Is there definitive proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

[tatertop]

Is he mentioned by historians of the day?

[bryant69]

1. Yes

Josephus.

I don't know what you mean by definative however; presumably you can set that bar high enough to exclude any proof of his existance should you choose to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ridgerunner]

But there is some doubt

to whether or not Josephus' text is real.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus.

Josephus wrote "The history of the Jewish Wars" shortly after the Great Revolt of 66-70 CE. This is a generation after Jesus is said to have lived according to the Bible. Josephus spoke of Christians, not Christ himself.

[bryant69]

5. Like I say

You set the bar high enough you can disprove many historical figures of that period.

It now turns out that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but by another man with the same name.

Bryant

[rockymountaindem]

7. I don't think

"somebody who lived at the same time Jesus did" is setting the bar that high. And, as somebody else pointed out, a lot of Josephus' writings are suspect and many historians believe that they were added to after the fact. It is hard to tell what is fact and what is fiction in his writings. Remember, Josephus claims in his book to have been on the Jewish side of the rebellion, then having been surrounded by Romans, broke a suicide pact and joined the other side as a chronocler.

Some guy, that Josephus.

[bryant69]

11. OK

But out of curiousity what political goal to you hope to accomplish by questioning the existance of Jesus Christ? or why does this discussion belong in General discussion rather than the religion forum?

[rockymountaindem]

14. I'm not questioning the existance of Jesus.

I'm questioning Josephus, because I don't like him and because people use him as a source for things they shouldn't way too often.

[bryant69]

17. OK - got you confused with the OP

I am sorry about that.

[mzteris]

145. I think they posted here because

they're a newbie with no star - they can't get into the religion forum.

Maybe they're just asking a legitimate question and looking for some real answers and not just trying to "cause trouble". (Then again... I dunno - I haven't read that far in the thread yet. lol) I used to get in trouble as a kid all the time for asking what were real questions for ME - yet others thought I was just being a smart-alec... sigh

what am I saying? As a *kid*?? Heck, it still happens - but I try really hard to self-moderate in in-tolerant company.

[beam me up scottie]

149. You don't need to be a donor to post in the R&T forum.

Just fyi.
:hi:

[mzteris]

152. there are some restrictions, though

right? If I remember correctly...

And even if "allowed" - maybe s/he didn't know about it. I know it took me a long while to find my way around - and I'm still surprised sometimes.

[beam me up scottie]

162. No, no restrictions.

This forum is no different than GD or the Lounge, it's just for people interested in discussing things related to religion and theology.

You have to be a donor to post on groups but I think you can still read them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

130. You don't think?

Not a good idea to advertise it. :rofl:

I do think it is a good idea if people choose posting titles with reasonable care.

[LostinVA]

10. Re: Shakespeare's plays

Ummm..... I just emailed someone I know who is (truly) a Shakespearean expert, and they don't know what you're talking about...

[bryant69]

12. That's because it's a joke

You haven't heard that before? It's a commentary on historians.

[LostinVA]

19. Sorry -- the post sounded serious

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. It's a combination of two jokes, to be fair.

One is that it was once suggested by an academic that Homer's (I think) poems were written not by him, but by another blind poet of the same name.

The other is the reccuring claim that Shakespeare's plays were written by someone else, usually but not always Francis Bacon, although I've also heard Marlowe and numerous other authors suggested.

So far as I know, no-one has seriously claimed that Shakespeare's plays were written by another author of the same name.

With regard to the original post, there's a thorough discussion of the contemporary sources at

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

[Balbus]

18. I thought Christopher Marlowe is the one believed to have

wrote the Shakespeare plays.

[BurtWorm]

22. More likely it was Edward de Vere.

http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com/plays_as_biography.htm

[Finder]

42. Bacon and friends...

It is a fascinating thing they did, IMO.

[BurtWorm]

21. A) Shakespeare was not of that period

2) There's a theory that the plays were written by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and that theory is based on major gaps in William of Stratford's biography as well as many similarities between Vere and the protagonists of the plays and sonnets. Doesn't mean that the theory is correct, but please don't make a grander claim for it than the theory makes for itself.

And iii) the bar is extremely low among those who believe in a historical Jesus for textual or other proof of his historical existence.

[bryant69]

24. Allow me to explain the joke for people who evidently didn't get it

This post is on the historical existance of Jesus Christ.

During the period when a lot of theories were thrown about (I've heard both the Kit Marlowe and Edward De Vere theories), other people were upset at the idea that Shakespear didn't write the plays. This debate raged and in some circles got quite passionate.

To many however it seemed rather silly. Shakespeare's plays exist and they are brilliant. Would finding out Edward de Vere wrote Hamlet change the brilliance of Hamlet?

So the line "It turns out Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespear but by another person of the same name." is a commentary on that - because that would be, in some eyes, the ultimate meaningless historical distinction.

That's the joke. I don't claim it's the funniest joke in the world, nor do I claim to have invented it.

[BurtWorm]

27. Is your point that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Shakespeare lived?

Hmm.

[bryant69]

30. Well

What are you thinking?

What's the hmm sound mean?

But no that's not precisely my point. My point is that their works (and in Jesus's case the works of his disciples) are what define them, not references in the histories of the time.

[K-W]

33. But we have no works from Jesus.

It isnt a very robust comparison. We know someone existed who wrote Shakespeare's plays. We dont know whether someone existed who inspired the stories of the christians. The stories are strong circumstantial evidence, but people have been invented before.

[bryant69]

67. I don't agree

You have the bible - the new testement of it purports to be the recollections of people who knew him (some like Luke at second hand) and his followers who expounded on his teachings.

Bryant
Check it out -- > http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[K-W]

77. I think you do agree.

A work from Jesus would be a work written by Jesus. As you explained we have accounts of Jesus' existence that were written later on but nothing actually written by Jesus. These accounts are evidence of his existence, but not definitive evidence.

We do not know for sure that those accounts reflect an actual person. We do know for sure that somebody wrote the plays of shakespeare. We have definitive evidence that whoever wrote those plays existed. We have no definitive evidence than the person discussed in the accounts of christians existed.

[bryant69]

96. I think you are missing my point

To a person who reads the bible and has a spiritual experience, feels a connection to the divine, well that's the "proof" a person needs. It's a personal proof, I admit. Not something you can hold out and say, see this definately proves the existance of Jesus.

After all the Bible itself suggests that Christians are to live by faith - if the Bible were clearly provable in all bits, where would faith enter into it?

[K-W]

108. Of course, but that isnt really doesnt relate to this discussion.

Obviously someone who choses to believe that the bible is true believes based on faith. But the fact that someone can believe in something doesnt in any way address whether the belief is in fact accurate. What christians believe is an entirely seperate topic from whether or not the Bible is historically accurate in its account of Jesus Christ.

[bryant69]

110. Um, no it's not

Because if millions of Christians are believing in what is, essentially, a lie, that would matter. The two are inimately connected.

Which is why this discussion is taking place in General Discussion rather than the rligion forum. If this was intended as a simple question of the historicracy of Jesus, than it would clearly belong there.

[K-W]

112. Hmm, I dont think we are disagreeing.

The fact that christians would be greatly effected if it were shown that Jesus did not exist does not have any bearing on whether or not he does exist.

