this argument, considering its almost overwhelmingly believed that he did exist, whether as a Divine Being or a Mortal. Before I make my case, I will admit I am a Christian, and I do Believe in Christ. But I have to go one further and admit that no more than a year and a half ago I was a Militant Athiest, so you can't use the "You were born into it and Brain Washed" tactic here.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

This article, admittedly from a Christian Web Site, presents an argument proving the physical existence of Jesus. They sight the Bible initially, which many will not accept as proof therein, and then move to secular sources of the era, mainly Roman and Gentile, so that its clearly stated what their argument is.

For those of you too lazy to read it, they sight the overwhelming number of Gentile and Jewish Christians dating from the time right after the year of his supposed death. Could someone who never existed have caused such a wide spread conversion?

This seems to be a solid argument in my opinion. The fact that more than 12,000 recorded Christians existed in more than twenty places only four years after the year of his supposed death, that roman officials made mention of a Jewish Rabbi who had created a sect whose teachings were moralistic and peaceful in nature, and was crucified at the order of the Jewish King, who had been tried by Pilate, yet found innocent and released, and that Twelve Men, claiming to be his apostles, traveled the lands for many years spreading his teachings and making converts, all seem to point in the direction of having at least a physical being in the form of Jesus, whether you believe he was the Son of God or not.

Its just like there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact that Buddha(s) lived over the various centuries. Or the fact that Muhammad existed 1200 years ago, or that Gerald Gardener, founder of the Wiccan Religion, was born only about 170 years ago, or Joseph Smith was born 200 years ago. Religions don't simply appear. They have to have a beginning, and something solid enough that at least someone is going to say, "Hey, I like the way that sounds".

So, I propose this counter argument.

Without a real person, who may or may not have been named Jesus of Nazareth, how could Christianity have started, let alone spread till it became the widest spread religion on earth?

And of course, all the evidence that Isis, Osiris and Horus existed, right?

Number of adherents has never been a measure of veracity.

Faith?

All god asks is to believe in your heart and your mind. I was a militant atheist no more than a year and a half ago, and he changed my heart. I used to say I'd never even begin to believe until I saw him and he smote me. But all it took was his touch upon my heart.

It sounds like magic, or something from a fairytale but Its true, and there's nothing these pathetic little letters on your computer screen can do to describe it to you. Its something, in my mind, that has to be experienced, rather than known.

Militant atheism is a state of faith... all you did was swap one faith for another. Perhaps that's not so much a comment on the evidence?

The problem is - while your 'faith' apparently works for you, you faith leaves me cold. It's not evidence to me.

SOMEDAY HE WILL COME BACK TO RULE THE EARTH.


He will? Has he set a date? Hope he doesn't show up this Christmas, because I won't be home. Be a pity to miss an important visitor.

By the way, there's a key on your keyboard, probably just to the left of the 'A'. Properly used, it makes it slightly easier to type acronyms. Improper use of it is just a bit sad and irritating.

grave grave grave

i set up a trap, balderdash falls into it, and you dont even notice.

he agreed with me that time alters human memory.

think about it.

I saw the trap, I was letting you spring it. I'm afraid I capitalised on your post to reinforce one of my own.

But, yes - it's a good point. Tacitus apparently is forgetting details as big as Pilate's rank, but we're supposed to just suck up the Gospel accounts as verbatim. Even more, we're supposed to trust Paul's recollections... despite his 'never even being there'.

I saw the trap, I was letting you spring it. I'm afraid I capitalised on your post to reinforce one of my own.

But, yes - it's a good point. Tacitus apparently is forgetting details as big as Pilate's rank, but we're supposed to just suck up the Gospel accounts as verbatim. Even more, we're supposed to trust Paul's recollections... despite his 'never even being there'.

im not much of a trap springer. im content to know that he is standing in it.

but i was was waiting for the authenticity of the gospels to come up again so i could gently remind him that he had already signed on to the notion of the fallibility of human memory.

which is obvious even in the bible when you look at the gospel accounts of jesus' life and how they differ. ive read that theologians who compared the various accounts in a formal way were suprised that they really dont match up. it seems that the catholic church kept a tight grip on the bible for good reason.

im not much of a trap springer. im content to know that he is standing in it.

but i was was waiting for the authenticity of the gospels to come up again so i could gently remind him that he had already signed on to the notion of the fallibility of human memory.

which is obvious even in the bible when you look at the gospel accounts of jesus' life and how they differ. ive read that theologians who compared the various accounts in a formal way were suprised that they really dont match up. it seems that the catholic church kept a tight grip on the bible for good reason.

