NationStates Jolt Archive

I genuinly want to know if he existed. Please provide proof for any statment your going to make and if you contribution happens to be "of course he did it says so in the bible *lalalalalal*" or "of course he didn't it says he did in the bible!" then please refrain from becoming involved

I wouldn't know, I wasn't there.

Oh my... you just opened a debate floodgate. My hat is off to you sir!

But I shall refrain from debate because I have never read the bible, and thus do not know that much about him.

its pretty soon to open this can of worms again. we just had a huge thread on this a few months ago. its in the top 10 largest threads of all time.

and id say "probably not"

Does it really matter?

Does it really matter?

Nope.

Does it really matter?

Agreed. But no funny picture to go with it? You dissapoint me.

Oh my... you just opened a debate floodgate. My hat is off to you sir!

But I shall refrain from debate because I have never read the bible, and thus do not know that much about him.

lol aw thanks

O and ya I know there was but i promised. . .um . . .someone . .. . cant remember who . . .any way I promised them I'd start this thread to save this topic from hijacking the other one

Agreed. But no funny picture to go with it? You dissapoint me.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/jesusjeez.jpg

How's this?

Perfect. :cool:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/jesusjeez.jpg

How's this?

Awesome!

Does it really matter?

Oddly enough, you can judge a lot about a person by the way they answer this question. I don't think I would ever become friends with someone who fervently believed it was important, regardless of their flavour of theism, or lack thereof. I find that people who believe it does matter are working with a very narrow definition of Christianity.

Awesome!

Err, sorry if we seem to have hijacked your thread. :$

Oddly enough, you can judge a lot about a person by the way they answer this question. I don't think I would ever become friends with someone who fervently believed it was important, regardless of their flavour of theism, or lack thereof. I find that people who believe it does matter are working with a very narrow definition of Christianity.

An interesting point.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5720/0621wd.gif

"For my next trick, i'm gonna turn water-into FUNK!"

For starters:
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-historical-jesus-faq.htm

I don´t really know what to say. I want to believe that Jesus did exist, that he was a real person, same as me, who cried, had headaches, laughed and lived. Alas, I´m not sure. Hopefully, 2,000 years ago, he did walk this earth and lived under our same sun. That´s all I will venture to say.

Err, sorry if we seem to have hijacked your thread. :$

lol its all good. see I actually enjoy this kinda stuff.

There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

Josephus, a roman scholar, noted the rise of the early Christian church and its followers' reliance on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Josephus was not a Christian, eliminating the potential for motive to fabricate.

Pliny the Younger dismissed the Christians' belief system, but still commented to the followers fervent belief in Christ.

Additionally, "contemporary scholars such like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context."

If you don't want to believe that Christ existed, it is certainly your freedom and perogative to do so. However, there is data to support his historicity. I encourage you to ask questions and seek the truth for yourself, rather than simply rely on the atheistic world view of Christ as a myth. Consider this: Alexander the Great, who we regularly believe as a historically accurate figure, had only 5 primary sources for his existence. The evidence of Christ's existence, and his effect on your life is tangible my friend.

Note, for more information, go to various articles found on Wikipedia which can lead you to more comprehensive primary sources.

lol its all good. see I actually enjoy this kinda stuff.

Good. Party time!

http://joshsmithonwpf.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/celebrate.jpg

For starters:
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-historical-jesus-faq.htm

try not to used incredibly biased sources please.

To ask whether Jesus existed without being allowed to refer to the Bible is a bit like asking whether man went to the moon without being allowed to look at NASA records - not impossible, but it makes the job quite difficult. Even if you don't believe in the Bible as Scripture, it is still relevant as a historical document.

While there is obviously debate about whether Jesus is God, it has always been my understanding that there is little doubt that a man called Jesus did exist, and was crucified.

Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

I'm afraid that's the most academic source I'm willing to find you at the moment.

try not to used incredibly biased sources please.

That's not really possible. One thing I do know is that even the bible is biased.

try not to used incredibly biased sources please.

You mean like all the people that will come in here and post the same blog stuff about Jesus being like pagan gods?

try not to used incredibly biased sources please.

i just glanced at it but its a reasonable (if biased) introduction to the non biblical sources for jesus.

try not to used incredibly biased sources please.

It wasn't that biased, and what bias it did have was pretty clear. I think the only misleading part was the description of the famous Josephus quote, but even a cursory search of the wiki article would clear that up.

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

We all know Jesus "existed", its very well documented. We also know that Muhammad "existed".

What we don't know is whether they had mystical healing powers, the ability to fly or the inability to die.

:rolleyes:

We all know Jesus "existed", its very well documented. We also know that Muhammad "existed".

What we don't know is whether they had mystical healing powers, the ability to fly or the inability to die.

:rolleyes:

no its not well documented at all. there are no good non-biblical sources -- not that anyone would expect there to be.

even the bible is pretty sketchy in its outline of the life of jesus. the verifiable details are all bullshit.

try not to used incredibly biased sources please. For any opinion that anyone holds (even your don't use the Bible statement) is biased, its just biased against the Bible. When evaluating any belief, fact, concept, or person... one should look at all sources for and against whatever you are looking at. If you can do it in an unbaised manner I would be very surprised. We all have presuppositions which inform the way we view the world. People who hold to religion have their worldview informed with the things like the Bible or the Koran as being key elements. To just throw out a book of that nature when asking specific questions regarding their beliefs is akin to throwing out Darwin's "The Origin of Species" when asking questions of where the theory of evolution came from or the Moon / NASA example earlier.

HMMM, I really don't know if there is proof. There might be things they find like burial places...

Did Sherlock Holmes really solve all those cases? /rhetorical question

Did Sherlock Holmes really solve all those cases? /rhetorical question

Did Yoda provide his Jedi students with a useful moral compass?

For any opinion that anyone holds (even your don't use the Bible statement) is biased, its just biased against the Bible. When evaluating any belief, fact, concept, or person... one should look at all sources for and against whatever you are looking at. If you can do it in an unbaised manner I would be very surprised. We all have presuppositions which inform the way we view the world. People who hold to religion have their worldview informed with the things like the Bible or the Koran as being key elements. To just throw out a book of that nature when asking specific questions regarding their beliefs is akin to throwing out Darwin's "The Origin of Species" when asking questions of where the theory of evolution came from or the Moon / NASA example earlier.

Uh, the theory of evolution doesn't come from Origin of Species. It's just an important book that documents a lot of the early evidence for the theory. The science behind evolution is repeatable and documented by many independent sources. It's silly to even think that Evolution/Origin of the Species is in any way whatsoever comparable to Religion/Holy Books.

i just glanced at it but its a reasonable (if biased) introduction to the non biblical sources for jesus.

Um read some of their other stuff and look into it in a little more depth I thought it was pretty good to start but after reading into it . . .not so much.
O and just for the record Incredibly biased includes all that "blog stuff about jesus being a pagan god" though I was bored as hell one day and watching some wierd TV show and it had that whole thing. . .got sick of it bout 10 minutes in

For any opinion that anyone holds (even your don't use the Bible statement) is biased, its just biased against the Bible. When evaluating any belief, fact, concept, or person... one should look at all sources for and against whatever you are looking at. If you can do it in an unbaised manner I would be very surprised. We all have presuppositions which inform the way we view the world. People who hold to religion have their worldview informed with the things like the Bible or the Koran as being key elements. To just throw out a book of that nature when asking specific questions regarding their beliefs is akin to throwing out Darwin's "The Origin of Species" when asking questions of where the theory of evolution came from or the Moon / NASA example earlier.

I know thats why I used incredibly. I don't mind a bit of bias. Everyone's biased but its the difference between Fox news bias and . . .say Global News Bias.

Did Sherlock Holmes really solve all those cases? /rhetorical question

no but cool story. The author . . . (whatever his name was . . .dmn . .. he wrote lost world too . . .argh!) actually did solve one. Kinda cool the way he did it too

Um read some of their other stuff and look into it in a little more depth I thought it was pretty good to start but after reading into it . . .not so much.
O and just for the record Incredibly biased includes all that "blog stuff about jesus being a pagan god" though I was bored as hell one day and watching some wierd TV show and it had that whole thing. . .got sick of it bout 10 minutes in

well you have to give your co-threaders credit for being able to seperate wheat from chaff.

so now someone who knew nothing about tacitus, josephus etc can come here and say "well what about this tacitus thing?" and we'll respond.

you want proof, explain why your here

you want proof, explain why your here

O and ya I know there was but i promised. . .um . . .someone . .. . cant remember who . . .any way I promised them I'd start this thread to save this topic from hijacking the other one

he already did.

Not enough evidence either way. But then again, the same can be said for Socrates as well.

Uh, the theory of evolution doesn't come from Origin of Species. It's just an important book that documents a lot of the early evidence for the theory. The science behind evolution is repeatable and documented by many independent sources. It's silly to even think that Evolution/Origin of the Species is in any way whatsoever comparable to Religion/Holy Books.Just to comment, the point was in looking at a reference which has become a critical component to the issue being studied. While speculation, if Darwin never wrote "Origins" where would the theory of evolution be today... same with any religion and their writtings, key documents are important in there respective fields of inquiry. It was in that sense they I was comparing them. Whether you think that is silly or not is your opinion.

All of this to say that whenever you make the statement that you must prove something with using the most obvious source material you have stacked the deck for the house.

Even with this... if one is truly seeking "proof" one merely has to go looking for it. While everyone will approach it with their own bais, the best place to start is with people who actually hold the claim that Jesus exsisted. There are many religious journals which devote space to such questions.

