Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Post modernism seems to want to question whether or not anything ever happened as we were taught it did. Post modernism loves to jump on conspiracy theories.

See the Davinci Code as a prime example. As it does with Shakespeare it does with Jesus.

Hmm. Not sure the Da Vinci code is an example of post-modernism at work - I'm pretty certain it's pure book-selling material.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Ther is enough extrabiblical evidence to support that Jesus of Nazareth lived.

Support it? Of course. Prove it beyond reasonable doubt? I think that's arguable, but there certainly is a case.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you can not discount the Bible as proof of that because the letters of Paul were written by a man who lived at the time. Nor can you ignore the gosples and Acts as they were also written by eyewitnesses or those connected to eyewitnesses.

Much of that is also debatable.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I didn't see Ireland play on the weekend against Wales, but I can go and read an account on the RTE webpage and get a report. I can then offer that report to someone else who would accept my report based on the fact that I read one from an eyewitness.

Yes, and we can check that against the evidence of other eye-witnesses, and the published scores. The point in respect of the Gospels is that we have such a very small number of accounts, and they are by Christians, indeed by promoters of the Church.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Glad to hear scofflaw that you wouldn't expect any stone inscriptions on Jesus. If the expectation of history being written about an obscure Jew of Palestine in teh first century wouldn't be written about, then why was so much written about Him and so much of history affected by a guy who didn't live?

Hmm - again, that kind of misses the point. Once you have the 'cult' of Jesus, there's no real relation between Jesus himself and the amount written about him, or the effect he had on history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So maybe the attempts to argue against the historicity of Jesus is also a post-modernism thing? In that case there probably isn't much point in presenting logical arguments since post modernism and logic don't mix.

Quite possibly - after all, post-modernism is deliberately iconoclastic, and it may well be the impetus for questioning the historicity of Jesus. However, that doesn't change the slenderness of the historical evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

interestinguser wrote: »

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.

I'm not quite sure what comment posters could make on the Jesus Project. A group of hand-picked scholars have promised to get together, pool their thinking, and make a pronouncement of whether Jesus really did exist or not.

Of course, the results will depend entirely on the subjective opinion of the person(s) who did the hand-picking of the scholars. For example, if the scholars are people like infidel.org's Robert Carrier, who will happily argue totally contradictory viewpoints so long as they can be used to attack Christianity, then the Project's result will be a foregone conclusion. They will pronounce that Jesus never existed and Christians will dismiss it as a deliberately skewed study group.

If, however, the Jesus Project is composed of scholars more representative of their academic disciplines, then its findings will also be rejected since, according to the atheists, a majority of the scholars come from a nominally Christian background and so are biased in favour of assuming Jesus' existence.

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

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.

No, I was right. Its YOUR thinking that is flawed.

You ASSUME that they were telling the truth, you ASSUME that THEY all existed and that they really did see something, you assume that the story is not a metaphor nor a piece of spurperstitious propaganda.

And there was no need to get ratty.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

I think what you really mean is that you don't discount historians or scholars providing that their findings agree with your preconceived prejudices.

I think you are realising that you are losing this argument and are resorting to petty name calling.

I havent got a preconception. I dont actually care whether Jesus existed as a person or not. My issue is with the following;

1) assuming that Christs existance is a default that does not need the provision of evidence.
2) assuming that hearsay, conjecture and out-right assumptions based on faith are somehow evidence
3) assuming that if he did exist as a physical person that every event and action ascribed to him is actually true and aactually happened
4) assuming that if he did exist that he really was the son of a deity and not a raving lunatic (as he would be described today).

This list goes on and on in relation to the assumptions made by poeple about Christ based on the original assumption (original sin if you'll forgive the pun) that Christ existed as he is described in the Biblical accounts.

I personally have seen no evidence that conclusively shows whether the jewish-zombie really did exist and as such I consider him to be up their with other fictional super-men like Hercules.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No, I was right. Its YOUR thinking that is flawed.

You ASSUME that they were telling the truth, you ASSUME that THEY all existed and that they really did see something, you assume that the story is not a metaphor nor a piece of spurperstitious propaganda.