Yeah - you'd have thought the accounts of the big things would match, at least.. the accounts of the birth, baptism, sermon on the mount, and crucifiction should (theoretically) appear in every gospel, in much the same form - one would imagine.

The only part that really comes across as common, is the Great Commission... the part most scholars agree didn't exist in the earliest forms of the Gospels... and thus, which was edited in later.

Of course - even then, it doesn't quite add up. A quick read of Matthew shows that the Great Commission still doesn't fit - since Matthew describes Jesus constantly telling his followers that their witnessing was to be to Israel, and that they were forbidden even to cross into other territories with the message. The Commission doesn't even 'agree' witht he text it is attached to... not a good sign.

Yeah - you'd have thought the accounts of the big things would match, at least.. the accounts of the birth, baptism, sermon on the mount, and crucifiction should (theoretically) appear in every gospel, in much the same form - one would imagine.

The only part that really comes across as common, is the Great Commission... the part most scholars agree didn't exist in the earliest forms of the Gospels... and thus, which was edited in later.

Of course - even then, it doesn't quite add up. A quick read of Matthew shows that the Great Commission still doesn't fit - since Matthew describes Jesus constantly telling his followers that their witnessing was to be to Israel, and that they were forbidden even to cross into other territories with the message. The Commission doesn't even 'agree' witht he text it is attached to... not a good sign.


i suppose there must be credit due that no one in all those long years of possibility ever decided to "fix" it and make it all match up.

welcome back!

ill try to remember that you are someone i know.

Thanks. :) I'll probably add my former identity to my sig when I remember.

Thanks. :) I'll probably add my former identity to my sig when I remember.

Good to have you back, RLI.

I'm unsure about his existence. Now though, if it was a complete invention, then it was the work of a genius to create a messianic figure that most would believe in and add the names of countless Abrahamic families to the list of previous generations plus adding many other characters. And finally the question comes: why would someone would do such effort to invent a messiah? In fact if it was invented the one who did it could get away with a much simpler one-dimensional and shorter portrait of his fictional life.

...
Fair point, but from what we know it seems that the only reason Christianity really reached a gentile audience was because of Paul, apparently the others had little interest in preaching to non-Jews. Might other groups have been more inclusive? I guess it's possible, but given their nature as religious fundamentalists it doesn't seem too likely to me.

I don't want to minimize Paul, not by any means, but I bring to your attention the fact that we know there was a body of believers in Rome before Paul ever went there, AND we know that there was a body of believer in Egypt very early and Paul never went there. But, having said that, according to the books of Acts, Paul was selected for the purpose of reaching out to the gentiles....

grave grave grave

i set up a trap, balderdash falls into it, and you dont even notice.

he agreed with me that time alters human memory.

think about it.

That's not an effective trap though because you and I have different beliefs about when the gospels were written... Additionally it shows that you 'assume' you know more than you really do about what I believe.

It is an interesting point, but mainly because it shows that Tacitus was (likely) writing NOT from primary sources, but from some kind of testimony... maybe even nothing more than speculation or rumour.

There is no reason to assume that he wasn't working directly from one of the gospels that were already written by that time. Additionally he could have been using Josphus as a source outside of his topic, like I already said.

Secondary point, the only people that want to use Tacitus at all is because some people like to try and pretend that it's all made up in the first place and everything was put together hundreds of years later, that there was nothing historical about it at all.... Amazing how it could all be historically 'made up' even as early as the first century. Astounding really, that if it was all made up, that the hearsay rumor was all over the Roman Empire and in Syria and Egypt too.

Most people are less 'claiming he didn't exist'... and more 'claiming there is simply no good evidence'.

If your god fails to leave anything convincing behind, that's hardly a fault in the non-believer.

It's nothing to do with political correctness. It's everything to do with the fact that there is just no good evidence. How do you expect people to believe something you can't even show them?

There is all kinds of evidence, and good evidence... the fact that you aren't convinced by it is irrelevant. The existence of the church itself at such an early date is 'evidence.' The existence of so many fragments all over the ancient world even by the end of the first century, is evidence. The fact that you are not convinced is not proof that there isn't enough evidence.

i suppose there must be credit due that no one in all those long years of possibility ever decided to "fix" it and make it all match up.


You find truth every once in a while don't you. ;)

Yes, he did exist. Enemies of early Christianity wrote about him, as well as the christians of the time. There is, through antiquated documents, more proof for Jesus Christ existing, than Julius Caesar.

Honestly, all it takes is for one to look at 1 Corinthians 15, and see how early it is written, after the death and resurrection of Christ, and one can EASILY see that there was a Jesus :)

Passages from the bible are hardly compelling evidence

He did exist, historically. I'll show you a selection of sources -

1. The Talmud, a sacred Jewish text
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

This was written at a time when people would most assuredly know of such occurrences.