One such article which may prove to helpful and shed some light on this matter is "THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF ANCIENT UNBELIEF" written by DOUGLAS S. HUFFMAN which can be read here -- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199712/ai_n8778506 -- finds many references to Christ in early documents and commentary during the 1st-3rd centuries.

well you have to give your co-threaders credit for being able to seperate wheat from chaff.

so now someone who knew nothing about tacitus, josephus etc can come here and say "well what about this tacitus thing?" and we'll respond.

ah fair enough. As long as the bias is pointed out thats cool . . .still though I'd chose wiki (especially cause there is a banner on the article warning that it may be unbalanced) for this rather than "allaboutjesus.org"

Not enough evidence either way. But then again, the same can be said for Socrates as well.
or the small teacup in orbit around jupiter

he already did.

I think he/she may have meant in a less specific sense. maybe?

Just to comment, the point was in looking at a reference which has become a critical component to the issue being studied. while specualtion, if Darwin never wrote "Origins" where would the theory of evolution be today... same with any religion and their writtings. Both are important elements of their respective fields of inquiry.

given the rapid progress of science in the past 150+ years....same place it is today. darwin wasnt the only person to think about this kind of thing.

religion is a whole different ball game. it IS dependant on its founder for much of its development.

or the small teacup in orbit around jupiter

Now I want green tea.
If Jesus was Japanese, I´m sure he enjoyed drinking green tea. Yup.

I think he/she may have meant in a less specific sense. maybe?

nah, cant be.

what would the existence of jesus have to do with your purpose in life?

given the rapid progress of science in the past 150+ years....same place it is today. darwin wasnt the only person to think about this kind of thing.

religion is a whole different ball game. it IS dependant on its founder for much of its development.

Funnily enough he only published because his compatriot (can you tell I'm not good with names) was about too

Nope, no Jesus. From 33AD to 100AD, the Apostles were all 'making it up' :rolleyes:

Much more likely that he did exists than they 'made it all up' and nobody noticed to accuse them of it until almost two thousand years later blah blah blah

nah, cant be.

what would the existence of jesus have to do with your purpose in life?

lol Nice!!! :D

Nope, no Jesus. From 33AD to 100AD, the Apostles were all 'making it up' :rolleyes:

Much more likely that he did exists than they 'made it all up' and nobody noticed to accuse them of it until almost two thousand years later blah blah blah

We don't know that because we don't know if the Apostles existed either.

Nope, no Jesus. From 33AD to 100AD, the Apostles were all 'making it up' :rolleyes:

Much more likely that he did exists than they 'made it all up' and nobody noticed to accuse them of it until almost two thousand years later blah blah blah

um . . . there was a large period of time where accusing the apostles of anything got you burned to death, crucified to death or beheaded to death. Second the apostles were probably a lot better off than they let on as printing was EXPENSIVE back in those days as was the ability to read/write etc. that suggest to me that them having made it all up to protect their own power might not be all that out there. On the other hand I don't know and your comment . . .not helpful

Now I want green tea.
If Jesus was Japanese, I´m sure he enjoyed drinking green tea. Yup.

"Watashi wa Kami desu! Onegishimasu, Pepsi!" -Jesus-san

Jesus drank Pepsi, not tea. Until he converted to Mormonism, then he drank neither unless he was alone.

its pretty soon to open this can of worms again. we just had a huge thread on this a few months ago. its in the top 10 largest threads of all time.

and id say "probably not"

Good thing I missed it. Was it locked due to being fat(uberthread)?

Good thing I missed it. Was it locked due to being fat(uberthread)?

it finally died.

it finally died.

Heh. Do you think the same thing will happen to this thread?

We all know Jesus "existed", its very well documented. We also know that Muhammad "existed".

What we don't know is whether they had mystical healing powers, the ability to fly or the inability to die.

:rolleyes:

Now i know where superman came from!

If there is a god and if jesus was real may he strike me dead before my next post.:salute:

Heh. Do you think the same thing will happen to this thread?

it will die quickly. its too soon since the last one.

I would say no at this point.

lol nice salin

it will die quickly. its too soon since the last one.

But not if we keep posting about the thread itself!

Now i know where superman came from!

If there is a god and if jesus was real may he strike me dead before my next post.:salute:

Jesus was not Superman! That's offensive and wrong!

If anything, Jesus was like Wolverine.

Think about it: both had a healing factor, both spent their weekends with 12 guys, both were Canadian, both were Jewish, both drank a lot, both had adamantium skeletons (that's why they couldn't break Jesus's's legs on the cross, look it up).

Superman...that's just stupid.

But not if we keep posting about the thread itself!

lol

that does get old quickly

Jesus was not Superman! That's offensive and wrong!

If anything, Jesus was like Wolverine.

Think about it: both had a healing factor, both spent their weekends with 12 guys, both were Canadian, both were Jewish, both drank a lot, both had adamantium skeletons (that's why they couldn't break Jesus's's legs on the cross, look it up).

Superman...that's just stupid.
lol oh god! Salinthal watch out man wolverine . . .I mean jesus is coming for you!

darwin wasnt the only person to think about this kind of thing. religion is a whole different ball game. it IS dependant on its founder for much of its development.So you infer that the theory of evolution is NOT dependent on Darwin's work in bringing it to the forefront of scientific investigation?

I know off topic to the thread... but the point holds. By attacking my illustration, the point I am making is being attacked. The only point in the comparision is that those who contribute significantly to their field of study need to be considered. So in essence, with this line of thinking. If I were to attempt to trace the development of the theory of evolution, I could in no way use any of Darwin's material. The point is that a great deal of pertinant imformation would be disregarded with no other claim than that he was biased for evolution.

So you infer that the theory of evolution is NOT dependent on Darwin's work in bringing it to the forefront of scientific investigation?

I know off topic to the thread... but the point holds. By attacking my illustration, the point I am making is being attacked. The only point in the comparison is that those who contribute significantly to their field of study need to be considered. So in essence, with this line of thinking. If I were to attempt to trace the development of the theory of evolution, I could in no way use any of Darwin's material. The point is that a great deal of pertinent information would be disregarded with no other claim than that he was biased for evolution.
This doesn't carry over to the original illustration but even without darwin the origin of species would still have been writen (by the scientist who's work forced Darwin to publish but who's name I can't remember)

So you infer that the theory of evolution is NOT dependent on Darwin's work in bringing it to the forefront of scientific investigation?

I know off topic to the thread... but the point holds. By attacking my illustration, the point I am making is being attacked. The only point in the comparision is that those who contribute significantly to their field of study need to be considered. So in essence, with this line of thinking. If I were to attempt to trace the development of the theory of evolution, I could in no way use any of Darwin's material. The point is that a great deal of pertinant imformation would be disregarded with no other claim than that he was biased for evolution.

yes im saying that it is not DEPENDANT on darwin. which is not to dismiss darwins work, but to say that it's a concept that was not completly original with darwin. there were many giants of biological science working on the understanding of the origin of species and the transmission of traits. without darwin's work the setback of the development of the theory of evolution is insignificant. 100 years ago, it might have been significantly retarded but the advancement of science inthe past 100 years has made darwin not so important.

now if you contrast that with ....the development of mormonism (chosen for its time frame)...we can see that without joseph smith the theological ideas of mormonism would probably be non-existent or insignificant (even though they arent all original to smith)

without darwin the origin of species would still have been writenNot true since Darwin, at the prompting of the work of the other scientist (whom I can't remember either), was THE PERSON who did spent the time investigating and afterwards writting that work.

My point... which seems to be continually missed is that one cannot argue that someone else would have come to the same conclusions that Darwin did. What I'm saying is that Darwin WAS critical to the development of evolution (FACT), therefore if one wants to pursue as much as can be known about evolution they should consult Darwin's studies and works (FACT).

In the same regard, when one wants to prove that Jesus existed, one should consult the works pertaining to him (FACT). This should lead one to pursue 2 different courses of study. First, one in which you assume the Bible and its accounts of Jesus are true and seek information external to it to coroberate that theory. After which, the second study is assuming the Bible is not true and seeking evidence in that light. Then you COMPARE the evidence and make an evaluation.

My illustration, and its point... is only to show that to really be honest in ones study, one should pursue both of these avenues of considering it true and then also untrue to keep the information from being one-sided. Unless that is what you were intending from the beginning.

Not true since Darwin, at the prompting of the work of the other scientist (whom I can't remember either), was THE PERSON who did spent the time investigating and afterwards writting that work.

My point... which seems to be continually missed is that one cannot argue that someone else would have come to the same conclusions that Darwin did. What I'm saying is that Darwin WAS critical to the development of evolution (FACT), therefore if one wants to pursue as much as can be known about evolution they should consult Darwin's studies and works (FACT).

In the same regard, when one wants to prove that Jesus existed, one should consult the works pertaining to him (FACT). This should lead one to pursue 2 different courses of study. First, one in which you assume the Bible and its accounts of Jesus are true and seek information external to it to coroberate that theory. After which, the second study is assuming the Bible is not true and seeking evidence in that light. Then you COMPARE the evidence and make an evaluation.

My illustration, and its point... is only to show that to really be honest in ones study, one should pursue both of these avenues of considering it true and then also untrue to keep the information from being one-sided. Unless that is what you were intending from the beginning.


no. you can learn everything you need to know about evolution, you can become a professional biological scientist, and never read darwin, never think about darwin, and apply nothing about darwin to your work.

without darwin's work the setback of the development of the theory of evolution is insignificant... it might have been significantly retarded but the advancement of science inthe past 100 years has made darwin not so important.Well... since you contradict yourself I'm not sure how to take the statement. Is it insignificant or does significantly retard science?


Other than to say that I disagree with your evaluation. I think that Darwin's contribution brought a small field of study into the forefront of scientific investigation, and at the time it was revolutionary. One cannot say that scientific progress makes Darwin's finds not so important because in his day it CHANGED how everyone viewed the world. I would say that is significant.