And there was no need to get ratty.

I'm not assuming anything. We're discussing Robert Carrier's book, not my assumptions. :rolleyes:

Carrier (an atheist) argued, in The Empty Tomb, that there really were disciples of Jesus who genuinely believed that their teacher, Jesus, had received some kind of spiritual body in a resurrection, and used that as a basis for preaching a literal resurrection. That theory necessitates the historical existence of both the apostles and of Jesus Himself.

I was pointing this out, not in any way addressing this particular half-baked theory, but simply demonstrating Carrier's inconsistency when he elsewhere tries to argue against the historical existence of Jesus.

As for being ratty, have you ever considered that if you posted using language that was a little more measured then you might attract less rattiness? I actually felt my response was very restrained - I can really do ratty if you want, but then I would probably get banned.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

I disagree. Most historians that I have read agree that Mohammed was a real person, as was Shakespeare, and that a Trojan War really occurred. And I agree with them, not because of any initial position of acceptance or scepticism, but because the weight of the evidence supports these conclusions, as does the evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs. Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

PDN

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?).

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.

Not this hogwash again?

About the only thing that is true here is that the Christians chose to celebrate Christ's birth on the 25th December, a date sacred in the cult of Sol Invictus (a syncretistic mix of Mithraism with other pagan beliefs). This is hardly earth-shattering since I have never met a Christian over 10 years of age who believes Jesus was born on December 25th.

All the other stuff, despite the claims on various websites, dates from Mithraism in its later forms as practiced in the Roman Empire after the rise of Christianity. Modern scholars doubt whether the Roman cult of Sol Invictus actually inherited any of its beliefs of practices from the pre-Christian Persian mystery religion of a similar name.

The inscriptions you mention all date from the late first century AD, in other words at least 50 years after the rise of Christianity. Therefore the most obvious conclusion is that Mithraism, or more correctly the cult of Sol Invictus, copied many elements from the rapidly spreading Christian religion (a very common pattern observed by sociologists of religion even today).

Imagine someone in 2000 years time discovering film footage of British skinhead gangs from 2007 and saying, "Look! These skinheads used the swastika symbol, the maltese cross, and gave a Nazi salute. Obviously Hitler was not original but copied these things from the British skinheads." Duh! The skinheads came 50 years later.

Of course if you can produce inscriptions, documents etc. proving that Mithraism practiced all these things before 37 AD then that would be different. Can you?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs. Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

And what evidence would that be then? Exactly which non-scriptural or non-affiliated individual points to a miracle working prophet?

I do not doubt that there was a man called jesus living in the general area at the time. In fact I'd say there were dozens if not hundreds of them. Just as many Judas's, Matthews, Paul's etc

My issue is with assuming that this biblically accounted Jesus existed in the absense of facts supporting it. I again ask you to show me his fossil or at the very least a piece of evidence that points to the specific individual in the biblical account (if you can actualy divine who that is) either documentary or physical, that does not come from a biassed source.

It is the assumption of a fact that bothers me. Saying that the majority of historians etc believe it to be true is a flawed argument since it omits the possibility that the majority of these historians either a) are biased in that their christian belief requires the existance of Jesus and therefore take it for granted that he did exist whether he performed mircales or not b) they are not interested enough in whether he existed or not and take the man and the period of time for granted as a general consensus or c) are capable of believing something that is not true even in the face of evidence (see: Scientists who refute evolution or navigators who believe the world is flat).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

Not the case at all. One cannot prove someone did not exist, and there cannot therefore be any onus on anyone to do so.

If one is uncertain of Jesus' existence, one looks at the same evidence as everyone else. I do, and I do not find it compelling - although I would say that on balance the simplest explanation is that a Jesus existed. Being alive is nothing either new or startling, after all.

PDN wrote: »

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs.

Those are "extraordinary" claims, which it is not possible to give automatic historical credence to - they represent historically unique claims. That Jesus existed by default, rather than not, is a cultural bias operating on a very ordinary claim that is open to individual judgement.

