Proof that jesus walked the earth???

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

If one starts from an assumption that Jesus did not exist, and needs to be proven, we do find ourself in the position that the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible.

Not so. That would only be true if you limit 'evidence' to a very narrow meaning of 'documents by eye witnesses of or produced by contemporaries of Jesus'. Most historians consider as evidence sources that may record what previously passed as oral histories a generation or two after the event in question. Also, we accept as 'evidence' records written by authors on the basis of interviews with eye witnesses.

For example, Antony Beevor's excellent books on Stalingrad or the Spanish Civil War may contain interviews with survivors of those conflicts, or even interviews with individuals who told Beevor what their fathers or mothers had told them. We do not reject these as evidence just his books were written 50 or 60 years after the events, or because it was Beevor who wrote the book, not the eye-witnesses themselves.

So we have Clement of Rome, Philip of Hireopolis, Papias and Polycarp - all of whom knew one or more of the disciples of Jesus and so, like Beevor, received first hand accounts of Jesus from eye witnesses. We also have the apostle Paul, of course, but his letters are part of the Bible.

Julius Africanus, a Christian in the late second century, quotes from the works of Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52. Apparently Thallus tried to explain away the darkness that accompanied the crucifixion as an eclipse of the sun.

Origen refers to the First Century historian, Phlegon, who also explained the supernatural darkness away as an eclipse.

Both Julius Africanus and Origen's references are significant because they are quoting First Century historians whose works actually attack, rather than support Christianity. These are not pious inventions to bolster the historicity of Jesus, something both Julius Africanus and Origen appear to see as unquestioned, but rather facing up to difficulties created by attacks from First Century critics of Christianity whose works were obviously well known at the time of Julius and Origen, and who, while acknowledging the historicity of Jesus, sought to debunk the Christian tradition of the miraculous.

Also, there are non-canonical Gospels and writings. We have fragments and texts of some of these, while others are quoted by various church fathers. While historians would not support the accuracy of everything in these documents, they do provide further evidence (some of it very early indeed) of the existence of Jesus Christ.

Maybe the above will help to explain why historians have reached their conclusions concerning the historicity of Jesus.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

infidels.org? In an academic discussion that would be the equivalent of quoting Jack Chick or Ken Hamm as an authoritative source.

Not quite.

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

Carrier is a respected historian. I'm not saying he is right about Jesus as a myth. In fact he himself isn't saying that he is right (lets see Ken Ham say that), he is saying it is possibility and a likely one at that.

But then I'm not trying to show he is right. I'm showing that historians don't all agree that Jesus was a real person.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Not so. That would only be true if you limit 'evidence' to a very narrow meaning of 'documents by eye witnesses of or produced by contemporaries of Jesus'. Most historians consider as evidence sources that may record what previously passed as oral histories a generation or two after the event in question. Also, we accept as 'evidence' records written by authors on the basis of interviews with eye witnesses.

One of the elements that historians do take into account, though, is whether the writers have any agenda that would tend to distort their recording of the events.

PDN wrote: »

For example, Antony Beevor's excellent books on Stalingrad or the Spanish Civil War may contain interviews with survivors of those conflicts, or even interviews with individuals who told Beevor what their fathers or mothers had told them. We do not reject these as evidence just his books were written 50 or 60 years after the events, or because it was Beevor who wrote the book, not the eye-witnesses themselves.

There are photographs of the action in Stalingrad, military records, publications, recordings, and in fact an enormous amount of non-oral sources. Beevor's book is almost certainly not put together from witness accounts, first-hand or second-hand.

Similarly, the life of Ramses III is attested from a variety of records, plus some very large solid objects and a variety of dateable artefacts. While these cannot certainly prove the existence of Ramses III, they are very good circumstantial evidence of the kind that is entirely missing for Jesus.

PDN wrote: »

So we have Clement of Rome, Philip of Hireopolis, Papias and Polycarp - all of whom knew one or more of the disciples of Jesus and so, like Beevor, received first hand accounts of Jesus from eye witnesses. We also have the apostle Paul, of course, but his letters are part of the Bible.

Unfortunately, again, we have the problem that those interviewed are not unbiased. Paul certainly counts here, because the problem with the Bible is not that it is the Bible, but that it is certainly not an unbiased source.