Well... since you contradict yourself I'm not sure how to take the statement. Is it insignificant or does significantly retard science?


Other than to say that I disagree with your evaluation. I think that Darwin's contribution brought a small field of study into the forefront of scientific investigation, and at the time it was revolutionary. One cannot say that scientific progress makes Darwin's finds not so important because in his day it CHANGED how everyone viewed the world. I would say that is significant.

its a curve of progress thing. in the early years darwin was quite important, in the past 50 years, not so much.

anyway, how do you feel that this notion applies to christianity and the existence of jesus? there really isnt much direct non-biblical evidence. there s only the "well where the hell did christianity come from then?" kind of indirect evidence that jesus ever existed in the flesh.

There are no solid proofs in manners of faith.

I like the idea of Darwin only being the latest development in the quest for evolution. Well there HAVE been numerous episodes of humans being pointed towards God. Although as a Catholic I believe in the primacy of Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Jewish prophets, and countless other people have all been pointing in the same direction. Lets say a hundred people "found" evolution (which i think is true.) Thousands and thousands of people have "found God", either through Jesus (easiest way) or nature or the mind or meditation etc. The point is, they're all pointing the same direction, and as many of them hated eachother, I'm betting they're not in conspiracy.

I like the idea of Darwin only being the latest development in the quest for evolution. Well there HAVE been numerous episodes of humans being pointed towards God. Although as a Catholic I believe in the primacy of Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Jewish prophets, and countless other people have all been pointing in the same direction. Lets say a hundred people "found" evolution (which i think is true.) Thousands and thousands of people have "found God", either through Jesus (easiest way) or nature or the mind or meditation etc. The point is, they're all pointing the same direction, and as many of them hated eachother, I'm betting they're not in conspiracy.

thats a good thought.

Now I want green tea.
If Jesus was Japanese, I´m sure he enjoyed drinking green tea. Yup.
Given the time period and his status in life, he probably was not drinking tea. Alas!

Nowadays of course he probably enjoys aisucohi like everyone else. ;)

"Watashi wa Kami desu! Onegishimasu, Pepsi!" -Jesus-san
I am a god! Please do this for me, Pepsi? :confused:

Of course, oddly enough Aomori Prefecture claims that Jesus and his brother are buried there.

In all honesty I believe there was a man who could do unhumanly things and he was in fact real. However, I do not know weather everything the Bible says is true when the disiples write what he said to them.

Ohm..

And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.

"Watashi wa Kami desu! Onegishimasu, Pepsi!" -Jesus-san

Jesus drank Pepsi, not tea. Until he converted to Mormonism, then he drank neither unless he was alone.

*cue the back-up dancers*

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h76/mcmannbitch/DancingJesus.gif

"And the lord said: 'Let there be humor!'"

Yes.

Still is.

There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

All of whom were born after the death of the Biblical Jesus, some almost 100 years later so not contempory at all then.

Where are the contempary records that mention Jesus?
Where are the independant sources that note his miracles?

I wouldn't know, I wasn't there.

This, sir, is the most intelligent answer possible.

Btw, an interesting insight about gnoseology.
In ancient greek "οιδα", the past perfect tense of "οραω" = "I see", also has the meaning of "I know" (of a certain fact). That is, to ancient greeks, "I know" meant "I have seen".

Ohm..

Ampère...

Ampère...

Aaaargh...EM joke......too...powerful...must...warn......others...

The fact is, I can prove Jesus was a real person.

Jesus was actually an accomplished martial artist, one of the first real practitioners of what is now know as Kung-Jew.

Aside from being able to move so quickly he could walk on water (like the Korean master in "Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins") Jesus also developed the flying double crotch kick.

We honor this achievement by shouting "Jesus Christ" whenever we are kicked in the balls.

anyway, how do you feel that this notion applies to christianity and the existence of jesus? there really isnt much direct non-biblical evidence. there s only the "well where the hell did christianity come from then?" kind of indirect evidence that jesus ever existed in the flesh.

Actually, there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for that of most historical figures. The above statement is incorrect. There is a dearth of secondary sources of diverse type alluding or attesting to his existence, not all of them Christian.

And I happen to know this point. I gave a seminar on it not two weeks ago. I also happened to come into my faith in Christianity by means of analysis of historical evidence. I concluded that the evidence was solid, ergo I converted.

To Peeplonia: Josephus was certainly contemporary. He wrote of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, so the Apostles (which he refers to) and the debates about Jesus ministry (Josephus calls him a sorceror, for reference... he didn't like Jesus much) were very much known.

From what I have looked at a good body of work supports the existence of a religious upstart named Jesus. But that's about it.

Actually, there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for that of most historical figures. The above statement is incorrect. There is a dearth of secondary sources of diverse type alluding or attesting to his existence, not all of them Christian.

Feel free to reference them and end this debate then :)
Do note that a lot of people will be sceptical of your ability to do so - this topic comes along quite often and noone ever is.

And I happen to know this point. I gave a seminar on it not two weeks ago. I also happened to come into my faith in Christianity by means of analysis of historical evidence. I concluded that the evidence was solid, ergo I converted.

See above - and convert some more people in the process :)

sure he was a real person. hundreds of thousands of them, perhapse millions, with tens of thousands of them living in 'spanish'/'latin' speaking countries today.

now if you're talking about one particular jesus, that poor bastard who nearly everyone knows of his judicial demise under a paranoid colonial government, as is nor was at the time, not so unusual a fate of charismatic leaders, especially those who'se words find themselves at odds with official edicts of earthly powers that be, one can at best only speculate. as there does exist rather a large body of evidence that the rightful indigeneans, or at least earlier invaders of that land in question, certain well reguarded intrests among them, specificly the essenes, would have had a great and vested intrest in creating such a legend.

still this is not such a strong argument after all, against someone's existence, who'se any means of confirmation might be long lost in the fogs and mists of time.

whether or not such a figgure existed in flesh and blood, the point of the story of it, was never about himself as a person, as is the case with every revealer of organized belief, which that at least, whether he existed as the son of a father and mother of this world at all, being somewhat self evident.

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

While this is a conversatino far better had in person than over the internet, I will put forward something I wrote for the NSDraftroom about two months ago. Please excuse any references to NSD stuff that you don't get.





After some consideration of which of the many questions posed to answer at length, I was unable to come to an immediate conclusion... as such, my first response... this one, in fact, is going to be aimed not so much at a question, but at the nature of the questions, and what that means. In the process, I hope to address points underlying the questions as presented, and, as is my thing, provide food for thought/contemplation/trivia.

There appears to be the common misconception held amongst a great many people (even sadly some lesser informed Christians) that Christianity is a system of belief that is somehow disconnected from the rational world. That to be a Christian one must “check the brain at the door”, before going in for your dose of salvation, then pick it up on the way out, ready for the trip back into the real world, to carry on with life.

Nothing could be further from the truth. God is a rational being, creator (however the details work themselves out) of a rational universe, and producing, in turn, rational beings (us – sometimes. Sometimes we show remarkable proclivity to irrational behaviour... but we shouldn't let the fact that we suck interfere with this point as it is being made.) that are intended to have faith in, and relationship with, God on a rational level. I will be the first to admit that there are elements, particularly if not seen from a God's eye view, that seem counter-intuitive, but if the solid faith built upon rationality is present, then that faith is also rational.

Allow me to pose an illustration.

If a complete stranger asks me to buy some beer for him, while I'm on my way back from the seminary, and then says that he doesn't have any cash on him right then, but can pay me back on Friday, what would be the best course of action? Should I have faith in him, and expect to get my money back? Or should I be cynical or sceptical, and tell him to sod off? Somewhere in the middle, perhaps?

The answer is not 100 percent clear cut. Quite obviously given that the person is a complete stranger, we cannot make much of an assessment of his trustworthiness. Any decision we make on the truthfulness of his pledge to “pay us back on Friday” will be based on very limited information.

Now lets change the scenario a little. This time, rather than a complete stranger, this is a very close friend, one that you have known for most of your life.

What is your answer now? Do you buy him the beer, and trust that he'll pay you back? Or do we buy him the beer, and assume that he will not repay the loan? Do we not buy him the beer, as he is an alcoholic?

In any case, our answer now will be rooted in how well we know the person, and this detail is important.

Many people profess to have faith, but remarkably few can say exactly what it is that they have faith IN. Many will quantify or qualify their faith, stating it to be faith in X, or in Y. However, upon their being pressed, most will put it down to “I think think...” or “I feel that...” responses, responses devoid of any semblance of investigation, calculation or, and here comes that word again, rationality.

People, generally (I would say the vast majority, although some will refute this, I know), have at least a vague inkling of the divine/supernatural. If nothing more advanced than the conviction that there is “something else out there”. They are, broadly speaking, correct. There is something else out there. That knowledge, outside of its potential to generate investigation towards, or interest in, or examination of, Christianity, is completely useless. While this is, in itself, a position that is an affront to many, and with fair reason, and a slap in the face of contemporary post-modernism (which holds to the completely bonkers concept that there are no absolutes, and every belief is correct... but don't get me started on this point. It's a pet hate. If we stand on the train line, it doesn't matter how earnestly we believe that the train isn't coming, we are still stuffed... moving on...), the position is nonetheless one of truth.

Assertion of 'truth' in any form is polemic in this day and in this age. Post-modernism has slipped its sinuous tendrils well into our collective consciousness, and I note, even as I type these words into my laptop while on the train back up to the Central Coast, that me writing that I know 'the truth' sounds somehow odd, even to me.

But were I not to make that assertion, I would be undervaluing the gospel. I would be selling short the remarkable series of events that lead to the faith that is known, in its broadest terms, as Christianity.

We have thus far concluded (at least the parts that you are not likely to disagree with me on...) that if we know someone then our decision to have faith or otherwise can be based on reasoned, rational thought processes.