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

"All the evidence" can hardly do anything else - what is evidence for non-existence? The question is whether, taken all together, the evidence is "overwhelming", "compelling", "sufficient", "adequate", or "inadequate". I would consider it "adequate".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I was pointing this out, not in any way addressing this particular half-baked theory, but simply demonstrating Carrier's inconsistency when he elsewhere tries to argue against the historical existence of Jesus.

No offense PDN, but what are you talking about?

Firstly what do you mean by "Carrier's inconsistency"? Carrier is a historian, he isn't a priest or pope. Are you honestly suggesting that if a historian puts forward his own historical theories he must doggedly stick to those theories and never change his mind or consider other seriously historical theories? History isn't a religion (I seem to remember saying science isn't a religion on this forum recently as well, this seems to be becoming quite an issue).

Secondly it isn't actually Carrier's theory, it is Doherty's. Carrier is reviewing this theory presented in Carrier's book, "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus" Carrier is saying he finds it a good well constructed and convincing historical theory, and he challenges other historians in his conclusion of the article to present better theories that Jesus was a real person

I appreciate that the theory that Jesus was not a real person offends your religious beliefs, and that you will never consider it seriously. But that fact is actually irrelevant to the theory or those reviewing it. Carrier does consider it, along with other theories, without regard for its religious ramifications, as all good historians should.

interestinguser

Of course, the results will depend entirely on the subjective opinion of the person(s) who did the hand-picking of the scholars. For example, if the scholars are people like infidel.org's Robert Carrier, who will happily argue totally contradictory viewpoints so long as they can be used to attack Christianity, then the Project's result will be a foregone conclusion. They will pronounce that Jesus never existed and Christians will dismiss it as a deliberately skewed study group.

A disappointing but unfortunately predictable response.

If, however, the Jesus Project is composed of scholars more representative of their academic disciplines, then its findings will also be rejected since, according to the atheists, a majority of the scholars come from a nominally Christian background and so are biased in favour of assuming Jesus' existence.

If you read the links or listening to the podcast then you would have found out a bit more about the people in the project. There is quite a mixture, from people who think that there probably wasn’t a historical Jesus, to those who believe their was, to actual Christian believers. Everyone brings their own baggage and biases, that is why it is important to have people from different perspectives involved and to have properly set procedures and protocols, so that people are led by the actual evidence, not by their own preconceptions. You should really listen to the podcast I posted a link to, it does into this is detail, I’m sure you would find it interesting. Granted, as Wicknight pointed out, the whole idea probably offends you.

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

That is quite a negative and pessimistic view I must say.
:rolleyes:

PDN

interestinguser wrote: »

Granted, as Wicknight pointed out, the whole idea probably offends you.

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

That is quite a negative and pessimistic view I must say.
:rolleyes:

It is a view based on evidence, such as reading thread after thread on these boards.

Scofflaw

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

That's the whole point of ideology, isn't it? Let there be beard-pulling!

ecumenically,
Scofflaw

interestinguser

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

So hypothetically you'd have no problem with people finding evidence that suggested that their was in fact no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? If that is the case, I'd find it very interesting.

It is a view based on evidence, such as reading thread after thread on these boards

Fair enough.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

Well TBH PDN you posts suggest otherwise.

You seem to dismiss as utter nonsense any theory that even suggests that Jesus was not a real person. Your (rather bizarre) attacks on Carrier, rather than the actual historical theory he was discussing, being a case in point.

Pompey Magnus

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?

Perhaps historians of the time may not have considered Jesus significant enough to mention, but I would have assumed the mass murder of male children in a Roman province by a Roman client king who was a favorite of the Roman Emperor Augustus, so not a minor character by any standard, might well have been important enough for at least one historian of the time to mention.

Or maybe a highly unusual astronomical event in the region, which was significant enough for the Bible to claim three Magi from Persia travelled to Bethlehem, also should have records.

Then there was the Earth going dark for three hours after Jesus' death - the maximum length of time for solar eclipse totality being seven minutes and thirty one seconds, so a three hour darkness would be something pretty noteworthy. This was followed by an earthquake and the veil of the temple being split in two, followed by the corpses of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem, might that not have been deemed worthy of mention?