2. Pliny the Younger's letters to the Roman Emperor
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations."

This was written in 112 AD. That's just about 70 years or so after the death of Jesus.

3. Seutonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars"
""As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"."

Chrestus is a greek form of the modern word Christ. This was written within two decades after his death.

1) The Talmud passage refers to Yeshu being hanged (hung?) not crucified, so it is a stretch to believe that it's referring to the same person.
2) As far as Pliny goes, its not exactly strong evidence, having been written almost 3/4 of a century later, although it is the strongest evidence provided yet.
3) Jesus was a them?

I think at that time, there was loads of people being unlawfully crucified by Roman governments, so other people didn't like this and made a group to try and topple the Roman government, Christianity, was just made because this group had a useful martyr, mind you alot of Christian teachings were written long after Jesus died, i guess so the Roman authorities wouldn't find them, In fact i think the old testament was written in code.
just my two pennies.

The Romans were the law, so the people weren't unlawfully crucified.

But someone already made that point a while ago :(

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Jesus of Nazareth existed, Roman official documentation tells us that iirc.

Does it matter? To Christians, yes. To non-Christians, meh.

That's not an effective trap though because you and I have different beliefs about when the gospels were written... Additionally it shows that you 'assume' you know more than you really do about what I believe.

and yet you are still standing in it. whether or not it has to be sprung is for the future to tell.

unless you believe that which no christian scholar believes, it hardly matters when you think they were written.

as to your beliefs, im only going by what you post.

There is no reason to assume that he wasn't working directly from one of the gospels that were already written by that time. Additionally he could have been using Josphus as a source outside of his topic, like I already said.

Secondary point, the only people that want to use Tacitus at all is because some people like to try and pretend that it's all made up in the first place and everything was put together hundreds of years later, that there was nothing historical about it at all.... Amazing how it could all be historically 'made up' even as early as the first century. Astounding really, that if it was all made up, that the hearsay rumor was all over the Roman Empire and in Syria and Egypt too.

tacitus has no reason to be using the gospels as a source. he says next to nothing about "jesus" (he does not use the name). he could have gotten everything he had written from common gossip about christians and their origins.

You find truth every once in a while don't you. ;)

it does you no credit to give credence only to those things you think support your position and the back of your hand to those things you think do not.

actual analysis might lead you to more convincing posts.

it does you no credit to give credence only to those things you think support your position and the back of your hand to those things you think do not.

actual analysis might lead you to more convincing posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/confirmation_bias

of course he was real. Science has proved that Jesus really existed. The only thing it can't prove is that he was God's son. The way Christians take Jesus is their own, but even the jewish people, for example, who don't take him as sacred, believe he was REAL.

What proof?

You'd be surprised what the Left will turn a blind eye to.

Show me compelling evidence

The Romans were the law, so the people weren't unlawfully crucified.

But someone already made that point a while ago :(

sorry my mistake i meant unfairly or inhumanly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/confirmation_bias

which is a tradition here at NSG. balderdash is hardly the only one.

which is a tradition here at NSG. balderdash is hardly the only one.

Admittedly true. It was necessary to point it out, regardless.

Admittedly true. It was necessary to point it out, regardless.

yes yes it was. its good to put a name to things.

The thing is, the Roman Empire relied on a centralised bureaucracy so much that, if you look hard enough, you could theoretically find out a goldmine of information about Jesus.

As it it, a Joseph and Mary from Nazareth mentioned in the 6 BC census in Bethlehem, are mentioned again along with a son (Joshua bar Joseph) in records from Nazareth about fifteen years later, and the crucifixion of a Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth is mentioned in letters from Pontius Pilate to his wife, and Herod Antipas to the soon-to-be Emperor Claudius Caesar in 28 AD.

It is almost certain that Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is another matter entirely.

The thing is, the Roman Empire relied on a centralised bureaucracy so much that, if you look hard enough, you could theoretically find out a goldmine of information about Jesus.

As it it, a Joseph and Mary from Nazareth mentioned in the 6 BC census in Bethlehem, are mentioned again along with a son (Joshua bar Joseph) in records from Nazareth about fifteen years later, and the crucifixion of a Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth is mentioned in letters from Pontius Pilate to his wife, and Herod Antipas to the soon-to-be Emperor Claudius Caesar in 28 AD.

It is almost certain that Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is another matter entirely.

Wow. Can you share those records with the world ? I mean... it would probably result in you getting an instant sainthood and huge riches.

So.. go for it !

Jesus of Nazareth existed, Roman official documentation tells us that iirc.

What documentation?