What I stated was that the fact that christians believe the bible doesnt address whether it is historically accurate. What you are saying is that historical facts about Jesus would effect those people who believe the biblical account. These are both true. Certainly the implications of the question are of great importance to christians.

[bryant69]

113. And of course those who would like to embarrass Christians

I mean that would be quite a coup for them wouldn't it?

[K-W]

114. It would be something of a coup for everyone except christians.

But it is more than likely that it will remain a historical possibility that Jesus existed, so its really a moot point.

[bryant69]

115. Unless we invent a time machine I suppose

But the invention of a time machine would make it a lot harder for me to believe in God (unless history turned out to be immutable, I suppose).

As for it being a coup for everybody except Christians, I don't know how many of them would get as worked up about it. Islam teaches the existance of Christ as well, so they would have a similar problem (although he isn't the center of their religion the way he is of Christianity).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

120. I think it's a mistake to think Jesus skeptics are out to embarrass Xians.

I'm more motivated by a desire for rational discourse. You can't expect a non-Christian to buy the pieces of Christianity that require faith to believe in, can you? It's fine for Christians to believe that Jesus was the son of God who rose from the dead and who will return. That's what makes them Christians. But I can't accept the magic parts of Christianity because all magic that I'm aware of is illusion. So what's left of Jesus for me?

[mzteris]

148. The Philosophy

Read "Jefferson's Bible".

there are plenty who believe in the existance and philosophy of Jesus who do NOT buy into the "magical" aspects - most of which has pretty well been shown to be added AFTER THE FACT - by Paul and like-minded.

Read up on the Nicean Council, etc.....

It was to the benefit of the CHURCH to imbue Christ with mystical powers as it increased THEIR power over others.

The earliest "CHRISTIAN CHURCHES" did not have ANY of the so-called poof-poofing added by later adherents.

Case in point - the entire story of the resurrection closely mirrors earlier mythology - Tammuz is one name - which had a major religious center in - tada - TARSUS! (Name ring any bells for ya? hint: Saul of -------- who later became Paul - who is the one who started all the talk about Jesus "special powers".)

Many Biblical scholars agree that the "miracles" referred to in the Gospel were added after most of the original writing of same Gospels. (Sorry I don't have the refs/links anymore - new puter/lost all old bookmarks :( - but the info is out there.)

[BurtWorm]

151. The first time Jesus appears in any literature is in Paul. T or F?

Before Paul, the Christian tradition is presumed to be oral, right? So how do we know what was in that oral tradition except by presuming that Paul was quoting it and building upon it?

The Gospels, on the other hand, very clearly came after Paul. He doesn't quote a single Gospel.

So the Jesus Paul wrote about--the miraculous, mystic son of God--came before the one you can subtract the mystic mumbo jumbo from to suggest a "real" person.

[mzteris]

153. huh?

"So the Jesus Paul wrote about--the miraculous, mystic son of God--came before the one you can subtract the mystic mumbo jumbo from to suggest a "real" person. "

I'm not following you here.

[BurtWorm]

154. Read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle"

The basics of it are online here:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jhcjp.htm

In a nutshell: Paul is the popularizer of a mythical-Jesus Christianity, in which Jesus is an idea, not a person. The church later adds Jesus's personhood, insisting that Jesus was real, and that if you deny his realness, you're not only not a Christian, you're eventually (when the church has political power) in danger of being burnt at the stake for disbelieving in his realness. There's not necessarily anything sinister or conspiratorial in this development of early church history. Very likely, the fathers truly believed Jesus was a real person--the way people even today talk themselves into believing Jesus is real. But Doherty finds evidence in the epistles that Paul did not believe in the earthbound Jesus.

Now what I meant above--the sentence you didn't understand--is that the Jesus whom Paul wrote about in his epistles is (I think) a *symbol* of holiness whose myth provides a means of attaining religious enlightenment. (Paul might as well have been talking about Mithra or Hermes; Jesus was, I think, that sort of "real" to him.) That myth would later be developed in detail in the Gospels when the church--long separated from the supposed "events" of Jesus's "life"--made it compulsory to believe in Jesus's humanity as well as his divinity--in other words, that Jesus really did walk the earth and do the things the Gospels say he did.

Because the church became so powerfully central during the imperial decline of Rome, its insistence in the reality of Jesus naturally influenced Western culture to accept the reality of Jesus. It wasn't until the Enlightenment made it not just acceptable but imperative to look for natural explanations for unnatural-seeming phenomena that scholars began to look into the question of what the "real" Jesus was "really" like. They essentially subtracted the incredible parts.

PS: But that doesn't mean what was left after the subtraction of the magic *really was* a real person.

[Az]

155. Combine that with the notion of Mark being an adaption of Homer's work

And you have a viable argument for the ficticious creation of Jesus within the context of the way religious ideas were propogated in that time and age.

[BurtWorm]

158. I hadn't heard that notion.

Is there a place to read about it on line--the Homeric, notion, I mean?

[Az]

159. Here ya go

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300080123/qid=1128094464/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_20/103-1477984-1084669?v=glance&s=books


The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Hardcover)
by Dennis R. MacDonald

[BurtWorm]

160. Very interesting!

Thank you!

:toast:

[mzteris]

156. ok -

I think part of my confusion is I had you mixed up with another poster who is a true believer - so I couldn't reconcile what you were saying with what I thought you believed.

[mzteris]

157. ok

I think part of my confusion is I had you mixed up with another poster who is a true believer - so I couldn't reconcile what you were saying with what I thought you believed.

[mzteris]

147. to children

who read "The Night Before Christmas", has thrilling anticipatory "experience", feels a connection to Santa Clause - well that' the "proof" they need that Santa really does exist - along with flying reindeer, magical sleigh, backpack, and chimney all.

"Feeling" something is NOT the same thing as "proof" - (I point you in the direction of science vs. "intelligent design" as exhibit A.)

[slaveplanet]

142. did Caesar exist ?

did he write his own declarations?

[Thtwudbeme]

100. Bryant...I understand that you are a believer--and I never want to hurt

your feelings.

However, the stuff that you have learned in church...it might be "the truth" to you...but, this is a thread where the poster was asking for concrete evidence of the proof that Jesus even existed.

Please understand that scholars have no clue who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even WERE; the earliest accounts of these gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died.

Stephanie

[bryant69]

104. The purpose of this thread is not to ask questions

I'd be surprised if the OP didn't, more or less, already know the answer to his question. The purpose of this thread is to embarrass believers.

Obviously.

I don't want to offend you either, but when someone posts this kind of question in the general discussion forum, it's pretty clear where they are going.

[Zhade]

163. That's an amazing mind-reading ability you have.

What are you doing wasting it on the boards? Go, go, for the good of the city!

[mzteris]

146. operative word being

"purports"...........

[BurtWorm]

43. So you ARE saying their historical existence doesn't matter.

In a sense, I agree with you about Jesus.