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Perhaps historians of the time may not have considered Jesus significant enough to mention, but I would have assumed the mass murder of male children in a Roman province by a Roman client king who was a favorite of the Roman Emperor Augustus, so not a minor character by any standard, might well have been important enough for at least one historian of the time to mention.

Or maybe a highly unusual astronomical event in the region, which was significant enough for the Bible to claim three Magi from Persia travelled to Bethlehem, also should have records.

Then there was the Earth going dark for three hours after Jesus' death - the maximum length of time for solar eclipse totality being seven minutes and thirty one seconds, so a three hour darkness would be something pretty noteworthy. This was followed by an earthquake and the veil of the temple being split in two, followed by the corpses of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem, might that not have been deemed worthy of mention?

There, I think, we are moving on to the historicity of the Gospel accounts - where we are on much more 'popular' ground in rejecting their historical accuracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I personally have seen no evidence that conclusively shows whether the jewish-zombie really did exist and as such I consider him to be up their with other fictional super-men like Hercules.

Banned for calling Jesus what you called Him.

Nerin

well,i tried to make my point yesterday,but once again a comment belong to me disappeared, i suspect alien abduction of my words!
ok,just because different people wrote about jesus, doesnt mean that he existed. im not saying a man named jesus didnt exist, but how can one believe what are technically his "groupies".
just because the 4 gospels tell his story such a way (and remember they were picked much later in history to be the "official" bible.) doesnt mean they are accurate.

gillyfromlyre

The romans had a census around the time of christ and a jesus was accounted for in it,fact

PDN

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

The romans had a census around the time of christ and a jesus was accounted for in it,fact

And a Seamus was accounted for in the last Irish census, fact.

Jesus, or to be more accurate Yeshua (Joshua) was one of the commonest names among Jewish boys.

PDN

interestinguser wrote: »

So hypothetically you'd have no problem with people finding evidence that suggested that their was in fact no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? If that is the case, I'd find it very interesting.

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

If someone produced evidence that suggested that there was, in fact, no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? Again that would not offend me at all. Most historical questions have evidence suggesting different conclusions and the historians have to weigh up that evidence in order to decide what is the most probable conclusion.

If the majority of historians, or the people who make up the Jesus Project, decided that the weight of the evidence against Jesus' existence (I'm presuming this would be new discoveries since I've never heard of any such evidence nor have any posters in this thread mentioned any) led them to pronounce that Jesus did not exist, would that offend me? No, not in the slightest. After all, I already believe in events (the turning of water into wine etc) that most historians assert probably never happened. Unlike some other posters on these boards I don't get offended because someone holds a different opinion to me.

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians). You see, I have already mentioned that I am happy to believe things that are contradicted by the majority of historians. This, unless I were to consider myself an expert in the subject of history (and I'm not - just a very keen amateur) would be an insupportable position solely on intellectual or logical grounds. However, I am happy to admit that I hold to certain positions on the grounds of faith. What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence, are doing so for ideological reasons yet lack the basic integrity to admit that they are maintaining a faith position that is insupportable on the grounds of intellect and logic alone. Instead they pretend to be rational and logical.

I agree with Scofflaw that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is adequate (I would go so far as sufficient), rather than overwhelming. That is all any historian would expect for any figure from 2000 years ago unless they were part of the Empire's government, a celebrity in Rome, or a member of the aristocracy. And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us. It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

BTW, the reason this topic keeps recurring is not because Christians keep raising it, but because trolls or atheists keep making wild statements that fly in the face of historical opinion and are deliberately provocative. This thread was resurrected from 2006 by a fly-by-night troll who was then supported by a trollish atheist. Then the whole thing kicked off again.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

Short of an absolutely unequivocally identifiable set of minutes from a meeting in which the apostles made up "a bloke we'll pretend was the Messiah, right?", or a time machine, I cannot imagine what on earth such conclusive proof of Jesus' non-existence could possibly consist of.

PDN wrote: »

Unlike some other posters on these boards I don't get offended because someone holds a different opinion to me.

Indeed - more sinned against than sinning, I'd say.