PDN wrote: »

Julius Africanus, a Christian in the late second century, quotes from the works of Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52. Apparently Thallus tried to explain away the darkness that accompanied the crucifixion as an eclipse of the sun.

Origen refers to the First Century historian, Phlegon, who also explained the supernatural darkness away as an eclipse.

Now, tell me, PDN, just how many sources are there for this 'darkness' apart from two "authors" whose works are only known by references in Christian sources?

This, in an age when the observation of the heavens for portents and signs was constant, and of huge public interest, and close to the heartlands of astronomical observation! Get away. Where are the official accounts, the astronomical records and explanations from Peru to China?

PDN wrote: »

Both Julius Africanus and Origen's references are significant because they are quoting First Century historians whose works actually attack, rather than support Christianity. These are not pious inventions to bolster the historicity of Jesus, something both Julius Africanus and Origen appear to see as unquestioned, but rather facing up to difficulties created by attacks from First Century critics of Christianity whose works were obviously well known at the time of Julius and Origen, and who, while acknowledging the historicity of Jesus, sought to debunk the Christian tradition of the miraculous.

We don't actually have Phlegon, or Thallus - we have only the references to them in Christian apologetics. For all we know, they are referring to the equivalent of Velikovsky, or Von Daniken. And again, these sources are not unbiased.

Many early writers refer to Homer, or to events, personages, and places in the Iliad. Many of the sagas refer to each other, or to events in another saga. Buddha's existence is attested in Jain writings, and the founder of Jainism in the writings of Buddhists.

PDN wrote: »

Also, there are non-canonical Gospels and writings. We have fragments and texts of some of these, while others are quoted by various church fathers. While historians would not support the accuracy of everything in these documents, they do provide further evidence (some of it very early indeed) of the existence of Jesus Christ.

Sorry - I should clarify my stance. My problem with the Bible as evidence is not that it is the Bible, but that as a source it is clearly not in any sense unbiased. The non-canonical writings and Gospels suffer from the same problem, as do the works of Christian apologetics.

PDN wrote: »

Maybe the above will help to explain why historians have reached their conclusions concerning the historicity of Jesus.

They don't, I fear. The evidence remains extremely slender, and is derived entirely from Christian sources. Now, the former wouldn't necessarily be a problem (indeed, is hardly a surprise), if it weren't for the fact that (a) Christ's life and ministry took place entirely within the borders of a literate civilisation, and (b) Christ is not supposed to have been an ordinary person, and the events of his life as recorded in the Gospels are by no means ordinary.The latter is an issue either way. I certainly wouldn't trust a Scientologist's account of L. Ron Hubbard's life, even if you paid me large sums of money - why would I take what Christian authors wrote at face value?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

I would not go so far as Brian in stating that no historian questions the existence of Jesus as a historical person. There is a tiny minority of historians who do question his existence, just as there is a tiny minority of scientists who deny evolution.

And I quite agree with PDN here. As I'm sure if you scour you will find one somewhere.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And I quite agree with PDN here. As I'm sure if you scour you will find one somewhere.

I'm sure. However, I am suggesting that it's irrelevant, because for the majority of Western history historians have always taken the historicity of Jesus for granted, while being rather more suspicious of the historicity of figures from other traditions. I certainly don't see the sort of 'open and shut' obviousness that either PDN or you imply. I see a scattering of documentary sources, virtually every single one of them Christian, or found only by reference in Christian sources, or probably tampered with. No archaeological evidence, no independent documentary attestation, and a lot of evidence of tampering with the available documentary sources.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are photographs of the action in Stalingrad, military records, publications, recordings, and in fact an enormous amount of non-oral sources. Beevor's book is almost certainly not put together from witness accounts, first-hand or second-hand.

Just a minor point. But I would argue that Beevor's account is richly supported by first and second-hand sources. Indeed, I would argue that these accounts are the mainstay of his book. I don't think it could argued that they are without potential bias, however, that doesn't automatically make their account of events untrue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure. However, I am suggesting that it's irrelevant, because for the majority of Western history historians have always taken the historicity of Jesus for granted, while being rather more suspicious of the historicity of figures from other traditions

I'm surprised at your sweeping statement here, Scofflaw. But maybe you do know better than the majority of Western history historians, after all.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just a minor point. But I would argue that Beevor's account is richly supported by first and second-hand sources. Indeed, I would argue that these accounts are the mainstay of his book. I don't think it could argued that they are without potential bias, however, that doesn't automatically make their account of events untrue.