Do we have to know ALL of the person in question?

Quite obviously not. I do not really know any of you who will read these words (save one or two). Not really. I have a number of lines of text (more lines in some case than others) from most of you... I have some pictures of varying degrees of veracity and utility, and I have my very limited interactions with you in the manner to which we have become accustomed.

So, when I am dealing with you who are my readers, I must make judgements based very heavily on incomplete information.

But this, in and of itself, is neither here nor there. We, as people, deal with incomplete information all the time. It is, in fact, rare that we will have complete information... and in those cases that we do, we rarely aacknowledge that it is complete, and usually proceed on the assumption that it isn't. This is usually regarded as nothing more than cautious prudence. And is not a bad thing.

So, in the context of our knowledge of God, I will readily admit that we do not know everything about God. I will readily admit that, by definition, we are incapable of knowing all that there is to know about a being that, again by definition, is infinite in nature. A finite entity with finite mental capacity is not capable of absorbing INfinite information. But this fact does not mean that we are incapable of knowing either a) ABOUT God, or b) how to relate to God. It simply requires that what we do know about God is rational, reliable, and conveys the information we need. As a theologian, and as a minister, I am one of those people that very strongly holds that the information we have will provide us with that information. And do so rationally and reliably.

If it is not rational, not reliable, or insufficient, then doing what I am doing now, that being full time study at a theological college, would be nothing short of a monumental waste of time.

While I have these spare moments, rushed though they are, I will briefly cover the reasons why the new testament is reliable as a historical document, by means of demonstration and illustration.

Firstly, by way of example, much of our knowledge of the Roman Emperors comes from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote his pieces several hundred years after the event. We have 2 (yes, that's just two) copies of his work, and they are late-medieval copies.

The bible was written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events... many of them dying in support of their beliefs. Here's a juicy bit... The Romans did not execute someone if they said “no, I recant my beliefs”. That was all it took. So those that refused to recant, and died... well, they really believed. All bar one of the apostles was executed. That last guy died in exile. These were the eyewitnesses. They wrote the books, or dictated them to scribes (such as Mark). Not one recanted (apart from Peter's brief fall from grace shown in the gospels, which he repented of, and was executed for later), and were executed because of that refusal to recant.

And not just executed. The pain of crucifiction was so great that the Romans invented a new word to describe how bad it was...

Excruciating (ex-crucis... of the cross).

Now, I know what you are going to say. “People die for what they believe all the time” or perhaps the slightly more provocative “but even suicide bombers die for what they think is true”. Both these examples are correct. People do die for what they believe on a not-infrequent basis. It still takes a person of some moral fortitude (or rampant zealotry, but that's by the by)... far more people simply do not have the guts, when push comes to shove.

The difference is, however, that in the case of the Apostles, they aren't poor brainwashed blokes several thousand years later, feeding off some story that their family has told them and clutching at straws.

They are the same people that watched while their messiah was bashed, flogged and hung up on a cross to die screaming. They were the same people that, shortly thereafter, far from cowed, proclaimed to all who were within earshot that he had risen.

Why? Rome had just crucified Jesus. Why would anyone stick their necks out like that?

Because they, the eyewitnesses to the events in question, the people that had followed Jesus for the years of his ministry, had seen what they would later hold fast to.

Many excuses have been levelled as to why. Some more far fetched than others. On example is 'the disciples stole the body'. Riiiiiiight. As assortment of eleven tax collectors and fishermen, with two swords between them, overpowered a detachment of Roman guards? Or perhaps you prefer 'Jesus wasn't really dead'. That doesn't hold up either. If Roman soldiers fail to execute someone, then they are executed in the condemned's place... so in the case of crucifixion, they always want to make extra sure that the person is dead. Hence the stabbing of the spear into Jesus' side. When it said “blood and water flowed”, it was a reference to fluid buildup around the heart, which happens post mortem in crucifixion victims. Rest assurred, he was dead. Or maybe, as some claim, he never got onto the cross in the first place. No. His friends and colleagues, and even his mother (as recorded in John) were present. They knew it was him.

The bottom line is, if it wasn't true, and in the knowledge of the horrific death that awaited them for holding that point of view, why did the Apostles refuse to recant?

It takes a strong man to die for the truth. No one dies for what they know to be a lie.

With me so far? Now for the next bit... we have 2 copies of Tacitus... written hundreds of years later, and a full 26,000 first and second generation copies of the New Testament from as far afield as Ethiopia and Spain. Primarily in the original Greek, although there are latin examples, and some in Hebrew. The only differences being in place names (the same way we call the country either Burma or Myanmar, and mean the same place). So while you are correct that things can be lost in translation... the originals are still there. You can read them for yourself... if you learn the Greek. Which I am. Admittedly poorly (only 38% in the last test)... but I am learning.

The four gospels are written from two primary viewpoints, that espoused in John, and that derived from Mark (the synoptic -from the word 'synopsis'- gospels). Mark is generally accepted as being the oldest. Luke and Matthew use (at the very least) Mark and one other source each. Thus revealing in the 3 gospels a total of four previous sources; Mark, Q (a hypothesised sayings source), L (stuff only Luke had access to) and M (stuff only Matthew had access to).

Like any eyewitness acount, the witnesses of these events remember things differently. This should actually lend weight to the gospels, not detract from it. If they were too similar, then someone could justifiably cry foul.

Other accounts exist, with varying degrees of accuracy, as is the case in regards to any event. The gospels chosen were not chosen because of a church conspiracy. They were already the most commonly used gospels throughout the Christian world when the council of Nicaea acknowledged them as canon. If you wish to read other gospels, most of them are still printed in Christian bookstores (like Koorong, here in Australia, or Moore books, which I think has better stuff), and some of the Apocrypha (as they are termed) are given varying degrees of authority within different denominations. The Book of Enoch, for example, forms part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 Macabees are considered canon by the Roman Catholic Church, but not most Protestant denominations.

Some say that the bible wasn't written until hundreds of years after Jesus' death... but the Bodmer Papyrus (dated at AD125, plus or minus 25 years) is indisputably a fragment of the gospel of John, which is, according to historians, likely the latest of the gospels to have been written. The gospels, in their phrasology and by means of redactive criticism, are all broadly accepted as pre-dating the fall of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt, which is itself a late first-century occurrence.

In any case, as far as the New Testament goes, agreement is very strong, and broad. The documents in question are regarded as reliable in historical terms, and are independently verified through sources such as Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus. Characters referenced within NT documents are known to history outside the bible also (such as Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas), and the documents that made up the texts are themselves preserved (in the form of very early copies) throughout the ancient mediterranean basin.

That all being said, what would be the logical next course of action?

To examine what it is that those documents say... which is exactly what I will cover, next time.

Until then, take care of yourselves, and God bless.









'Tis not exactly what The Alma Mater asked for, but it's 1250am here, and time is something I have much of right now. More later...

I shall return. In the interim, if anyone wants to email me or telegram me, feel free. chuck433@hotmail.com

Lyras

To Peeplonia: Josephus was certainly contemporary. He wrote of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, so the Apostles (which he refers to) and the debates about Jesus ministry (Josephus calls him a sorceror, for reference... he didn't like Jesus much) were very much known.

As I have it he was born around 37AD, so not contemporay really, I mean if he was born after the death of Jesus and all.

As I have it he was born around 37AD, so not contemporay really, I mean if he was born after the death of Jesus and all.

An awful lot of people around he could have asked... which he did. On the logic which you espouse, the vast majority of our history you would rule as inadmissable.

In any case, read my above post... it may shed some light.

An awful lot of people around he could have asked... which he did. On the logic which you espouse, the vast majority of our history you would rule as inadmissable.

In any case, read my above post... it may shed some light.

Not at all, I am merely asking, where is the contempory evidance?

If you want an eyewitness account, read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

But, given you are unlikely to accept them, consider this...

I wasn't at the Falklands. My uncle was. If I ask him, and his former squadron mates, what they did over there, is my account contemporary?

Not precisely. But will my information be pretty accurate? Most likely.

The non-christian evidence for Jesus, in chronological terms, was so close to the event (<40 years, through Josephus) as to be an eyeblink. Alexander the Great's first sources are 400 years later. Roman Emperors hundreds of years. And we consider that good history. Why the double standards about applying the same historical modus operandi to Jesus?




EDIT: check these out for historicity discussions;

Bruce, FF (1982). New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, ISBN 087784691X
Herzog II, WR (2005). Prophet and Teacher. WJK, ISBN 0664225284
Komoszewski, JE; Sawyer, MJ & Wallace, DB (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications, 195f. ISBN 978-0825429828.
Francois Amiot, Jesus A Historical Person p. 8; F. F. Bruce, Christian Origins

I tend to agree with those sources which posit a guy named Jesus existed. To me, it just makes more sense that a religion would be built around a prophet who did live, but just had his mystical magic powers invented postmortem in the same way that any legendary figure is, rather than built around a complete and unnecessarily made-up fiction.

I mean really, why would anyone need to invent a Jewish cult preacher who was executed by the Romans? It's not like there was some great shortage of such people at the time. You only have to invent people, or things about people, if those people or things weren't readily available to begin with. So the cult preacher who gets executed is plausible to me. The one cult preacher with divine powers? Not plausible. And in fact, physically impossible.

Regardless, of course it doesn't matter insofar as Christianity is concerned. Or atheism or anything like that.

But if everyone agreed with me there wouldn't be a strangely devoted core of fundies desperately trying to prove everything in the Bible... like the Creationists, the people who claim there really was a Great Flood, etc.

The difference is, however, that in the case of the Apostles, they aren't poor brainwashed blokes several thousand years later, feeding off some story that their family has told them and clutching at straws.