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians). You see, I have already mentioned that I am happy to believe things that are contradicted by the majority of historians. This, unless I were to consider myself an expert in the subject of history (and I'm not - just a very keen amateur) would be an insupportable position solely on intellectual or logical grounds. However, I am happy to admit that I hold to certain positions on the grounds of faith. What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence, are doing so for ideological reasons yet lack the basic integrity to admit that they are maintaining a faith position that is insupportable on the grounds of intellect and logic alone. Instead they pretend to be rational and logical.

I agree with Scofflaw that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is adequate (I would go so far as sufficient), rather than overwhelming. That is all any historian would expect for any figure from 2000 years ago unless they were part of the Empire's government, a celebrity in Rome, or a member of the aristocracy. And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us. It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

BTW, the reason this topic keeps recurring is not because Christians keep raising it, but because trolls or atheists keep making wild statements that fly in the face of historical opinion and are deliberately provocative. This thread was resurrected from 2006 by a fly-by-night troll who was then supported by a trollish atheist. Then the whole thing kicked off again.

Well, hmm, that's not quite comprehensive. The topic also arises from time to time because quite a few of our posters claim that there is unequivocal proof of the historicity of both Jesus and the events recorded in the Bible - and equally such claims are not stated as faith-based positions, but as supported by logic and intellect alone. What's sauce from an atheist is sauce from a theist too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

Why do you believe something until you have "conclusive proof" (as Scofflaw asks what exactly would that be) that it isn't true?

Surely the opposite would be a more rational position, you don't believe something until you have convincing evidence that it is true

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons

Yes but PDN, this attitude is what we are talking about.

As far as I can see they aren't arguing this to attack your religion, but for some reason you believe that they must be because you view it as an attack.

They are arguing this because it is a serious historical possibility.

I understand that you don't accept that because of your religious beliefs, but to say that anyone who claims Jesus might not have existed is a liar and hypocrite simply demonstrates your bias in this area.

PDN wrote: »

What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence

Again "single shred of evidence" simply highlights your bias attitude.

Have you read Doherty's book? He sums up his arguments here

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

You certainly won't find "conclusive proof" that Jesus didn't exist, but then I don't think he is claiming it is conclusive proof. It is an historical argument and he explains it quite well.

You appear to be starting off from the conclusion that there cannot be evidence Jesus didn't exist because you know he did exist, and then attacking anyone who puts forward arguments that he didn't exist as being completely devoid of evidence.

PDN wrote: »

And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us.

No it wouldn't, PDN. You keep stating this over and over and you keep having to be corrected.

Just because there isn't much evidence of Jesus' existence doesn't mean we assume he existed unless told otherwise.

zarathustra

Hivemind187 wrote: »

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

That is a fair point.

The debate as to who was first Pope of the Roman Catholic church always amuses me. Many Roman Catholics are brainwashed that Peter was the first pope!!!

stevejazzx

Seeing as we're at a kind of stalemate I'd like to ask a quesion:

'Do you think it was Gods intention that evidence of his sons life be left on earth? I know it's moving away from the historical debate and onto a more philosophical debate but for me it's an intersting question becasue surely those claimng that there is strong evidence believe that he did.
I find it odd then that he left it so inconclusive.
This also ties in in with that other complicated question that I've asked christinas many times but have never got a satisfactory answer and it's the question about free will.
It seems that God at some point decided that humans beings were to be given free will, and that they could do as please on earth (which it apears we can) and that it would be up to us, through this free will, to come to a decision to either have faith in him or not. This has always left me confused becasue the idea of evidence seems to belie the idea of faith, in that the more evidence you give people the less faith they require.
Furthermore I have argued before that the people who were closest to the intial generation of Jesus found it much easier to believe in him becasue:

1. They were far more primitive than us and regardless of their religous belief, they all generally speaking, believed in Sky Gods so it was really just a matter of chosing which one.

2. The histories and writings of the bible and Jesus were fresh to them i.e they were only the next generation so they could relate to such far far easier than we can today.