Indeed it doesn't, but it doesn't make it a reliable account of Stalingrad either, except that the first and second-hand accounts can be checked for veracity against each other and against other sources of evidence. Furthermore, Beevor's book uses a very large number of such accounts, as we might expect, whereas the Bible doesn't. Given the account of Jesus' life in the Gospels, it should be clear that many events were witnessed by multitudes, yet the Christian account rests, fundamentally, on four accounts, with textual analysis suggesting that these are not independent. Instead of a few tens of accounts, as we might expect, there are really only one or two voices.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm surprised at your sweeping statement here, Scofflaw. But maybe you do know better than the majority of Western history historians, after all.

Well, the majority of Western historians are Christians, and have been for most of the last couple of thousand years. I don't see how a Christian historian can realistically be expected to start off with any other default assumption than Jesus' real existence.

I am not arguing that there is no case for Jesus' historicity, but it certainly doesn't seem to me to possess the kind of overwhelming obviousness that makes it something to be disproved, when nearly every other major figure of antiquity is treated as requiring positive proof instead.

It's also not as if anyone here is actually offering any evidence apart from the writings of Christian authors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin

history is always written by the victors,and the christians have been dominant for years

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the majority of Western historians are Christians, and have been for most of the last couple of thousand years. I don't see how a Christian historian can realistically be expected to start off with any other default assumption than Jesus' real existence.

I wondered how long this would take to surface. Most historians are Christians, therefore we cannot trust their impartiality when they apply their academic discipline to the subject of Jesus Christ.

Firstly, I doubt that such an assertion is true. While some western historians may indeed be 'Christian' in the sense that they were baptised as babies in a church (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran), I doubt that a majority of them have any ideological commitment to Christianity.

Secondly, this objection opens the door up for anyone to reject the findings of any group with which they disagree. JC, for example, can argue that of course most scientists disagree with his interpretation of geology and biology because most scientists are non-theists and are therefore bound to come to an anti-biblical conclusion. A racist can argue that of course sociologists interpret their data to say one race is not superior to another - they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, most sociologists are socialists, aren't they? And so on ad infinitum.

Nerin

and thus that is how life is

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite.

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

Carrier is a respected historian. I'm not saying he is right about Jesus as a myth. In fact he himself isn't saying that he is right (lets see Ken Ham say that), he is saying it is possibility and a likely one at that.

But then I'm not trying to show he is right. I'm showing that historians don't all agree that Jesus was a real person.

No, he's not saying he is right. In fact Carrier wrote an entire book, The Empty Tomb, in which he argued that the disciples probably believed that Jesus had received a new body in the resurrection - something that would be impossible if Jesus never actually existed in the first place.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

The wikipedia article I quoted referred to "biblical scholars and historians". You keep banging on about "biblical scholars" while ignoring the "historians".

I would not go so far as Brian in stating that no historian questions the existence of Jesus as a historical person. There is a tiny minority of historians who do question his existence, just as there is a tiny minority of scientists who deny evolution.

Garbage.

Any historian who is worth is salt MUST accept that their is no direct reference to the man depicted in the bible. Vague and inconsistant references to someone in Nazareth or bethlahem do not a son of god make.

I believe you yourself have commented that there were a large number of cults etc in the area during the period in question (which, by the way, from the evidence being given as "witness accounts" exceeds the 32 years or so Jesus was supposed to have lived) any one of a dozen other candidates could be the person to which minor footnotes in Roman documents refer to.

I dont discount historians, nor scholars when their pursuit of learning is a valid one. The trouble is about 90% of these so-called learned men are shilling for their christian agendas.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

No, he's not saying he is right. In fact Carrier wrote an entire book, The Empty Tomb, in which he argued that the disciples probably believed that Jesus had received a new body in the resurrection - something that would be impossible if Jesus never actually existed in the first place.

... what?

I'm not being difficult but I really dont understand that setence.