They are the same people that watched while their messiah was bashed, flogged and hung up on a cross to die screaming. They were the same people that, shortly thereafter, far from cowed, proclaimed to all who were within earshot that he had risen.

Why? Rome had just crucified Jesus. Why would anyone stick their necks out like that?

Because they, the eyewitnesses to the events in question, the people that had followed Jesus for the years of his ministry, had seen what they would later hold fast to.

Nitpick: how do you know this ? After all, you cannot use the description in the Bible - that would be attempting to prove the Bible right by using the Bible as a source.

Where do you get your knowledge about the apostles ?

While this is a conversatino far better had in person than over the internet, I will put forward something I wrote for the NSDraftroom about two months ago. Please excuse any references to NSD stuff that you don't get....The bible was written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events... many of them dying in support of their beliefs. Here's a juicy bit... The Romans did not execute someone if they said “no, I recant my beliefs”. That was all it took. So those that refused to recant, and died... well, they really believed. All bar one of the apostles was executed. That last guy died in exile. These were the eyewitnesses. They wrote the books, or dictated them to scribes (such as Mark). Not one recanted (apart from Peter's brief fall from grace shown in the gospels, which he repented of, and was executed for later), and were executed because of that refusal to recant. ...

The bottom line is, if it wasn't true, and in the knowledge of the horrific death that awaited them for holding that point of view, why did the Apostles refuse to recant?

It takes a strong man to die for the truth. No one dies for what they know to be a lie. ...

All your logic based on the Apostles depends on the Bible being true in regards to their story. Since you are trying to prove that the Gospels are true, isn't this an example of circular logic?

The Alma Mater:
I study at Moore Theological College. These are the kind of esoteric questions we dabble in all the time. It's what we do. There are a number of sources, although I *sheepishly* admit that I can't name them off the top of my head. My lecturers would flay me. If they don't anyway for me doing so badly at greek... I must also admit, it's rare that someone questions the existence of the apostles.

By available historiographical examination, there is no reason to suppose that they DIDN'T exist, and we have plenty to suggest they did. Religions don't spontaneously appear, for one. The existence of a core of dedicated believers early on is a requirement... and in Christianity, that's the apostles... even if sometimes when reading the New Testament (the gospels in particular) they say some genuinely silly things.

For example, the bible says that Jesus had a divine visitation from Moses and Elijah. What does Peter say? "Let's put up three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
I mean, talk about missing the point, much?!?!

Sorry, just found that funny, and felt like mentioning it.

Not a very satisfying answer, I admit, but it's 0130...

All your logic based on the Apostles depends on the Bible being true in regards to their story. Since you are trying to prove that the Gospels are true, isn't this an example of circular logic?

No, no, the bible doesn't say anything about the death of the apostles. The sources are non-biblical.

They've found the graves of certain disciples who were around at the time, so I reckon he existed.

No, no, the bible doesn't say anything about the death of the apostles. The sources are non-biblical.

What are these non-biblical sources?

If you want an eyewitness account, read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.


what makes you think that they are eyewitnesses? no one knows who wrote those books. they were given names somewhere down the line.

The non-christian evidence for Jesus, in chronological terms, was so close to the event (<40 years, through Josephus) as to be an eyeblink.

since you must have josephus "at hand" please post what he said about jesus here. it will same me the trouble of looking it up and doing so myself.

then we can discuss it.

Alexander the Great's first sources are 400 years later. Roman Emperors hundreds of years. And we consider that good history. Why the double standards about applying the same historical modus operandi to Jesus?


we can see the effect of alexander the great all over the ancient world. it would be hard to make a case for his complete non-existence. there are, however, stories about alexander that are obviously bullshit. since he is not a religious figure we are free to discount them.

when you do the same to jesus--discount the obvious bullshit --you are left with a bunch of religious stories and sayings that are not particularly unique and would be inpossible to verify. as in: jesus and the apostles had passover dinner near the garden of gesthemane (im assuming that this place exists)--there would be no way to prove such a thing and the lack of evidence for it means nothing. or there was a kickass wedding reception in cana--not possible to verify.

They've found the graves of certain disciples who were around at the time, so I reckon he existed.

which disciples are you thinking of?

The Alma Mater:
I study at Moore Theological College. These are the kind of esoteric questions we dabble in all the time. It's what we do. There are a number of sources, although I *sheepishly* admit that I can't name them off the top of my head. My lecturers would flay me. If they don't anyway for me doing so badly at greek... I must also admit, it's rare that someone questions the existence of the apostles.

By available historiographical examination, there is no reason to suppose that they DIDN'T exist, and we have plenty to suggest they did. Religions don't spontaneously appear, for one. The existence of a core of dedicated believers early on is a requirement... and in Christianity, that's the apostles... even if sometimes when reading the New Testament (the gospels in particular) they say some genuinely silly things.

For example, the bible says that Jesus had a divine visitation from Moses and Elijah. What does Peter say? "Let's put up three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
I mean, talk about missing the point, much?!?!

Sorry, just found that funny, and felt like mentioning it.

Not a very satisfying answer, I admit, but it's 0130...


isnt greek the coolest language? do you get to read the greek classics as well as the new testament? those guys knew stuff!

Of course Jesus was a real person. His full name is Jesus Maria Ramon Diaz. He mowed my lawn for several years.

Of course.




He happily resides in Mexico..:rolleyes:

Of course.




He happily resides in Mexico..:rolleyes:

Not so. He lives in San Diego, and he's my ex-father-in-law.:p

I BELIEVE He existed. And I BELIEVE He died on the cross for our sins. However, it is just that. Belief.
Also, religions have this habit of appearing when SOMEONE starts it, they don't just spontaneously appear.

I BELIEVE He existed. And I BELIEVE He died on the cross for our sins. However, it is just that. Belief.
Also, religions have this habit of appearing when SOMEONE starts it, they don't just spontaneously appear.

yeah but who is to say WHO started it?

The earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark ever discovered was dated to around A.D. 75. At such an early date, there were still many living witnesses who could attest to the existence of Jesus; if he had not existed, there were many who could have attested to that as well. Since his existence was not denied, even by enemies of the new religion, in the decades immediately following his death, it seems unreasonable to do so now, unless one is a solipsist. If you're looking for absolute proof, you're unlikely to find it, but there is certainly evidence that he existed, and no real evidence that he didn't. Whether he was a god, a prophet, or only a man is of course another question entirely, and one that cannot be decided through logic.

The earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark ever discovered was dated to around A.D. 75. At such an early date, there were still many living witnesses who could attest to the existence of Jesus; if he had not existed, there were many who could have attested to that as well. Since his existence was not denied, even by enemies of the new religion, in the decades immediately following his death, it seems unreasonable to do so now, unless one is a solipsist. If you're looking for absolute proof, you're unlikely to find it, but there is certainly evidence that he existed, and no real evidence that he didn't. Whether he was a god, a prophet, or only a man is of course another question entirely, and one that cannot be decided through logic.

how would you know if it were denied or not? WHERE did this earliest copy of mark come from?

its not like a non-believer would find the book at the local barnes and noble then write a letter to the editor of the corinthian times.

The earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark ever discovered was dated to around A.D. 75. At such an early date, there were still many living witnesses who could attest to the existence of Jesus; if he had not existed, there were many who could have attested to that as well. Since his existence was not denied, even by enemies of the new religion, in the decades immediately following his death, it seems unreasonable to do so now, unless one is a solipsist. If you're looking for absolute proof, you're unlikely to find it, but there is certainly evidence that he existed, and no real evidence that he didn't. Whether he was a god, a prophet, or only a man is of course another question entirely, and one that cannot be decided through logic.

You are assuming that such criticism would have survived all the intervening years, despite the fact that most of western civilisation lived under a Christian theocracy for centuries, wherein the clergy had almost total control over literacy.

He happily resides in Mexico..:rolleyes:

In a taco...

In a taco...

Smothered in cheese, guacamole and sour cream. Mmmmm...

Smothered in cheese, guacamole and sour cream. Mmmmm...

Well when you go to a dinner party, be careful not to eat the host...

Well when you go to a dinner party, be careful not to eat the host...

Yeah, that would be very rude indeed.

Yeah, that would be very rude indeed.

Especially as he can conjour up more food...

Especially as he can conjour up more food...

Or turn me into a salt figure.

They've found the graves of certain disciples who were around at the time, so I reckon he existed.

Source please

Source please

Sauce. (http://sydfish.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ketchup.jpg)

I genuinly want to know if he existed. Please provide proof for any statment your going to make and if you contribution happens to be "of course he did it says so in the bible *lalalalalal*" or "of course he didn't it says he did in the bible!" then please refrain from becoming involved

I'd say no (this is just my bias talking) based on the fact that there is no good evidence for his having been a real person.

see this for in depth analysis (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

To ask whether Jesus existed without being allowed to refer to the Bible is a bit like asking whether man went to the moon without being allowed to look at NASA records - not impossible, but it makes the job quite difficult. Even if you don't believe in the Bible as Scripture, it is still relevant as a historical document.

While there is obviously debate about whether Jesus is God, it has always been my understanding that there is little doubt that a man called Jesus did exist, and was crucified.


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

I'm afraid that's the most academic source I'm willing to find you at the moment.

*shakes head*

Nope, no Jesus. From 33AD to 100AD, the Apostles were all 'making it up' :rolleyes:

Much more likely that he did exists than they 'made it all up' and nobody noticed to accuse them of it until almost two thousand years later blah blah blah

or, you know it could be that Jesus was based upon several people...

But then that doesn't fit with your view so you'll just dismiss it...

nah, cant be.

what would the existence of jesus have to do with your purpose in life?