There are too many reasons to think the Gospel Jesus is such a distortion of any "real" life one he might be based on that the "real" life, if there was one, is entirely eclipsed and obscured. The Gospel one is the one most Christians worship. Although, since the Enlightenment made it all right to doubt the authenticity of the miraculous in the Bible, a new extra-Gospel Jesus--the "Probably" Jesus, call him--has arisen to challenge Gospel Jesus for the hearts and minds of post-enlightenment Christians. This is the Jesus who "probably" was a revolutionary, working class, Essene, rabbi. The fact that there is no more evidence for the Probably Jesus than the Gospel one makes no difference to those who believe in him.

[bryant69]

68. Boy I don't understand what that second paragraph is supposed to mean

Could you elucidate?

[BurtWorm]

92. I'll try to schematize it for you. There a several Jesuses to consider.

If you're a fundamentalist Christian or someone who believes in a historic Jesus, whether you're Christian or not, at least two of these Jesuses overlap for you.

The real, earthly, history-bound Jesus: The Jesus (if he existed) who allegedly inspired the Gospels (or the legend).

The Gospel Jesus: The one whose "life" is in the Bible--the magic, miracle-performing Son of God who died and rose again.

The "Probably" Jesus: The Jesus whom scholars and skeptics have hypothesized after subtracting the magical, supernatural elements of the Gospel Jesus that no rational person should be expected to believe. This Jesus is said "probably" to have been a revolutionary or a rabbi or an Essene mystic.

The mythical or gnostic Jesus: Was never intended to be taken literally, anymore than Zeus or Odin was.

[bryant69]

98. "no rational person"

Ther's the crux of it

There's the Jesus who gullible and irrational Christians believe in, but that clearly didn't exist. And then there's the Jesus who may or may not have even existed but certainly wasn't who he claimed to be.

[BurtWorm]

102. I'd say "certainly wasn't what the Gospels claimed him to be."

The Gospels, as K-W is saying, are not the works of Jesus. They're the purported biographies of Jesus with, as Steph is saying, the names of alleged apostles attached to them, even though nowhere is there evidence (let alone proof) that the names belong to the authors of the books. Those names might as well be colors (The Red Gospel, The Blue Gospel, etc.) for all the names have anything to do with the content. Convention has us referring to the authors as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, but we don't really know how they acquired those attributions.

[bryant69]

105. Yep there it is.

[BurtWorm]

116. There what is?

[bryant69]

118. That's a very succinct statement of your position

In my opinion.

[BurtWorm]

121. Thank you.

[BigMcLargehuge]

135. SHAKESPEARE WROTE HIS PLAYS!!!!!

Just funnin... I got the joke the first time and can't believe you have to explain it like this...

Oh wait, I'm in GD!

Mind if I add this joke to my repetoir?

[Balbus]

16. Also the historian Tacitus

made mention of a "Christus" being put to death by the procurator of a Roman province during the reign of Tiberius.

[BurtWorm]

62. Wasn't it Chrestus?

Real convincing reference, that one.

PS: It wasn't Tacitus, it was Suetonius who referred to "Chrestus."

[Ladyhawk]

83. And "Chrestus" was not Christ. n/t

[BurtWorm]

93. And many apologists have spilled gallons of ink trying to argue

the opposite. :eyes:

[Karmadillo]

95. Chrestus is the god of clean teeth, right?

nt

[BurtWorm]

97. And the god of bad teeth was Festus

[trackfan]

138. Suetonius mentions "Chrestus"

in Tacitus it is "Christus"

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. LOL - Tacitus wasn't even born until 25 years after Jesus' supposed death

Let's be serious.

Of course there was a movement called Christianity with which Tacitus could be aware by the time he was writing in the 70's and 80's, C.E., much less any entry in the Annals from the 110's C.E.!

[alcibiades_mystery]

123. Josephus mentioned Christianity in 70 AD

Hardly a contemporary account. That's like me verifying the existence of Fatty Arbuckle, sans newspaper accounts or film.

[K-W]

2. No, the evidence isnt concrete.

There is persuasive circumstantial evidence. It seems like he did exist in some form or another, but it is not certain.

[Beaver Tail]

3. It has never been proven

[0007]

26. I don't think Jesus did autographs in those days.

Seriously though, I do believe a man existed with high ideals. And those high ideals could only be sold through the embellishment of so called miracles. I also think that "Christ" is that consciousness called the "Over-soul" an essay by Ralph Walo Emerson. His compositions I can understand very clearly.

I have much trouble with the Bible and the people who follow it to the letter.

[Beaver Tail]

35. Good Points

I was just replying to the word "definitive". There has never been "definitive" proof of the man called "Jesus" or any man who was the embodiment of what Christians accept as the savior although the book of Luke has credibility as it does give historical references such as the Augustus and Herod at the time of the imperial census (something all of the other Gospels do not do). Luke also references Tiberius, and Claudius. All of these Roman Emperors have been historically referenced.

This however is still not proof of the Man called Jesus.

[0007]

38. Sir, I did not offer it as proof one way or the other.

[Beaver Tail]

40. Never said you did

I was just clairifying my position,

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Something I wonder

Something I wonder is what if those miracles were just simple things we do today that he knew about? Like with raising the dead it was CPR? :shrug: I personally do believe in Jesus myself. I believe in his teachings and in him. Can I prove it? No. That's why it's called faith. God gave us freewill and I have no right to make people believe what I believe. But as studies show fundamentalist who like to dictate what everyone else believes and does is definitley a real problem. *Sigh*

[sarcasmo]

45. Exactly Beaver Tail, WWFSMD.

[DURHAM D]

6. I think the fact that he did not write any letters home to his Mother

(or she did not save them) is proof that he is fiction. I mean, we are told what a great guy/son he was and we know that he could read and write so no letters, no Jesus.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. As you just said

they could've gotten burnt or torn. Paper doesn't last forever. Did they even have paper?

[gkhouston]

57. papyrus, woven from reeds, or vellum, made from animal skin

both are fragile given the number of intervening years. We shouldn't try to project contemporary letter-writing habits back a couple of millenia.

[DURHAM D]

84. Sorry - my post was a joke. However,

this is always a fun way to play with the true-believers.

[Josephine]

8. I don't think so

But that's why it's called faith, right?

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Exactly

Just like pagans and Satanist etc. can't prove their faith either.

[LostinVA]

9. No, no true historical evidence

And it would be (Anglicized) "Joshua of Nazareth"!

[tatertop]

25. you are right

[FreedomAngel82]

51. His name is actually

Yunwasha (sp?). Remember languages.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. No, but you have to understand how little has survived from

that era, that Jerusalem was totally destroyed in 70AD, and that Jesus was not famous during his lifetime. His entire sphere of activity was in about a fifty-mile radius within one of the most obscure provinces of the Roman Empire.

Some say that there ought to be Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion. The Romans crucified people all the time. How many of the people crucified in Judea are mentioned by name in the existing official records?

Ask someone who works with ancient documents sometime. There are huge gaps. It was a different time from ours: no printing presses and very few literate people. As it says in Jesus Christ Superstar, "Israel in 4BC had no mass communication."

I did my scholarly work in the area of medieval Japanese language and literature, and even though it's a much more recent time period, there are still vast amounts of documents that we know have to have existed but which have been lost over time, as well as people whose existence cannot be documented but who play a large role in Japanese culture.

People in the present day are so well-documented that it's hard to remember that the vast majority of ancient people lived and died without their individual existence ever being documented in any way. You will never find Jesus' high school yearbook or his driver's license or his birth certificate.