If jesus didnt exist in the first place he wouldnt have been able to switch bodies with another person ... what?

interestinguser

Interesting that none of the christain posters have said anything about the links about The Jesus Project that I posted. This could well be a neutral (non-christain) project that might finally put forward good reasons to say that a person named Jesus actually lived. But I suppose Christains already 'know' that he did so they won't be hearing much new. Whether Jesus ever actually lived or not being up for discussion is a good thing for all IMO, people nearly always work from a default position that he did, so it is good to see that has changed.

interestinguser

Any historian who is worth is salt MUST accept that their is no direct reference to the man depicted in the bible. Vague and inconsistant references to someone in Nazareth or bethlahem do not a son of god make.

Lets not confuse the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the bible. A historian may conlcude that there was in fact a person named Jesus but that is not to say that they are claiming the gospel accounts to be accurate. It seems quite likely to me that Jesus did live but I see no reason to believe in christain mythology.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, he's not saying he is right. In fact Carrier wrote an entire book, The Empty Tomb, in which he argued that the disciples probably believed that Jesus had received a new body in the resurrection - something that would be impossible if Jesus never actually existed in the first place.

Doesn't that make him a good person to review this book?

If he had said something like "This is nonsense, of course Jesus was a real person, and you can read about that in my book, on sale now for €9.99" that would be different

But he is not, he is saying that as a historian he found the argument convincing. It fits things that the theory that Jesus was a real person doesn't.

You can dismiss him because he isn't a Christian, but just because he isn't a Christian doesn't mean he should be automatically dimissed

Hivemind187

interestinguser wrote: »

Lets not confuse the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the bible. A historian may conlcude that there was in fact a person named Jesus but that is not to say that they are claiming the gospel accounts to be accurate. It seems quite likely to me that Jesus did live but I see no reason to believe in christain mythology.

Problem is, which jesus is it? There is evidence to support the composite theory of Christ - that the works of a number of different individuals were used to create a mythic man whom the followers of a particular cult could unite behind.

I havent seen anything to suggest that the default position of the biblical Christ existing is valid.

To be clear, I am not saying one way or the other than christ was a real figure, merely that the evidence to suggest he did exist is shakey and that I find the theistic position of alternative defaults being christ exists, god exists, souls exist etc a little irritating nad presumptive on their part.

interestinguser

To be clear, I am not saying one way or the other than christ was a real figure, merely that the evidence to suggest he did exist is shakey and that I find the theistic position of alternative defaults being christ exists, god exists, souls exist etc a little irritating nad presumptive on their part.

I agree. It is I feel the default position for most people, even those without much religious tendencies. It's a presumption that most don't really give any thought to.

The idea of a composite Christ seems plausible and would make a lot of sense. The trouble of course is that there seems to be little evidence one way or another, which allows us to have a lot of debate but to reach few conclusions.

Zombrex

interestinguser wrote: »

Lets not confuse the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the bible. A historian may conlcude that there was in fact a person named Jesus but that is not to say that they are claiming the gospel accounts to be accurate. It seems quite likely to me that Jesus did live but I see no reason to believe in christain mythology.

That is a good point.

There seems to be an assumption from most of the Christians here that any suggestion that Jesus wasn't actually a real person, or that the idea of the man was drawn from a number of different people, is not only a historical theory but primarily an attack on the religion.

But as you say that we are talking about the historical Jesus, not the son of God Jesus.

If Jesus was a real person that is interesting from a historical point of view.

If Jesus wasn't a real person, or was in fact an amalgamation of a number of people, that is interesting from a historical point of view.

Both historical theories seem to have support and both are interesting. We don't have a whole lot to go on, historically. Pretty much all that remains are religious propaganda, which is inherently unreliable as a historical source as it is within the interest of the religion to present itself in a certain way (this applies to all religions). We will probably never know for sure.

But from a historical point of view that doesn't matter a whole lot. It matters as much as if Homer the poet was a real person, or if Troy was a real city. The historical effects of the concepts are certainly real. Whether or not Homer or Jesus actually existed the effects of the concept had significant historical impact.

Things get tricker (a lot tricker) though when one starts bringing the religious ramifications into the mix.

Historically it doesn't matter a whole lot of Jesus was or was not a real person. Religiously it does matter a great deal.

Anyone who requires, for religious reasons, that Jesus was a real person is therefore not particularly well suited to assessing the historical theories of his existence.