Nothing

I genuinly want to know if he existed. Please provide proof for any statment your going to make and if you contribution happens to be "of course he did it says so in the bible *lalalalalal*" or "of course he didn't it says he did in the bible!" then please refrain from becoming involved
Well, i haven't bothered to read the thread, so i'm gonna just jump right in here and say since Jesus was possibly a common name at the time (wasn't there m'self), i'm gonna have to vote yes.

Yes.

Still is.

Got some new evidence?

You didn't manage to come up with anything that didn't get debunked the last time...

While this is a conversatino far better had in person than over the internet, I will put forward something I wrote for the NSDraftroom about two months ago. Please excuse any references to NSD stuff that you don't get.





After some consideration of which of the many questions posed to answer at length, I was unable to come to an immediate conclusion... as such, my first response... this one, in fact, is going to be aimed not so much at a question, but at the nature of the questions, and what that means. In the process, I hope to address points underlying the questions as presented, and, as is my thing, provide food for thought/contemplation/trivia.

There appears to be the common misconception held amongst a great many people (even sadly some lesser informed Christians) that Christianity is a system of belief that is somehow disconnected from the rational world. That to be a Christian one must “check the brain at the door”, before going in for your dose of salvation, then pick it up on the way out, ready for the trip back into the real world, to carry on with life.

Nothing could be further from the truth. God is a rational being, creator (however the details work themselves out) of a rational universe, and producing, in turn, rational beings (us – sometimes. Sometimes we show remarkable proclivity to irrational behaviour... but we shouldn't let the fact that we suck interfere with this point as it is being made.) that are intended to have faith in, and relationship with, God on a rational level. I will be the first to admit that there are elements, particularly if not seen from a God's eye view, that seem counter-intuitive, but if the solid faith built upon rationality is present, then that faith is also rational.

Allow me to pose an illustration.

If a complete stranger asks me to buy some beer for him, while I'm on my way back from the seminary, and then says that he doesn't have any cash on him right then, but can pay me back on Friday, what would be the best course of action? Should I have faith in him, and expect to get my money back? Or should I be cynical or sceptical, and tell him to sod off? Somewhere in the middle, perhaps?

The answer is not 100 percent clear cut. Quite obviously given that the person is a complete stranger, we cannot make much of an assessment of his trustworthiness. Any decision we make on the truthfulness of his pledge to “pay us back on Friday” will be based on very limited information.

Now lets change the scenario a little. This time, rather than a complete stranger, this is a very close friend, one that you have known for most of your life.

What is your answer now? Do you buy him the beer, and trust that he'll pay you back? Or do we buy him the beer, and assume that he will not repay the loan? Do we not buy him the beer, as he is an alcoholic?

In any case, our answer now will be rooted in how well we know the person, and this detail is important.

Many people profess to have faith, but remarkably few can say exactly what it is that they have faith IN. Many will quantify or qualify their faith, stating it to be faith in X, or in Y. However, upon their being pressed, most will put it down to “I think think...” or “I feel that...” responses, responses devoid of any semblance of investigation, calculation or, and here comes that word again, rationality.

People, generally (I would say the vast majority, although some will refute this, I know), have at least a vague inkling of the divine/supernatural. If nothing more advanced than the conviction that there is “something else out there”. They are, broadly speaking, correct. There is something else out there. That knowledge, outside of its potential to generate investigation towards, or interest in, or examination of, Christianity, is completely useless. While this is, in itself, a position that is an affront to many, and with fair reason, and a slap in the face of contemporary post-modernism (which holds to the completely bonkers concept that there are no absolutes, and every belief is correct... but don't get me started on this point. It's a pet hate. If we stand on the train line, it doesn't matter how earnestly we believe that the train isn't coming, we are still stuffed... moving on...), the position is nonetheless one of truth.

Assertion of 'truth' in any form is polemic in this day and in this age. Post-modernism has slipped its sinuous tendrils well into our collective consciousness, and I note, even as I type these words into my laptop while on the train back up to the Central Coast, that me writing that I know 'the truth' sounds somehow odd, even to me.

But were I not to make that assertion, I would be undervaluing the gospel. I would be selling short the remarkable series of events that lead to the faith that is known, in its broadest terms, as Christianity.

We have thus far concluded (at least the parts that you are not likely to disagree with me on...) that if we know someone then our decision to have faith or otherwise can be based on reasoned, rational thought processes.

Do we have to know ALL of the person in question?

Quite obviously not. I do not really know any of you who will read these words (save one or two). Not really. I have a number of lines of text (more lines in some case than others) from most of you... I have some pictures of varying degrees of veracity and utility, and I have my very limited interactions with you in the manner to which we have become accustomed.

So, when I am dealing with you who are my readers, I must make judgements based very heavily on incomplete information.

But this, in and of itself, is neither here nor there. We, as people, deal with incomplete information all the time. It is, in fact, rare that we will have complete information... and in those cases that we do, we rarely aacknowledge that it is complete, and usually proceed on the assumption that it isn't. This is usually regarded as nothing more than cautious prudence. And is not a bad thing.

So, in the context of our knowledge of God, I will readily admit that we do not know everything about God. I will readily admit that, by definition, we are incapable of knowing all that there is to know about a being that, again by definition, is infinite in nature. A finite entity with finite mental capacity is not capable of absorbing INfinite information. But this fact does not mean that we are incapable of knowing either a) ABOUT God, or b) how to relate to God. It simply requires that what we do know about God is rational, reliable, and conveys the information we need. As a theologian, and as a minister, I am one of those people that very strongly holds that the information we have will provide us with that information. And do so rationally and reliably.

If it is not rational, not reliable, or insufficient, then doing what I am doing now, that being full time study at a theological college, would be nothing short of a monumental waste of time.

While I have these spare moments, rushed though they are, I will briefly cover the reasons why the new testament is reliable as a historical document, by means of demonstration and illustration.

Firstly, by way of example, much of our knowledge of the Roman Emperors comes from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote his pieces several hundred years after the event. We have 2 (yes, that's just two) copies of his work, and they are late-medieval copies.

The bible was written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the events... many of them dying in support of their beliefs. Here's a juicy bit... The Romans did not execute someone if they said “no, I recant my beliefs”. That was all it took. So those that refused to recant, and died... well, they really believed. All bar one of the apostles was executed. That last guy died in exile. These were the eyewitnesses. They wrote the books, or dictated them to scribes (such as Mark). Not one recanted (apart from Peter's brief fall from grace shown in the gospels, which he repented of, and was executed for later), and were executed because of that refusal to recant.

And not just executed. The pain of crucifiction was so great that the Romans invented a new word to describe how bad it was...

Excruciating (ex-crucis... of the cross).

Now, I know what you are going to say. “People die for what they believe all the time” or perhaps the slightly more provocative “but even suicide bombers die for what they think is true”. Both these examples are correct. People do die for what they believe on a not-infrequent basis. It still takes a person of some moral fortitude (or rampant zealotry, but that's by the by)... far more people simply do not have the guts, when push comes to shove.

The difference is, however, that in the case of the Apostles, they aren't poor brainwashed blokes several thousand years later, feeding off some story that their family has told them and clutching at straws.

They are the same people that watched while their messiah was bashed, flogged and hung up on a cross to die screaming. They were the same people that, shortly thereafter, far from cowed, proclaimed to all who were within earshot that he had risen.

Why? Rome had just crucified Jesus. Why would anyone stick their necks out like that?

Because they, the eyewitnesses to the events in question, the people that had followed Jesus for the years of his ministry, had seen what they would later hold fast to.

Many excuses have been levelled as to why. Some more far fetched than others. On example is 'the disciples stole the body'. Riiiiiiight. As assortment of eleven tax collectors and fishermen, with two swords between them, overpowered a detachment of Roman guards? Or perhaps you prefer 'Jesus wasn't really dead'. That doesn't hold up either. If Roman soldiers fail to execute someone, then they are executed in the condemned's place... so in the case of crucifixion, they always want to make extra sure that the person is dead. Hence the stabbing of the spear into Jesus' side. When it said “blood and water flowed”, it was a reference to fluid buildup around the heart, which happens post mortem in crucifixion victims. Rest assurred, he was dead. Or maybe, as some claim, he never got onto the cross in the first place. No. His friends and colleagues, and even his mother (as recorded in John) were present. They knew it was him.

The bottom line is, if it wasn't true, and in the knowledge of the horrific death that awaited them for holding that point of view, why did the Apostles refuse to recant?

It takes a strong man to die for the truth. No one dies for what they know to be a lie.

With me so far? Now for the next bit... we have 2 copies of Tacitus... written hundreds of years later, and a full 26,000 first and second generation copies of the New Testament from as far afield as Ethiopia and Spain. Primarily in the original Greek, although there are latin examples, and some in Hebrew. The only differences being in place names (the same way we call the country either Burma or Myanmar, and mean the same place). So while you are correct that things can be lost in translation... the originals are still there. You can read them for yourself... if you learn the Greek. Which I am. Admittedly poorly (only 38% in the last test)... but I am learning.

The four gospels are written from two primary viewpoints, that espoused in John, and that derived from Mark (the synoptic -from the word 'synopsis'- gospels). Mark is generally accepted as being the oldest. Luke and Matthew use (at the very least) Mark and one other source each. Thus revealing in the 3 gospels a total of four previous sources; Mark, Q (a hypothesised sayings source), L (stuff only Luke had access to) and M (stuff only Matthew had access to).

Like any eyewitness acount, the witnesses of these events remember things differently. This should actually lend weight to the gospels, not detract from it. If they were too similar, then someone could justifiably cry foul.

Other accounts exist, with varying degrees of accuracy, as is the case in regards to any event. The gospels chosen were not chosen because of a church conspiracy. They were already the most commonly used gospels throughout the Christian world when the council of Nicaea acknowledged them as canon. If you wish to read other gospels, most of them are still printed in Christian bookstores (like Koorong, here in Australia, or Moore books, which I think has better stuff), and some of the Apocrypha (as they are termed) are given varying degrees of authority within different denominations. The Book of Enoch, for example, forms part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 Macabees are considered canon by the Roman Catholic Church, but not most Protestant denominations.