If the above simple points are correct and I don't think anyone would have any reason to doubt them, then the only conclusion I can come to is that God has created a system where it is easier for the initial genations to believe in him, it is easier for people who've had direct contact with him (biblical characters for example) to believe in him. <Some posters on here have had, by their own accounts, some contact with him>.

So it appears to me that certain generations will believe in God merely as a result of the time they lived in. Others as a result of direct contact, others as a result of been born into a complete and unquestioning envoiroment. This can't be right can it?

Surely the only way that God would judge us would be if we all had exactly the same privileges?

We are after all talking about the slavation of our souls and our passageway to heaven yet we're to believe that some people have had first hand or almost first hand knowledge of his presence and existence whereas the rest of us, generations later have a much more difficult time in deciding about our belief - and the further we travel in time from the intial generation the harder it becomes. Why would God have decided that this was ok? Surely it makes no sense to give some poeple an unfair advantage over others particularly when dealing with something as serious as this?

I don't understand how any all knowing all powerful being can decide it's ok to Judge people by the same cirteria given that they all subject to competely different circumstances. But clearly God has a set of marked criteria by which we will all be judged.

If we decide that he judges us all individually and he takes into account our different backgrounds then why did he create a set of rules in the first place by which to judge poeple if he is not going to be able to carry through these rules with each person fairly.

If there is evidence of Jesus on earth then why is it so inconclusive and debatable? Why create further confusion as to his origin? Either he is giving us evidence or he is not. Given his complete perfection it is unthinkable is it not, that he allows these endless layers of confusion over his identity?

Either he is judging us all by the same criteria or he not and if he is then clearly certain generations have been favoured.

Steve

Run_to_da_hills

zarathustra wrote: »

That is a fair point.

The debate as to who was first Pope of the Roman Catholic church always amuses me. Many Roman Catholics are brainwashed that Peter was the first pope!!!

Peter certainly never had any of the characteristics of being any Pope. St Peter was a married man, he never wore a fish tailed hat and never claimed the blasphemous titles of "Pontifix Maximus" or "Holy Father"

"Pontifix Maximus" is a papal title meaning in Latin "chief bridge maker" between earth and heaven. However, Jesus Christ is the only One who can claim this title because "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. This was a title of the Roman Caesars and of the Roman Emperors of paganism, thus showing us the origins of Roman Catholicism.

"Holy Father", is the title the Pope claims for himself, however this title occurs only ONCE in the Bible, and used when Jesus addresses his heavenly father in John 17.11, in his great prayer before his betrayal, arrest and crucifixion. It is blasphemous for any man to claim this title for himself because it belongs to God the Father alone, however the Roman Catholic Church dose not seem to have a problem with calling their leaders this.

Nerin

ah, the Pope being wrong, i love Papal infallibility.
the catholic church has copped itself on over many things in the past.
maybe they'll quit the holy father lingo and thats another mistake off their list.
although that Benidict quote bout being the one faith,that annoyed me.
why cant he just be nice and say,if you follow us,good,if you follow something else and are good,sorted.
i hate that we're right you're wrong na na na na naa crap, its very childish, and im sure jesus would agree.
i really like my jesus.
he's all liberal and stuff.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians)... It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

I wholeheartedly agree. Well said, PDN.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you believe something until you have "conclusive proof" (as Scofflaw asks what exactly would that be) that it isn't true?

Surely the opposite would be a more rational position, you don't believe something until you have convincing evidence that it is true

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Again "single shred of evidence" simply highlights your bias attitude.

Have you read Doherty's book? He sums up his arguments here

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

You certainly won't find "conclusive proof" that Jesus didn't exist, but then I don't think he is claiming it is conclusive proof. It is an historical argument and he explains it quite well.

You appear to be starting off from the conclusion that there cannot be evidence Jesus didn't exist because you know he did exist, and then attacking anyone who puts forward arguments that he didn't exist as being completely devoid of evidence.

No, I haven't read Doherty's book. Have you? If so maybe you can name one piece of evidence to support the theory that Jesus never existed, because there sure isn't any in that link. Theorising and speculation in abundance, but not a shred of evidence.