Pompey Magnus

The following are a list of some of the great ancient historians who lived at the time, or within 100 years of Jesus:

Phæædrus, Josephus, Appian, Pliny the Elder,
Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus,
Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius,
Plutarch, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Justus of Tiberius,
Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus,
Hermogones Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Theon of Smyrna,
Seneca, Phlegon, Philo-Judææus, Valerius Maximus,
Lucian, Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius,
Aulus Gellius, Dio Chrysostom, Columella, Valerius Flaccus,
Damis, Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria.

Their writings form the basis of our understanding of the politics, culture and religion of the time. How many mention Jesus amd his resurrection? Except for some forged additions to the writings of Joephus and an extremely vague reference by Tacitus to a Christos when he was specifically referring to the early Roman Christians (of whose authenticity there was no doubt), none of these historians felt that Jesus was important enough to mention. Probably because he was just another self claimed prophet in a land full of self claimed prophets and deserved no attention.

It was only after the early Christians started to include the religious beliefs of other more popular religions of the time that they began to be noticed, for example taking much from the cult of the sun god Mithras (Mithras was the Son of God and the Lamb of God born of a virgin in a cave on the 25th of December, he and his 12 disciples spread the good word, he died, was buried in a tomb, conquered death and was resurrected on the third day, his followers recieved baptism by water and practiced "The Lord's Day" on a Sunday - the day being named after Mithras, and his followers ate bread and drunk wine to represent the holy body - sound familiar?).

Jesus may have existed, but the cult of Jesus was a pick and mix of popular religions of the time. It had to be because Jesus failed to meet the strict Jewish requirements for a Messiah so a new religion largely seperate from Judaism was needed to be created. The Mithric religion would have been introduced to Jerusalem initially by Roman legionaries who surpressed the Jewish revolt in the mid 1st Century AD) between 10 - 30 years before the first Gospels were written down and also by Roman traders to the region. The teachings and practices of this religion would have been massively plagarised from by the Gospel writers as they would have noticed that it was growing in popularity in Rome at the time.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Well, the majority of Western historians are Christians, and have been for most of the last couple of thousand years. I don't see how a Christian historian can realistically be expected to start off with any other default assumption than Jesus' real existence.

I wondered how long this would take to surface. Most historians are Christians, therefore we cannot trust their impartiality when they apply their academic discipline to the subject of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I'm saying that they have an a priori belief in the historicity of Christ, as would most people in the nominally Christian countries. In matters of opinion, biases often show - and historians have no reputation for impartiality!

PDN wrote: »

Firstly, I doubt that such an assertion is true. While some western historians may indeed be 'Christian' in the sense that they were baptised as babies in a church (Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran), I doubt that a majority of them have any ideological commitment to Christianity.

That's not required. All human beings get cultural biases built in. The historicity of Christ is one of the cultural assumptions of the nominally Christian countries. Even most of our atheists accept Christ's historicity long before anyone presents any evidence for it.

PDN wrote: »

Secondly, this objection opens the door up for anyone to reject the findings of any group with which they disagree. JC, for example, can argue that of course most scientists disagree with his interpretation of geology and biology because most scientists are non-theists and are therefore bound to come to an anti-biblical conclusion. A racist can argue that of course sociologists interpret their data to say one race is not superior to another - they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, most sociologists are socialists, aren't they? And so on ad infinitum.

Actually, the problem with JC's assumption that scientists have an a priori commitment to anti-Biblical conclusions is not the idea that scientists have a priori biases, but that JC has never been able to explain how (nominally) Christian scientists come to have this bias in the first place - most scientists are not non-theists. His thesis is demonstrably false (as is your allusion to it above) both factually - because most scientists are actually theists - and historically, because science is rooted in the attempt to understand God's Creation.

The argument is perfectly reasonable when we can show that a group is extremely likely to have an a priori bias, and where the group has made what appears extremely likely to be an a priori assumption in keeping with its bias.

Western historians belong to the nominally Christian world, and one of the cultural assumptions of that world is the historicity of Jesus. The evidence for Jesus' historicity is certainly not stronger than for Mohammed's, or Shakespeare's, or the Trojan War, but their historicity is openly questioned by Western historians from an initial position of scepticism, while Jesus' is occasionally questioned from an initial position of acceptance.

So - likely bias, origin of bias, and a starting position that fits the likely bias.

cordially,
Scofflaw

interestinguser

Even most of our atheists accept Christ's historicity long before anyone presents any evidence for it.