Some say that the bible wasn't written until hundreds of years after Jesus' death... but the Bodmer Papyrus (dated at AD125, plus or minus 25 years) is indisputably a fragment of the gospel of John, which is, according to historians, likely the latest of the gospels to have been written. The gospels, in their phrasology and by means of redactive criticism, are all broadly accepted as pre-dating the fall of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt, which is itself a late first-century occurrence.

In any case, as far as the New Testament goes, agreement is very strong, and broad. The documents in question are regarded as reliable in historical terms, and are independently verified through sources such as Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus. Characters referenced within NT documents are known to history outside the bible also (such as Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas), and the documents that made up the texts are themselves preserved (in the form of very early copies) throughout the ancient mediterranean basin.

That all being said, what would be the logical next course of action?

To examine what it is that those documents say... which is exactly what I will cover, next time.

Until then, take care of yourselves, and God bless.









'Tis not exactly what The Alma Mater asked for, but it's 1250am here, and time is something I have much of right now. More later...

I shall return. In the interim, if anyone wants to email me or telegram me, feel free. chuck433@hotmail.com

Lyras

tl;dr

An awful lot of people around he could have asked... which he did. On the logic which you espouse, the vast majority of our history you would rule as inadmissable.

In any case, read my above post... it may shed some light.

If he wasn't alive when Jesus was, then he was not a contemporary...

Or turn me into a salt figure.Think of me as the horse. :p
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/398235066_f9c57dc412.jpg?v=0

You are assuming that such criticism would have survived all the intervening years, despite the fact that most of western civilisation lived under a Christian theocracy for centuries, wherein the clergy had almost total control over literacy.

Such criticism very likely would have survived, or a christian response to such literature at the least. Contemporary criticisms of early christians are still extant in which the christians are accused of ritualistic incest; if these survived, it seems unlikely that the church destroyed all negative witness statements concerning Christ.

it seems unlikely that the church destroyed all negative witness statements concerning Christ.How about putting some extremely clever twists on them in varying forms? Or, even, some ritualised groups that are treated as cults?

tl;dr

That doesn't seem to stop you spouting off your opinion.

Maybe you should stop 'tl;dr'-ing things about the topic and, you know, actually read something about the topic.

I'd say no (this is just my bias talking) based on the fact that there is no good evidence for his having been a real person.

see this for in depth analysis (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

ya know, if it were possible (physically and mentally) to go through that thread and weed out the crap/repeats/insults/hijacks it would be an excellent introduction to the topic.

it would be hard to find anything more to be said unless an academic on the topic dropped in.

Such criticism very likely would have survived, or a christian response to such literature at the least. Contemporary criticisms of early christians are still extant in which the christians are accused of ritualistic incest; if these survived, it seems unlikely that the church destroyed all negative witness statements concerning Christ.

*makes a face*

oh now really. we know what DID survive. it does give us an insight to some of the things said about christians. some lost works of christianity are only known by quotes inside works that criticize them.

but how would we ever know what DIDNT survive?

That doesn't seem to stop you spouting off your opinion.

Maybe you should stop 'tl;dr'-ing things about the topic and, you know, actually read something about the topic.

how about you go away until you have a clue as to what you're talking about? I've already shown that I do... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

*makes a face*

oh now really. we know what DID survive. it does give us an insight to some of the things said about christians. some lost works of christianity are only known by quotes inside works that criticize them.

but how would we ever know what DIDNT survive?

lol
.
.
.

I think that it's rather obvious that Christ existed. His existence is not the question. His divinity (or lack thereof) is.

I think that it's rather obvious that Christ existed. His existence is not the question. His divinity (or lack thereof) is.

And what evidence do you have for his having actually existed?

I think that it's rather obvious that Christ existed. His existence is not the question. His divinity (or lack thereof) is.

i dont find it obvious anymore. there is no real evidence outside of the bible that he ever really existed. (and the bible evidence lacks outside verification of any detail, some are clearly bullshit like the story of the magi "following a star.") its quite possible that the idea of the spiritual jesus -- the "word" that was in the beginning-- preceeded the idea of an earthly jesus and that the earthly jesus was made up somewhere along the way--the lack of consistency in his story makes it seem a bit forged.

or maybe he was real but nothing like the stories that got stuck on him. or maybe he is a composit of a few different men who were radical preachers of the time. or many other possibilities that cannot be verified in any way.

Think of me as the horse. :p
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/398235066_f9c57dc412.jpg?v=0

Oh yeah. Lick me, baby, lick me!!


:D

Oh yeah. Lick me, baby, lick me!!


:D

OK

Damn I hate the 6 character minimum...

Such criticism very likely would have survived, or a christian response to such literature at the least. Contemporary criticisms of early christians are still extant in which the christians are accused of ritualistic incest; if these survived, it seems unlikely that the church destroyed all negative witness statements concerning Christ.

Not necessarily. One shows that early Christians were persecuted, which appealed to the Christian mythos of the time, as it does to certain sects today. It would therefore be in the various churches interests to perpetuate this idea, and it would be even more important to do so as the Church gained in power. The other one completely disproves that mythos, and would present a threat to that growing power. You could see why the early Church would keep one and not the other.

Oh yeah. Lick me, baby, lick me!!


:D
M'kay .... A, B, C, F ... no wait, E ... uhm, hold on.
A, B, C, D! D! ... E, F, G, H, L .... Llllllllllllllllllllll .....

Josephus, a scholar living at the same time, wrote about Jesus multiple times. I'd call that evidence.

Josephus, a scholar living at the same time, wrote about Jesus multiple times. I'd call that evidence.
Ask him about Simon, then.

Josephus, a scholar living at the same time, wrote about Jesus multiple times. I'd call that evidence.

you might want to check those dates again.

oh and while youre at it, you might want to check exactly what he had to say and see if that seems like good evidence to you.

if you like the dates and the quote, post them here and we'll discuss it.

i learned about this in school last year (go to a catholic school so...) but my teacher said that the bible cant really be used as proof for his existence but he points out that both Roman and Jewish historians have written of a teacher named Jesus.

There's lots of references to him by Roman historians. Such as during the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 Tacticus wrote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

The earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark ever discovered was dated to around A.D. 75.

Source?

There's lots of references to him by Roman historians. Such as during the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 Tacticus wrote:

the annals were written after 100 ad. tacticus cant be a witness of jesus, only of christians.

All bar one of the apostles was executed. That last guy died in exile.

What are your sources for this? Most of the early matyrdom accounts I'm familiar with come from Gnostic sources which are usually scorned by main-stream Christians. As far as I'm concerned we can make guesses about the fates of a few of the apostles (it seems likely that Peter and Paul died in Rome for example) but for the rest of them we don't know much, and it doesn't seem like the early Christians did either or they wouldn't have given us two different accounts of Judas' demise (one in Matthew where he returns the money and kills himself, one in Acts where he spends the money on a field and is implied to have been struck down by divine retribution).

The gospels, in their phrasology and by means of redactive criticism, are all broadly accepted as pre-dating the fall of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt, which is itself a late first-century occurrence.

'Broadly accepted'? I know there are a fair few people who still date Mark to before the siege (wrongly in my opinion) but I certainly don't think many scholars still place John before 70AD. Earlychristianwritings.com (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) lists the following:

Mark:
Estimated range of dating: 65-80AD
Reliability of dating: 4/5

Luke:
Estimated range of dating: 80-130AD
Reliability of dating: 4/5

Matthew:
Estimated range of dating: 80-100AD
Reliability of dating: 4/5

John:
Estimated range of dating: 90-120AD
Reliability of dating: 3/5

Such criticism very likely would have survived, or a christian response to such literature at the least. Contemporary criticisms of early christians are still extant in which the christians are accused of ritualistic incest; if these survived, it seems unlikely that the church destroyed all negative witness statements concerning Christ.

Some criticisms are extant, but we know of many which aren't. For example, we don't have a single copy of Celsus's famous critique of Christianity, and what we know of it has to be reconstructed from Origen's reply.

Josephus, a scholar living at the same time, wrote about Jesus multiple times. I'd call that evidence.

Josephus wasn't even born during the period in which Jesus is supposed to have walked the earth. I'm wondering how that qualifies him as "A scholar living at the same time"?

Incidentally - by comparison of different versions of Josephus' material, there is a strong suggestion that just about all of the material relating to Christians was added several centuries later - since it appears in some (earlier) versions, but not in others (later versions).

It's not just a problem with Josephus - there's literally no corroborative evidence that is contemporary AND independent. Which makes the Bible pretty unreliable, in terms of historical sources. Unfortunately.

What do you mean Jesus was a real person? He is a real person, he's one of the Janitors at the local High School. Spanish speaking naturally so he's sometimes kind of hard to understand but a rather pleasant guy.

...
Luke:
Estimated range of dating: 80-130AD
Reliability of dating: 4/5
...

I don't have enough time to cover everything you posted there, but I was entertained by your "Reliability of dating" scaling there. I think that is your own scaling then?

It's funny that you used ECW's top line dating scales, but didn't include the link to the actual articles, because the articles dispute his own dating conclussions...

* It is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul.

* One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward,

* The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65.

* It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), possibly about the middle of the period.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

Clearly then, even if Peter Kirby (author of the ECW website) isn't convinced of the arguments (as he puts rebuttals to the above date quotes and he concludes to the dates you used, he hosts other opinions on his site as well, much to his credit), his personal dating and your "Reliability" dating conclusions are more than just questionable though, they are downright hard to sustain as conclusive or solid or even convincing. Evidently, the dating for Luke may be much earlier than your time period.