Whatever you want to believe about Jesus' existence, fine. You just can't prove it either way. There are no reliable records outside the Bible to say that he existed, but at the same time, given the circumstances of the ancient world, the absence of written documentation is not proof, either.

Otherwise, we have to say that Socrates never existed, because he is known only through the writings of Plato.

[tatertop]

31. but wouldn't you expect more references to Jesus

from historians of the day?

[gkhouston]

47. not really

my impression, perhaps incorrect, is that first-century Christianity was viewed as just another religious cult. (No offense intended.) The impact it would have on Western civilization in later centuries wasn't suspected during or immediately after the era of Jesus, at least not by historians.

[FreedomAngel82]

58. Yes

And remember Jesus wasn't very well liked either. He was, as Chavez once put it, a rebel in his time. He went against that which was popular. He wasn't a hero to their type.

[K-W]

50. Why? He would have been a radical rabbi with a small group of followers.

Why would any historian note him?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. What historians of the day?

The historians of the day concentrated on where the action was, namely Rome. Judea was the Roman equivalent of Podunk.

If there were local historians recording events in Judea, it's more than likely that their writings (which probably existed in very few copies, since everything had to be copied by hand) were lost when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the Jewish revolt of 70AD.

[FreedomAngel82]

55. Exactly

Don't forget the Dead Sea Scrolls. I personally think of God wanted us to truly know it would be so. Just like if he didn't. It's all sort of some plan that we don't know about yet.

[bleedingheart]

69. Also the Great Library of Alexandria ...which may have had evidence

was ordered to be burned by the Christian Roman Empereor Theodosius I.

I wonder how much knowledge went up in smoke because of the fear of "pagan" learning...

[KittyWampus]

89. Think Of How Completely Our Media Controls Info... Since Ancient Egypt

Pharoahs images & names were wiped off monuments and replaced with those currently in power.

In Revolutionary France, statues were put and pulled down practically by the month.

The historical record is written by the victors. And the Romans kept a tight grip for a quite a while.

And the Pharisees and corrupt Jewish leadership hated Truth tellers as well.

[Squatch]

15. Wikipedia on the topic

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

[al bupp]

20. Wikipedia entry on JC's historical basis

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Of the non-Christian commentators living within memory of Jesus, very few are said to have written anything at all about Jesus or Christianity. This is not surprising; most writers of the time whose works have survived had little interest in the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, and so would have little reason to write about a local religious leader who preached there for a handful of years.

Nonetheless, several major non-Christian historians of the time are attested by various groups to have written material relating to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Pliny the Younger condemned Christians as easily led fools, as did the rhetorician Lucian some years later. There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Surviving manuscripts of Tacitus (in a passage in the Annals written c. 115) summarize popular opinion about Jesus, but do not demonstrate access to any independent source of information. Of the four, Josephus' writings are the most interesting to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus.

<snip>

Many Christians use a passage from the Jewish historian Josephus as evidence that the Bible is not the only contemporary document proclaiming the truth of their faith and its history. However, John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been forged.

Josephus, as a historian, recorded details on many people claiming to be Messiahs in Roman Judea; however, on Jesus, Josephus appears to have written only one passage, quoted by Eusebius as part of a larger text (the only source for this, and many other texts written by Josephus), as well as a shorter passage stating that Jesus was thought to be the brother of James the Just and was referred to as the "Christ." The longer passage declares that Jesus was a wise man (or more than a man) who converted many Jews and non-Jews and was the Christ. The second passage goes on to say that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish authorities and rose from the dead on the third day following.

While the passage is often cited as proof of Jesus' existence, most critical scholars hold that it is a forgery, or has at least been heavily edited by a later hand. Several reasons are given for this:

1. First, the text contains several hapax legomena, often evidence of a different author.
   
2. Second, the text as it stands could only have been written by a Christian, not a Jew like Josephus.
   
3. Third, the logical flow between two paragraphs is interrupted by the "Jesus passage," though it must be admitted that Josephus' logical flow is not always exemplary in the rest of his writings.

[alfredo]

23. Joseph Campbell said he existed, but the details of his life

are myth.

My opinion is that he was a reformer, a radical. He pissed off the wrong people (monied elite), got whacked. As his story is told, his stature grew from a rabble rouser to son of God.

One theory was he survived crucifixion. At three days his family visited the tomb, as prescribed by law, only to find him alive. They spirited him away to Damascus, a favorite destination of people who were hiding from the authorities.

The reason the law demanded the family visit the tomb at three days was to make sure the person was actually dead. Burying people alive could have been a problem at the time.

The Centurions guarding the graveyard said an angel put them asleep. Likely story, but you'd say anything if the punishment for falling asleep on guard duty is death.

[Finder]

32. Joseph Campbell did not think he existed.

He thought the myth was attributed to the existence of many different people...

[alfredo]

75. On his video he said that all we know for sure is that he was born,

lived, and died, the rest is myth.

[Thtwudbeme]

87. I do not believe Joseph Campbell said exactly that

I will look that up.

There is ZERO proof of his birth, life and death---and I doubt J.Campbell was ignorant of that.

[alfredo]

103. to tell the truth, it doesn't matter to me if he lived or not.

It wouldn't make one bit of difference to how I live my life. His existence or non-existence doesn't pay my bills, or do the dishes.

[0007]

36. I've read a lot of Campbell's books and can agree with him.

But I like the way Emerson sums it up the best in his essay on "Religion."

[FreedomAngel82]

61. I've also heard the story

that perhaps Jesus' body was moved to another grave since the original grave was not Jesus' and was not paid by his family etc. Even though I am a Christian and highly believe in Christ I wonder if his actual body raised from the dead or his spiritual self raised from the dead and he showed himself to the apostles and the people who came to his grave site. I get mixed feelings about that. Since Jesus is considered the son of God and has great power I'm sure it would be easier for him then a normal spirit to show himself to this plane/dimension.

[alfredo]

81. Remember, the accounts were written by partisans.

We cannot assume their accounts were "fair and balanced."

[Thtwudbeme]

28. No, there is not. I am sorry for the Christians on this thread who are

going to bring up Josephus (who wrote a couple of lines about someone that MIGHT have been Jesus)...and there are going to be some comments about the Gnostics, which someone will invariably tell me "I need to read...." however:

I am a religion major, going to Divinity School hopefully next Fall if I can get my Latin and Greek done on time. When the head of the Religion Dept. at UNC-CH tells the students, "There is no concrete historical archeological evidence of this mans existence," and when every single other professor I have had, bar none, have repeatedly said that....well...you know....

Do I believe he existed? Let's just say "I don't know," but I would like to think he did.

[Finder]

29. None at all.

Funny some mentioned Shakespeare since he was a construct of the Rosicrucians(100 year experiment)

Francis Bacon is key.

[Zomby Woof]

34. No

But his believers rely on faith, not historical corroboration.

The New Testament is the only record of Jesus, and it was written 100 years or more after his alleged existence. A good historian would want corroborative material, and would hope for multiple, contemporary, primary sources if he or she were to make a compelling case.

[Thtwudbeme]

37. ahhhhhh be careful of the New Testament argument

We now have other documents from around the same time period---you know...all those scrolls that popped up!