I am starting off from the conclusion that to believe something based on zero evidence is a faith position not a genuine historical theory. I am honest enough to admit that I hold certain beliefs as a matter of faith, others are not so honest.

Intelligent design is a theory that has value as a philosophical concept, but to try to present it as science is junk-science & pseudoscience. The theory that Jesus never existed is a valid philosophical or ideological position, but to try to present it as history is junk-history and pseudohistory.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed - more sinned against than sinning, I'd say.

Or more offensive than offended.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Or more offensive than offended.

Yes, that works. Have you offended me recently?

cordially,
Scofflaw

condra

Admittadly, I havent much looked into it, but I was under the impression that (The Bible aside) there was a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.

confused,
Womoma

kelly1

Indeed. People don't doubt the existence of people such as Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Nero etc so why doubt Christ. Surely the most famous man that ever walked the earth can't not have existed!

N.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Yes, obviously.

You seem to be (possibly on purpose) confusing the difference between a historian presenting a historical theory and saying "This is a possibility that seems to fit evidence and therefore should be considered and studied" and a historian presenting a historical theory and saying "This is what happened, and look I can prove it"

Again, just like with science, we run straight into the brick wall that theists on this forum seem to have the mistaken idea that history scholars are telling them what they should believe.

As I said we get this a lot in relation to science as well, this idea that some how scientists are making proclamations of absolute truth when they say something like "life evolved on Earth due to a natural Darwinian process" or "the Universe as we know it came into being 10 billion years ago was part of a process known as the Big Bang"

The fact of the matter is that very few areas of study of the natural world ever attempt to proclaim absolute truths for anything except for religion, which is one if its major failings in my humble opinion.

Scientists do not proclaim truths, historians do not proclaim truths. If you think they are attempting to do this then you are not understanding the field.

PDN wrote: »

No, I haven't read Doherty's book. Have you?

No.

But then that isn't really the point. I'm not proclaiming anything about his theory except that it exists and is evidence of historians who do not accept with certainty that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

I have read Doherty's articles on his website, and some of his points are good others not so good. A lot of his arguments are arguments from silence, that the early Christian writing does not refer to Jesus as an actual person.

I am instinctively cautious of historical theories that argue from the point of silence. For example theists often state on Boards.ie threads like this that the absence of Roman or Jewish writing denouncing Jesus' miracles as fake is some how evidence that they actually happened.

At the same time it is Doherty's point is a curious one, particular when put in context of the myths of the time.

What I find more puzzling though is your instance that Doherty must be putting forward this theory due to a religious desire to ridicule Christianity, not because of historical reasons. I find this puzzling because you haven't read his book, so on what grounds do you base this assertion.

You claim that his ideas doesn't offend you in the slightest, yet you dismiss off hand Doherty as a liar and a hypocrite motivated purely by a desire to ridicule Christianity, before you have read his book.

TBH PDN I don't find that very convincing.

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote: »

Indeed. People don't doubt the existence of people such as Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Nero etc so why doubt Christ. Surely the most famous man that ever walked the earth can't not have existed!

We have a wealth of sources which independently confirm the existence of Caesar and Nero. Pivotal public figures and Emperors are usually well-attested. Pontius Pilate is less well-attested, but once again we have several independent sources confirming his existence, and his procuratorship of Judea.

So, briefly, the answer to your question is that the historical sources for Jesus are nowhere near as good as those for the others you mention, and that Jesus' subsequent fame is utterly irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

womoma wrote: »

Admittadly, I havent much looked into it, but I was under the impression that (The Bible aside) there was a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.

Bible aside? No, hardly any.

But your impression shows part of the problem that modern historians are discussing, the fact that while almost completely unsupported historically, the default assumption has been for hundreds of years that Jesus must have existed.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not quite sure a conspiracy is required?

A conspiracy would imply that the people who first recorded Jesus as a real person would have done so knowing that he wasn't. A more plausible theory is that they did so misunderstanding that he wasn't actually supposed to be real person.