I don't have enough time to do all of the other datings you posted, but I think I've made my point with the one example.

Be honest. Did anyone else see the title of this thread and think "Oh, not this shit again" ?

Yes.

There are not only proofs in the Bible, but in roman documents as well.

Plus, how can so many of us be wrong?

But, if there is any doubt, that is why faith is so important.
Recall doubting Thomas.

I believe that :hail:Jesus was real, and that he is both fully human and fully divine.
He is :hail:God.

It is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul.


Which could be because Paul is a fictional character.


One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward,


'Attractive' to you, because you'd like it to be true.


The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work


Which is possible, but hardly conclusive. If I were to write a story set in the 1700's, I probably wouldn't include the internet or moonlandings. Which might help define when the story was set, but would say nothing about when it was written.


Evidently, the dating for Luke may be much earlier than your time period.


Or not.

Yes.

There are not only proofs in the Bible, but in roman documents as well.

Plus, how can so many of us be wrong?

But, if there is any doubt, that is why faith is so important.
Recall doubting Thomas.

I believe that :hail:Jesus was real, and that he is both fully human and fully divine.
He is :hail:God.

Because 700 years ago, the majority of people in the world were "right" about the world being flat. They were "right" about the world being the center of the universe. 300 years ago, the majority of people were "right" that a supernatural force brought humanity into existence from some dirt and a rib. Hell, a couple thousand years ago the majority of people were "right" that lightning was caused by one of several different anthropomorphized supernatural entities.

All of them, as it turns out, were wrong. The argument ad populum is shitty support for anything, much less something that can be disproved through evidence.

Parody, right?

Yes.

There are not only proofs in the Bible, but in roman documents as well.


There are only 'proofs' in the Bible if you consider the 'Bible' to be proof. There are no contemporary, independent accounts anywhere else. So - what you basically have is a collection of short-stories that justify each other... hardly the most solid of evidences.

There are no 'Roman documents' written by anyone who could have 'been there', if any of the stories are even true.


Plus, how can so many of us be wrong?


Good argument. Of course, by that token - since more people are NOT Christian than are...


But, if there is any doubt, that is why faith is so important.
Recall doubting Thomas.


Surely, the whole point of the Doubting Thomas story is that doubt is good?

(Ignore the commentary - Thomas is allowed to touch the resurrected Jesus).


I believe that :hail:Jesus was real, and that he is both fully human and fully divine.
He is :hail:God.

You are welcome to believe that Jesus 'was real'. That doesn't make it so.

Noo!!! i thought this died long ago.

A pox upon you and your family...

Noo!!! i thought this died long ago.

A pox upon you and your family...

Nah. Its been going on for like 8000 years, it's not going to be resolved by anything short of timetravel, methinks.

Noo!!! i thought this died long ago.

A pox upon you and your family...

It did. And then it was resurrected. *snicker*

Does it really matter? Whether he was an "everyman" figure written to encourage the Jews that the destruction of Jerusalem by Domitian was not an absolute or an actual person, his influence is undeniable. If he was real, the Gospel of Thomas indicates he'd be horrified at what's been wrapped around him, as these sayings indicate a suspicion and distrust of organized religion.
I do believe he did exist-as a man, not a god, mind you. The First Letter of Clement is a first hand account of the trial and execution of Peter, which only avoided ending up in the Bible because Constantine didn't like the anti-Roman sentiments of the document.
Since Peter was the First Disciple, it would indicate Jesus did exist-though the absence of Roman records regarding him, especially given his birth during a census and supposed execution by Roman officials, indicates he did not. The account of Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, indicates the Crucifixion was faked-the spear of Longinius causes blood to "gush" out, as opposed to the draining which would occur if he were, in fact, dead, and when Joseph of Arimathea claims the body, not only is Pontius Pilate amazed he's dead already, but Joseph asks for the "soma" of Jesus, while Pilate tells him he may have the "ptoma"-both words translate as "body", but "soma" indicates a living body, while "ptoma" a dead one. This has been supposed as a Roman official who's been bought off and is saving face.
There is a rumor that the Holy Grail is not the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, but the Sangraal-the bloodline of Christ. This rumor claims that Jesus faked his death and retired to the south of France, and that he's buried in a church there, after founding the Merovin line that ruled the southern Franks. I'd suggest you read the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which reports a secret society dedicated to preserving the bloodline of Jesus-whether it is true or more gloss to the myth is up to the individual to decide.
Christianity,for all it's flaws, raised Europe from being a barbarian backwater to dominating the world-this achievement alone lends credence to it's beliefs, and the existence of it's founder is irrelevant, since he wouldn't recognize what his teachings have changed into.

Does it really matter?

To the idea? No.

To the argument that the New Testament is an accurate historical document? Absolutely.

To the argument that the Bible is MORE than that... some god-given inerrant work that deserves to hold a special place among texts? Unquestionably.

Does it really matter? Whether he was an "everyman" figure written to encourage the Jews that the destruction of Jerusalem by Domitian was not an absolute or an actual person, his influence is undeniable. If he was real, the Gospel of Thomas indicates he'd be horrified at what's been wrapped around him, as these sayings indicate a suspicion and distrust of organized religion.

No, it doesn't matter. We're debating it anyway.

I do believe he did exist-as a man, not a god, mind you. The First Letter of Clement is a first hand account of the trial and execution of Peter, which only avoided ending up in the Bible because Constantine didn't like the anti-Roman sentiments of the document.
Since Peter was the First Disciple, it would indicate Jesus did exist-though the absence of Roman records regarding him, especially given his birth during a census and supposed execution by Roman officials, indicates he did not.

He doesn't actually give a first hand account. Here is the text. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html) I quote the only verse wherein Peter is mentioned:


There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

The account of Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, indicates the Crucifixion was faked-the spear of Longinius causes blood to "gush" out, as opposed to the draining which would occur if he were, in fact, dead, and when Joseph of Arimathea claims the body, not only is Pontius Pilate amazed he's dead already, but Joseph asks for the "soma" of Jesus, while Pilate tells him he may have the "ptoma"-both words translate as "body", but "soma" indicates a living body, while "ptoma" a dead one. This has been supposed as a Roman official who's been bought off and is saving face.
There is a rumor that the Holy Grail is not the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper, but the Sangraal-the bloodline of Christ. This rumor claims that Jesus faked his death and retired to the south of France, and that he's buried in a church there, after founding the Merovin line that ruled the southern Franks. I'd suggest you read the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which reports a secret society dedicated to preserving the bloodline of Jesus-whether it is true or more gloss to the myth is up to the individual to decide.

You do realise that The Priory of Sion and several other elements of that book's arguments are completely made up, right?

Christianity,for all it's flaws, raised Europe from being a barbarian backwater to dominating the world-this achievement alone lends credence to it's beliefs, and the existence of it's founder is irrelevant, since he wouldn't recognize what his teachings have changed into.

No, it does not lend credence to the belief that Jesus existed. It just shows that the Christian paradigm has underlying similarities to the scientific method that are not present in other world religions.

I don't have enough time to cover everything you posted there, but I was entertained by your "Reliability of dating" scaling there. I think that is your own scaling then?

Not at all, they're from the same source. Check the 'At a glance' box in the top-right of the page. There's one on each of the gospels and that's where I copied it from.

It's funny that you used ECW's top line dating scales, but didn't include the link to the actual articles, because the articles dispute his own dating conclussions...

You expect individual links to the twenty odd articles listed as well as the homepage? Scroll down and you'll find all the information you quote.

Clearly then, even if Peter Kirby (author of the ECW website) isn't convinced of the arguments (as he puts rebuttals to the above date quotes and he concludes to the dates you used, he hosts other opinions on his site as well, much to his credit), his personal dating and your "Reliability" dating conclusions are more than just questionable though, they are downright hard to sustain as conclusive or solid or even convincing. Evidently, the dating for Luke may be much earlier than your time period.

Of course they may, what's your point? If you read the point I was replying to you'll see that Lyras wrote the following:

The gospels, in their phrasology and by means of redactive criticism, are all broadly accepted as pre-dating the fall of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt, which is itself a late first-century occurrence.

Did I say that it was impossible for the Gospels to pre-date 70AD? No. I challenged his claim that it's 'broadly accepted' when it's anything but.

EDIT: That said, the two arguments you quote for early dating are weak:

It is sometimes put forward that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul.

This ignores the grammar of the text. In Acts 28:30:

For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.

In the Greek text, 'stayed' is in the Aorist tense and 'welcomed' in the imperfect. The Aorist is difficult to translate as there's no exact counterpart in English, put it's often rendered as the perfect tense and in this context indicates that the stay is something which is already over i.e. Paul is dead.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65.

Luke actually contains one of the most explicit references to the siege. Luke 21:20 reads:

When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near

Verse 23 ("How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!") is sometimes thought to be a reference to Josephus's ghoulish account of a woman eating her own baby during the siege but this is less conclusive.

Does it really matter?

Yes. For quite a few Christians (though far from all), the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the proof that his teachings are the right ones. If the resurrection never happened, his teachings have not been proven to correspond to Gods will.

Yes. For quite a few Christians (though far from all), the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the proof that his teachings are the right ones. If the resurrection never happened, his teachings have not been proven to correspond to Gods will.

Agreed. That is the conundrum that nobody has an unbiased answer for: did the resurrection happen? It is interesting seeing how this topic has expanded.

To answer the question: Was Jesus a real person? Yes, he was. Was he the Messiah/Prophet/whatever, that is all a matter of faith:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

#2 is the best to describe the source of religious faith. We'll only know who wins when we die, and I don't like to think about that. I am a Christian, but I am not going to begrudge someone else's perspective. Like I implied, all it ends up being is unproven loyalty.