Indeed. Richard Dawkins has made a comment (maybe in TGD, I'm not sure) along the lines of 'there probably was a historical figure named Jesus...'

The evidence for Jesus' historicity is certainly not stronger than for Mohammed's

Is Mohammed's historicity doubted? I don't think I've ever read anything about it one way or the other.

Scofflaw

interestinguser wrote: »

Indeed. Richard Dawkins has made a comment (maybe in TGD, I'm not sure) along the lines of 'there probably was a historical figure named Jesus...'

Is Mohammed's historicity doubted? I don't think I've ever read anything about it one way or the other.

Hmm. It was something of a fashion about a decade ago, but, what with one thing and another, it is no longer a popular topic.

Obviously, the historicity of Mohammed is taken for granted by Muslim scholars and historians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kelly1

Does anyone remember the old road safety ads on television particularly the one where they were promoting safe cycling. A few guys were cycling dangerously and then they were joined by a few more and the jostling started. Anyway that was when the narrator said:

"And now things are going from bad to worse..."

A bit like this thread really.

interestinguser

A bit like this thread really.

What's wrong with this thread? People asking questions you don't like perhaps? Have any actual thoughts on the subject being discussed?

Scofflaw

interestinguser wrote: »

What's wrong with this thread? People asking questions you don't like perhaps? Have any actual thoughts on the subject being discussed?

People deviating from the known truth.

heretically,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Their writings form the basis of our understanding of the politics, culture and religion of the time. How many mention Jesus amd his resurrection? Except for some forged additions to the writings of Joephus and an extremely vague reference by Tacitus to a Christos when he was specifically referring to the early Roman Christians (of whose authenticity there was no doubt), none of these historians felt that Jesus was important enough to mention. Probably because he was just another self claimed prophet in a land full of self claimed prophets and deserved no attention..

Why would you expect any of them write about Jesus? Scofflaw mentioned about stone inscriptions of Jesus ala Rameses III. Why would you expect to find any stone inscriptions?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It was only after the early Christians started to include the religious beliefs of other more popular religions of the time that they began to be noticed, for example taking much from the cult of the sun god Mithras (Mithras was the Son of God and the Lamb of God born of a virgin in a cave on the 25th of December, he and his 12 disciples spread the good word, he died, was buried in a tomb, conquered death and was resurrected on the third day, his followers recieved baptism by water and practiced "The Lord's Day" on a Sunday - the day being named after Mithras, and his followers ate bread and drunk wine to represent the holy body - sound familiar?). .

Where do you get this from?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Jesus may have existed, but the cult of Jesus was a pick and mix of popular religions of the time. It had to be because Jesus failed to meet the strict Jewish requirements for a Messiah so a new religion largely seperate from Judaism was needed to be created. The Mithric religion would have been introduced to Jerusalem initially by Roman legionaries who surpressed the Jewish revolt in the mid 1st Century AD) between 10 - 30 years before the first Gospels were written down and also by Roman traders to the region. The teachings and practices of this religion would have been massively plagarised from by the Gospel writers as they would have noticed that it was growing in popularity in Rome at the time.

And this?

Pompey Magnus

The evidence that the Mitraic cult was introduced to Rome in the 1st Century AD comes from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum - a comprehensive collection of ancient Roman inscriptions. A good account on the later beliefs of Mithracism is in "The Roman Cult of Mithras" by Richard Gordon.

Description of Mithras

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why would you expect any of them write about Jesus? Scofflaw mentioned about stone inscriptions of Jesus ala Rameses III. Why would you expect to find any stone inscriptions?

I wouldn't, frankly. Jesus has the same historicity problems as any non-royal personage in antiquity - there's no reason to expect him to turn up in inscriptions, since his family wasn't wealthy or important. His followers would have been mostly illiterate, and there is no record of Jesus writing anything.

The point is not that any of this is surprising, but that it's perfectly standard.The Son of God left exactly the same traces as any other non-royal ancient figure, but is ascribed a level of historical certainty very much higher.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

... what?

I'm not being difficult but I really dont understand that setence.

If jesus didnt exist in the first place he wouldnt have been able to switch bodies with another person ... what?

Try thinking.

If Jesus didn't really exist in the first place then it would be impossible for his disciples to believe anything about his resurrection since they would have been discipled by a non-existent figure. Therefore the whole basis for Carrier's book depends on the existence of Jesus.