However, all they are "proof" of is the political propaganda machine that we have come to know and love as The Church.

on edit: (I know you understood what I meant but I am not sure others do ...so I have to add this damned edit) The gnostic gospels and others fragments that have been found since the late 1800's up to what? 1955 or so? Can't remember, don't want to walk downstairs to look it up...all they consist of is other gospels that break away from the Synoptics--but, they were NOT written as a historical record...nor were they written by Jesus' contemporaries at the time.

;)

[Zomby Woof]

44. Ah, true

I didn't mean that the New Testament was any kind of historical document (and I probably have the date wrong), and I welcome the correction that it has parallel texts, written ex post facto. :-)

I defer to your knowledge on this. I haven't cracked open my Joseph Campbell in a while.

I will stand my by first statement in my post - it is a matter of faith, not history (and much of history can be faith-based, lol).

I bet if a bottle of Jack was downstairs waiting for you, you'd feel like it. ;-)

[Thtwudbeme]

52. It's only 1:20 here! Cocktail hour doesn't start until 4!

Good God man, only alcoholics start before 3:59PM. On the dot. And I admire punctual people-

It's completely not a matter of history....In fact, one of my professors in my seminar classes told the other students at the beginning of the semester to not drag any of their Christian beliefs into his classroom, or to expect an "F." He told me after class that here recently there is no point in even trying to reason with the "proof of Jesus" people....thinks they are whacked. I am beginning to agree with him.

[Zomby Woof]

60. My watch is broken

Add to that, it is only 10:25 AM here. Going to hit 97 on the thermometer today, so I better hit the pool. B-)

I agree completely - I will wield my History degree and concur that it is NOT an historical matter.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Not all of us are whacked

Becareful. x(

[Thtwudbeme]

79. I don't need to be careful....I deal with this every single day in person

If you believe that Jesus existed, that is fine. That is a personal belief...however, NOT one that belongs in a classroom in a State University-

There is a very good essay on this very subject--

http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/thesesonmethod.html

[FreedomAngel82]

65. Don't forget the Catholic church meddling

I remember watching a special on the History Channel once on the Bible we know today and it was of Biblical scholars and according to them there were a lot of books that were left out such as a book Mary Magdelne wrote and it was left out probably because she was a woman. Who knows what all could be in these books. Remember the old saying about those in power create history. Jesus was obviously not well liked so authorites in power in the day could've changed things with him. :shrug:

[FreedomAngel82]

70. Something else is

Mary could've written a lot that would go against what the church is today because there are women mentioned in the Bible such as the book of Ruth (which is very short) and there was a woman judge named Deborah but for some reason I get the sense the church is threatned by this book. I wish it could be translated and put out for people to read. I don't know why but I just would really love to read that book.

[MadHound]

94. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene has been translated

First into French, and now into English<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892819111/qid=1128016665/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4135234-3111012?v=glance&s=books>

I picked it up through a QPB deal, but have yet to read it, nor much else. It is fall, and much remains to be done around the farm. But I am looking forward to reading this book in the winter, and catching up on my other reading.

As far as the OP goes, no, there is no real historical evidence of Jesus' existence. However that is not suprising at all. Christ was an obscure man, living in an obscure province of the Roman empire. But one never knows, the field of Christian archeaology continues apace, and someday soon they could very well uncover something that points to the indisputable truth that Christ did exist. Still and yet, even if they did, it will prove completely impossible that he was actually the son of God. That is a matter of faith, not logic.

[jonnyblitz]

39. interesting thread. I am an atheist who thought there was proof.

I just assumed he existed I guess. Now, being the son of some god,or being god himself (whatever that trinity thing means), I don't believe.

[Thtwudbeme]

41. Well we don't know if he existed.

Interestingly, the head of the religion dept. at a major NC school just "came out" recently and announced that he was agnostic/atheist.

I wish we had met you at the march-

Steph

[jonnyblitz]

53. interesting to know..

and yes. i wished i would have met you and michael. but, like i told michael, we will meet the next time. I wished i could have spent more than 10 minutes with teena and karen also. I wasn't really in DC long enough..:hi:

jonny :D

[tatertop]

54. How did Jesus become the star of the Bible?

[Thtwudbeme]

56. Pretty much the same way Shiva became the star of the Upanishads

and Buddha became the star of the Dharma.

On edit: OK, sorry...that last line was sarcastic and mean. Is this a real question?

[tatertop]

59. It's OK if you don't know the answer

[Thtwudbeme]

63. No, dear. The problem is that the answer is long.

It's long, and it's the story of a myth that started at least 4,000 years ago, and you want someone to sum it up for you on an internet board-and one that is political, no less.

It can't be done; if you are really curious, you need to read books. I personally suggest that you begin with Joseph Campbell to try and understand the power of oral myths and traditions in human existence.

The story of Jesus as the messiah isn't really all that different from any other creation or religious myths. The virgin or miraculous circumstance birth is a common theme in these myths....that's the beginning-

Good luck with your studies, it's actually fun.

[FreedomAngel82]

72. Wow, seriously?

Do you know why?

[Thtwudbeme]

82. Studying religion rips your beliefs apart, and transforms your mind

I suppose that this is what his ultimate (so far) conclusion is.

Hey, I am at "I am not sure..."

Not, "I believe."

And, I want to be a minister.

[CarbonDate]

172. I wanted to be a minister, too.

You may or may not end up as an atheist like I did, but it's true that you only become an atheist if you think about it.

It seems that you are thinking about it. The best answer any Christian will come up with to persuade you to believe is that you should stop thinking so much and just believe. That, in the end, was the deal breaker for me. I simply cannot stop thinking, and there is no evidence of God's existence. None. I kept looking for a sign, but there never was one. I kept looking for something to affirm my faith. Nothing.

When I accepted that I no longer believed in the supernatural, it was like a shroud had been lifted. I no longer feared bumps in the night, I no longer thought about fate, destiny, or divine purpose. My life simply is, and when I die, it will no longer be.

Being an atheist is not easy. On top of all the shit the theists fling at you, you have to accept difficult truths that believing in God does not require you to accept:

1) You are going to die. When you do die, you will not move from one plane of existence to another. You simply will no longer exist.

2) There is no eternal reward for good people and there is no eternal punishment for bad people. If justice is not exacted in life, it will never be. Adolf Hitler met the same fate that Franklin Roosevelt did: oblivion.

3) The people you love who have died are not waiting for you in another plane of existence. You are never going to see them again. They're just gone.

4) All your inner strength comes from within you. You must have faith in *yourself* to make it through life.

The big question is this: when you are about to die and your life flashes before your eyes, will it be worth re-living? I know mine will.

[Az]

173. Many of the atheists I used to debate with

told stories of how they once studied for the clergy. Close study of the bible forces one to contimplate the inconsistancies in an unblinking manner.

[FreedomAngel82]

71. The trinity thing to me

is that they are all connected and go back to the same being (God).

[jonnyblitz]

74. i always took it to mean...all three are one and the same.

it confused me.

[triguy46]

64. Definitive?

No drivers license records. I would think that we have reason enough to know that the man existed. But there is no "proof" per se, nor any "proof" that he was the son of God.

Brings up why the ID people insist on having "proof" of evolution when there is no possible way to "prove" that god exists.

That said, the cornerstone of religion is faith, NOT proof. In Hebrews 11,

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

To me, the ID people miss this totally, are just playing games. and lessen God to be a "little" god.

[FreedomAngel82]

78. Exactly

Whenever I talk to a conservative Christian of such things I always ask if they can prove God exists and if they can to go on national tv and prove it to the whole country.

[jus_the_facts]

73. Why not focus on current events and how to solve them....instead....

...of asking redundant questions about the past and it's people that've been asked time after time with the very exact same answers given that have no relevance to the present...regardless of what's been recorded about Jesus' life and who believes what about him...his teachings aren't practiced enough to have made much difference in the world 2K+ years since his crucificion.....and besides there's a whole forum *devoted* to these types of questions else where on DU...damn. :dilemma:

[FM Arouet666]

76. Definitive proof? No, not even sound supportive evidence.

No archaeological evidence and absent from the works of most ancient historians, all you have is the Bible.

I would not ask for "definitive proof," proof being something best left to mathematics and alcohol.

"The process of historical analysis is a difficult one, involving investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts, and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened." Modern historical analysis usually draws upon most of the other social sciences, including economics, sociology, politics, psychology, philosophy and linguistics, in order to ensure these narratives are thorough, balanced and holistic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian

[Ladyhawk]

80. No. There is not proof.

The "histories" that mention Jesus are probably forgeries. If you want more info, I can dig it up.

[Johonny]

85. No

he wasn't.

[BBradley]

86. There is no proof of Jesus' having ever existed

That sad fact really gets alot of Christians into a tizzy...

[K-W]

88. They really should be happy about that fact.

If we had evidence, it is very possible it could present facts about his life that would contradict the bible or dogma.

[Sugarcoated]

91. I'm not a religious person

I'm just not sure of it - God and all the rest. But, I've noticed some athiests seem to take pleasure in, or try to taunt people who choose to consider Jesus/God as true. Don't get the meanness thing.

[Bridget Burke]

90. If you want to "judge" a religion....

Look at the actions of the believers, not the "truth" of its history. In the long history of Christianity, believers in Jesus have done much bad & much good. Of course, many acting in his name weren't (& aren't) really believers.

From my readings of J Campbell, et al., I think that some of what Jesus said & did may, indeed, have been said & done by a teacher (or teachers) active in Palestine about that time. The religion(s) that formed around this core show influences of Greek mysticism & other pagan sources. (Other gods impregnated virgins mysteriously; other gods were born, died & were reborn.)

Despite the actions of some misogynist clergymen, respect for the divine female remains in the older versions of Christianity. Some of Catholicism's finest churches were built over shrines to pagan goddesses (from Isis to Tonantzin).

This is just my opinion. (And I'll give a religion extra points if it's produced some good art.)

[sweetheart]

99. Yes, you're talking about him.

Everyone who reads the thread knows to whom you reference, and there is
a ponderous amount of social arts framed around his metaphor.

And as you yourself name this metaphor, when you could have just as well
replaced that name with Krishna, or Gautama Siddhartha, and had a similar
discussion.

Yet you bring up jesus of nazareth because you had no choice, and jesus
has hold of your typing fingers, flippantly, subtly and incincerely,
praying for the salvation of jesus christ. He exists because you can't
forget his name. If you don't want him to exist, don't ask about him.

History is subjective to its ontology.

[Meatwad]

107. I'm sure he did, but...

I sometimes wonder if he was who he said he was.

[mzteris]

150. Your statement is better phrased as........

"I sometimes wonder if he was who THEY said he was."

Many who believe in the existance of Jesus, don't necessarily believe in the DIVINITY of Jesus - those references were added later. The earliest writings of the earliest Christian churches - didn't mention miracles nor being a diety.

The Nicene council and Arian controversy as a starting point.

[CitrusLib]

109. If there were proof, faith wouldn't be required.

Kind of breaks down the whole Jesus as Savior thing. ;-)

[bushisfufkt]

122. Here Here!!!

Exactly! Nice succinct way to put it!

[Ravenseye]

111. Swift Boat Judeans For Truth

"I was in Bethlehem when they say Jesus was born, and I can tell you for a fact there was room at the Inn." - Hosea, Mason of Bethlehem

"I served John the Baptist and I don't ever recall seeing this so called Jesus" - Joshua, Candlemaker of Jerusalem

"I was all over Nazareth, and I worked as a carpenter. I don't ever recall seeing anyone named Jesus working as one. It's all a lie" David, Carpenter of Nazareth

[Balbus]

117. But how can you dispute "The Shroud"?????

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. LOL

I love the shroud believers. I always have the urge to sell them a piece of the true cross. At a fantastic premium, of course. ;-)

[Mr_Spock]

119. His ethical teachings are good.

So it doesn't really matter does it?

If we could only get the Christians to be even remotely as ethical as Jesus we'd be in a much better place as a nation (world).

[ProdigalJunkMail]

125. try proving any poor wanderer of the time existed

and that might give you the answer...

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. The answer, then, being NO

There is no concrete proof, given our current standards of historical evidence, that this Jesus even existed.

We can, on the other hand, prove definitively that Socrates existed, or Protagoras, or Gorgias, or any number of others.

[Zhade]

126. Nope.

NT!

[Fuzz]

128. He built my hotrod

:smoke:

[beam me up scottie]

131. Jeez.

Of course not.

Why is this in GD?

[Az]

132. The clear answer to the question put forward is No.

There are arguments about the historocity of Jesus' existance. But even amongst those there is no claim of a living contemporary witness to his existance. All claims supporting his existance are at best third hand and even the best of those are questionable.

The story is even further troubled by the fact that the reports in the bible are self contradictory. There are things reported in the story that should have been recorded. Claims of fantastic events that it is nearly impossible to imagine them not being recorded by someone somewhere. But there is nothing. The absense of contemporary evidence is troubling.

[troubleinwinter]

133. "definitive proof"? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.

I suppose you can call me "christian", but I see it as

Jesus= physical, mortal man
Christ= Divine, spiritual message

The existance of one neither 'proves' nor 'disproves' the ohter.

Whether he existed as a man on earth is not truly important to me (I suspect he did), but rather if the "message" is legitimate. That question is for each of us to determine for one's own private self.

I regard most biblical stories as folk tales and myths, some based on ancient historical fact, oral stories carried by generations, some as political bullshit, some as moral stories.

There is a view that "The Garden of Eden" may have been based on historical remembrance of a very early establishment of civilization in a lush and fertile area at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, an area now beneath the top end of the Persian Gulf. (Who knows?)

There is a theory of Noah's flood having been a natural breach of a portion of the land barrier at the Bosporus causing a devastating deluge of the settlements along the shore of the Black Sea. (Who knows?)

There are scientific explanations of "the parting of the Red Sea"... due to tides and winds and that it is not particularly mystifying or unusual.

I regard many of the stories as folk stories of the area, some may be based on historical fact, some not, but a wonderful and interesting collection of oral stories and histories from our ancestors.

I think biblical stories are fascinating and worthy of scientific and archaeological investigation. They are a wonderful insight into our early human history.

But I personally find a message within the pages that does not depend upon the historical Jesus (the man), but rather what I see as the spiritual message of Christ (the message).

I adore archeology and science and history and hope the stories of the Bible are examined, but I hope they never find physical "proof" of Jesus to be used as "proof of the Christ". Jesus's physical existence has nothing to do with the "message". The "message" is a personal, private, spiritual question for each to choose to pursue or not.

[Atlas Mugged]

134. Just to make things even more complicated....

ROMAN PISO FAMILY WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT, INVENTED "JESUS"

"We Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity that it was synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of maintaining control over the masses and to placate slaves. And, this is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so much for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie. Our ancestors wrote what they could about this in our texts."

http://www.konformist.com/blasphemy/piso.htm

[htuttle]

136. There's more proof that Lao Tzu actually existed

...since a book was authored under his name.

However, most scholars now agree that Lao Tzu's works were not actually written by single person, but rather a combination of several authors.

:shrug:

So, no. No definitive proof.

[Az]

137. Tricky

Since even the story attributed to the collection of ideas in the Tao Te Ching is that Lao Tzu did not record it himself. Instead it is attributed to a guard that asked Lao Tzu to convey his teachings to him before he left for a self imposed exile.

[htuttle]

140. Whoops, that's right

That was right before he walked off into the wilderness to become 'one with the Tao', and was never heard from again.

So I guess there's about the same amount of 'proof' for both Lao Tzu and Jesus.

[catbert836]

169. And Homer

They think the Iliad/Odyssey are long poems, authored and edited by many Greek poets over the course of thousands of years about a long series of wars that the Greek city-states had with Troy on the Lydian coast, condensed into one.

[Az]

170. Its simply the way great stories came about back then

There were no copyright laws. A story entered into the stream and others would take it and revise it. The stories that resonated the best in the public consciousness were the ones that replicated. Mutation lead to improvements. Evolution in action.

[catbert836]

176. Yep.

Some examples: Beowulf, the Norse sagas, and Genesis.

[BigMcLargehuge]

139. Proof is totally subjective...

If you look, for a more contemporary example, at Bill Bennet now it's impossible to tell he's had breast reduction surgery. But if you compare old and new pics it's evident even if he won't admit it.

[HEyHEY]

141. Yeah, I have his bong

[Igel]

143. Nope.

No proof for Plato, either.

And, if you get right down to it, even Euripides could be a made-up figure. Nothing signed, no photographs or fingerprints. Just copies ... sometimes of copies.

Not just a lot surviving from back then. We do get bits of canonical new testament by 80-100 AD, alleging to be from eyewitnesses. And this weird willingness of people to be tortured and killed because they believed he existed just 50-70 years before (which has usually been one of the main apologies for Jesus' existence).

[onager]

161. People have been tortured and killed...

...for all sorts of loony ideas. Sort of like the Roman pagans, after Constantine gave the Xians political power.

That doesn't "prove" anything other than the power of loony ideas to establish a firm hold on some human minds.

Not that many years ago, apparently a whole nation of Germans were willing to die for Hitler. And about six million UNwillingly died, thanks in part to centuries of anti-Semitic hatred propagated by the self-proclaimed followers of Jesus.

[Zhade]

164. Just a quibble: it was a lot more than six million.

Sadly.

[onager]

165. Well, that's true.

I was using a little shorthand.

You remind me of this old chestnut, though...and I expect somebody to use it any time now:

But the atheist Stalin killed more people than Hitler!

I've never understood the argument that because your belief system slaughtered a few million people less than Stalin, that somehow makes it a "better" belief system. The point is the slaughter, not the numbers. Well, to me it is, anyway.

[Az]

166. I challenge that notion with this

re Stalin vs Hitler. Its not atheism that Stalin killed in the name of. It was his particular dogmatic authoratative belief system that drove him to do so. It happened to be atheistic. But it placed something above humans. It placed the needs of society in the roll of god and defining that which must be done.

When you have people insisting that they have the absolute truth that cannot be questioned, well thats when you have people dying. A system that is able to quetion itself is less likely to enter into a killing spree. Dogmatic authoratative systems have been the cause of more death and bloodshed than anything else on this planet.

[onager]

167. Yep. I use that argument too.

Along with Bertrand Russell's great comparison (from memory, but this is close):

"Communists and Christians are a lot alike. Both worship a Sacred Book and have a fanatical desire to punish the non-believer."

[Bloodblister Bob]

144. Jesus and Christ are two different things...

A man named something like "Jesus" may have lived, but nobody knows what actually happened to him. "Christ" is the myth which clever men have created about Jesus.

[catbert836]

168. Not written in stone, no.

But I do think that he existed. It seems inconcievable to me that so much could have been wrtten and said about such a person without him existing at one time in some form or another. He was probably radically different from what most people think he was, but he still probably existed. It's just too big a hoax to not have been found out by now.

[Az]

171. Never has the confirmation of the existance of one person been so sought

And yet nothing has been found. At best there are those that have heard of believers and followers telling stories of his existance decades after his passing. That in itself is telling. Certainly not conclusive. But it demands we remain open minded on the subject.

[catbert836]

175. Certainly I'm opened minded about Jesus' existence.

I acknowledge the possibility that he didn't exist. All I'm saying is that I think he did exist because too much has been written about him for him to not have existed, period. I believe a possible reason that people didn't write about Jesus until decades afterwards was that they didn't think it was necessary, because he would be coming back at any time. When they realized it wasn't happening, they started to write. That's what my theology professor said, anyway. Just something to think about.

[onager]

174. Well, my usual rant...

...by popular demand. Or at least a couple of PM's...

Some years ago, I noticed that whenever the historicity of Jesus was mentioned, somebody popped right up with a statement like: "Of course he is. Famous historians like Flavius Josephus mentioned him MANY TIMES." (The emphasis is important.)

I saw the same statement when I picked up many "history" books from the Religion section at Borders or B&N.

Hmm. OK. I went and got myself the Collected Writings of Josephus...the volume edited and released by those atheists at Fuller Theological Seminary.

And what do I find when I look up this "irrefutable" proof that Jesus existed?

One paragraph. Yes, ONE! And that is weirdly out of context. It's sandwiched in between a pretty exciting account of Pontius Pilate crushing a riot, and some hot gossip about the Jews of Rome hanging around the Temple Of Isis. No wonder it's out of context--nobody mentioned it before the 4th century, when it was probably inserted by Eusebius.

Rather than go on and on, I urge anyone interested in this to do what I did: don't listen to self-proclaimed experts in print or on the net.

Get the book, read, and draw your own conclusions.

Josephus is not all that trustworthy in some areas. He almost equalled the Bu$h family in generating propaganda about himself.

But is he worth reading? Oh, you bet! His descriptions of Jerusalem under siege are incredible.

Religious fanatics ranting on street corners and urging young men to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks; the Hebrew defenders luring Roman soldiers into a trap and roasting them to death on a Temple portico; the Romans returning the favor by crucifying 500 prisoners at a time outside the city walls; and then the final apocalyptic Roman attacks on Fortress Antonia and the Temple itself.

BTW, like most Judeans of the time, Josephus had a REAL grudge against King Herod and his entire family. The Herods really get raked over the coals, and Josephus noted every sin of omission or commission, no matter how small.

One thing he doesn't mention, though--the mass slaughter of the infants when Herod was trying to whack Baby Jesus.

You'll only find that yarn told in one place--the Gospel Of Matthew.

[dryan]

177. Jesus....

and by extension His followers were not 'officially' mentioned by the noted historians of the time he lived because the Romans didn't take the movement seriously. Their were many sects of Judism in exitence at the time. The Jewish heirarchy was able to win several important accomodations from the Romans (the coining of their own money, no Roman banners with the face of Ceasar in Jerusalem that kind of thing) that they were afraid that the Christians were rocking the boat so to speak. The Jews blamed the Christians for the fall of Jerusalem in 79 CE. The Jewish high priests then proclaimed that the Christians were no longer "Jews" and banned them from worshipping in Jewish temples. Some of the original disciples were still alive at that time.

Josepheus was an interesting guy. It was from his writings that we know about what happened at Masada.

[Az]

178. You'd think earthquakes and zombies would warrant a historical note

From the book of Matthew, just after Jesus dies on the cross.

27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Now, a single man being executed may go unnoticed and escape mention in historians tomes. But earthquakes and zombie saints are gonna get written down somewhere and people are going to be talking about it for a while.

[Brentos]

179. Interesting discussion!

Following this line...

How many Pharaoh's really existed?

Did my great-great grandfather exist? I have no written proof of him, yet I know he lived, and he begat the most important thing to me...me! :-)

Did tribes of Native Americans exist before Columbus and friends came to the Americas?

What would need to be required for absolute proof? Someone who didn't believe in Jesus to chronicle what Jesus actually did, thus supporting Jesus' views. The argument here seems to be since the Bible is written by believers, you can't believe it, and since non believers didn't write about Jesus (and the one that did is discounted), he can't be real. But, non-believers wouldn't write about a random preacher-messiah type, since they were a dime-a-dozen. Kind of a catch-22.

How many historians in ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt., etc., wrote about the beginnings of small cults where the leader was killed after a few years, and named names? And, if people did change and become believers, their info was probably recorded in the gospels (since they now believed), and thus are not reliable.

Guilty until proven innocent.

On the other hand, you can't really prove a negative, so where does this lead these debates...except around...and around...and around...

Now, as to the historicity of the Bible itself, it is easily one of the most historically accurate ancient documents, and proved more-so as time goes on. Keeping in mind that the first part of Genesis is like the comic book equivalent of "What has gone on before", and that ancient historians differ from modern historians as to what is truly historical(But that's a different topic).

I believe in Jesus and I believe in evolution. Neither has "proof" beyond all reasonable doubt, but I believe them both to be accurate (in idea, at least, even if every detail is not perfectly understood).

Ahhh...enough rambling.

-Brentos, the Younger

[Zhade]

180. Except that evolution IS proven.

It has been confirmed. The origin of life itself is not what evolution studies.

The alleged existence of Jesus has never been proven.

[Az]

181. Um,, ease up there

There is enough evidence supporting the theory of evolution that to deny it would be ridiculous. But science does not prove things.

In the evidentiary process it is about finding sufficient evidence to grant consent that a theory is likely to be true. All it takes to unseat any theory is evidence that refutes it. So neither evolution nor the existance of Jesus can be proven to an absolute point. But evidence can tell us whether they are likely true.

[Zhade]

184. Az, I never say this, but - you're wrong.

Evolution has been observed. It's a fact.

Natural selection, on the other hand, is less established.

The existence of Jesus has never been shown to be true, which I know you know.

As far as easing up, I am SICK and tired of people claiming things to be true that have zero credible evidence backing those allegations up, so I get a little testy.

[Az]

185. Its a semantic issue

I agree that evolution has been observed. I also agree that we would be ridiculous not to accept it as fact. But that does not mean proven in the absolute sense. Using the word or concept of proof in conjunction with science is simply inaccurate.

Science as a process always leaves itself open to new evidence. Proven implies the book has been closed. While it would be foolish to hold our breath waiting for evidence that refutes the theory of evolution we cannot close the book. That would be faith and not science in action.

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is fact as we have enough evidence to convince us beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. It is a thoery because that is what you call a scientific explanation of what we believe a particular process is.

Its unfortunate that we have to beat semantic issues into the ground. But in subjects such as this clarity is of the utmost importance. I have seen debates go on for days over useless territory because each side misunderstood what the other side was saying.

Evidence is for science. Proof is for math (and liquor).

[Zhade]

186. Consider me properly chagrined.

I missed your overall point, which isn't actually semantics at all - I was wrong, because science deals with evidence, not proof.

I feel like a dope now. I let my annoyance get the best of me! :blush:

[Az]

187. No worries

:hug:

[Zhade]

188. How do you remain so calm at all times?

Prozac?

:D

Seriously, I admire your collected nature.

[Az]

189. By keeping an eye on the goal

Turning to anger means you have lost already. Nothing can be gained through acting out in such a way. Well perhaps solitude. But if you wish to make a difference you have to have a clear sight of what is being dicussed, the issues that are critical to the discussion, and awalys be wary of communication errors.

When you speak in anger or in a way disrespecting another (whether you are right or not) the discussion will no longer be about the issue that initiated the conversation. It will be about the emotional pain and discomfort each side percieves. Nothing will be resolved in this way.

[onager]

182. Nice dodge, but an old one.

Every time someone mentions the historicity of Jesus, a believer immediately jumps up with these inane comparisions.

BTW, your statement about the Bible as "historically accurate" is exactly backwards. As time goes on, more and more Biblical accounts are being disproven. You can easily track that in the pubs devoted to the subject, like "Biblical Archeology Magazine."

Outraged Fundies write in every month to denounce the latest archeological finds and whine that "the Bible is still true, no matter what happens."

But since you asked...

How many Pharaoh's really existed?

Many. And unlike Jesus, they left tons of evidence that they existed. Literally tons, in the case of their various pyramids, temples and tombs. Then, of course, there are all those mummified remains. More evidence.

Let's talk about one of them, since it also touches on your claim about that wonderful "historicity" of the Bible.

We probably all know the Bible account of the "Exodus," or at least the Cecil B. DeMille/Charlton Heston version. After plagues and a genocidal, unnecessary slaughter of Egyptian infants, the Israelites leave Egypt accompanied by various miracles.

Yet in thousands of years of recorded Egyptian history, "Israel" is mentioned ONCE. You'd think the plagues would rate a mention...let alone a Pharoah and his entire army drowning due to an occult incident in the Red Sea.

Nope. Israel rates exactly one line, and that occurs on a stele from the reign of Pharoah Merneptah, circa 1200 BCE. I saw it earlier this year, in the Cairo Museum.

The stele records a straightforward account of a military campaign into Palestine:

Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.

http://www.touregypt.net/victorystele.htm

Next time, try the usual Xian dodge and use a more obscure comparison to try and "prove" Jesus existed. Hint: Julius Caesar won't work, either. He also left plenty of evidence behind.

[Az]

183. A good book on this subject

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein

It is an excellent summary of the current state of archaeology with an eye for the impact it has on the claims of the bible.