If someone grabbed an average young Catholic man or woman on Grafton St and asked them to write down the doctrine of their religion I'm pretty sure you would get something rather different than official doctrine of the RCC. These people aren't lying, or being part of a conspiracy to subvert the doctrine, they are simply recording from a position of ignorance of the original doctrine.

A common historical theory is that 3 of the Gospels of the Bible (Mark, Matthew and Luke), recording the history of Jesus, were written based on a similar source or sources sources.

John, the gospel that doesn't follow similar patterns, was probably written around 100 AD, 30 years after the earliest estimate of Mark, at which time it would have been impossible to independently confirm the similar stories in the other 3 Gospels.

So you are looking at possibly a single source of the change of Jesus from a mystical figure into an actual human man.

It is certainly not implausible to see how such a philosophical change could have come about. Again using a real world example, most people I know believe that hell is a place to punish bad people. According to actual Christian doctrine it isn't, there are plenty of good people in hell (as parodied in South Park), hell is actually for non-believers, good and bad. But to a lot of people that isn't how they assume it should work, and therefore they end up with this idea of hell as a place to punish. The point is that these people don't do this on purpose as part of a conspiracy to subvert the original doctrine of Christianity.

To me based on this it is certainly possible that at some point in the history of early Christianity the concept of "Jesus" morphed from a mythical creature to a real man, without the need for a conscious decision on the part of the members of the religion to actually change this detail.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

It is certainly not implausible to see how such a philosophical change could have come about. Again using a real world example, most people I know believe that hell is a place to punish bad people. According to actual Christian doctrine it isn't, there are plenty of good people in hell (as parodied in South Park), hell is actually for non-believers, good and bad. But to a lot of people that isn't how they assume it should work, and therefore they end up with this idea of hell as a place to punish. The point is that these people don't do this on purpose as part of a conspiracy to subvert the original doctrine of Christianity.

Just as a point of accuracy, actual Christian doctrine does hold that hell is a place to punish bad people. The problem is that you are ignoring the doctrine of total depravity which teaches that all people are bad when compared to God's holiness and the standard of perfection as the entry qualification for heaven. So, the popular misunderstanding is more to do with what we mean by 'a good person' rather than the purpose of hell.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I have read Doherty's articles on his website, and some of his points are good others not so good. A lot of his arguments are arguments from silence, that the early Christian writing does not refer to Jesus as an actual person.

And that is certainly not true. Do you want me to cite you a few bucketloads of examples from early Christian writing to demonstrate this?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And that is certainly not true. Do you want me to cite you a few bucketloads of examples from early Christian writing to demonstrate this?

Well the earliest Christian writing that refers to Jesus as a man would do.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Just as a point of accuracy, actual Christian doctrine does hold that hell is a place to punish bad people. The problem is that you are ignoring the doctrine of total depravity which teaches that all people are bad when compared to God's holiness and the standard of perfection as the entry qualification for heaven.

True, though I'm not ignoring it. Christianity teaches that due to the absence of God's grace because of Adam's disobediences we are all wicked by our nature, or at least tempted to be wicked by our nature.

The point I'm saying is that if you ask the average person on the street they will probably rather surprised by that. If they wrote their own version of Christian doctrine I would imagine "we are all wicked by simply existing" wouldn't appear, nor would "we all go to hell even the good people, unless we regain God's grace through faith"

The over all point is that it is easy to see how doctrine can change without the need for a conspiracy

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine "we are all wicked by simply existing" wouldn't appear

On the contrary, I'd expect exactly that to be up towards the top of the list. The dogma of an inescapable problem (guilt-induced belief in original sin) is as fundamental to the appeal of christianty as the dogma of a simple solution (salvation through belief).

Psychologically, it also seems to tie in with the tacit belief that many religious people seem to have, that good things only happen because there's certain retaliation for bad actions. In game theoretical terms, that's pretty much equivalent to saying that life is a zero-sum game, which it's not.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, I'd expect exactly that to be up towards the top of the list. The dogma of an inescapable problem (guilt-induced belief in original sin) is as fundamental to the appeal of christianty as the dogma of a simple solution (salvation through belief).

I think you are talking about people like the theists here, people who are drawn to accepting and being a part of Christianity for specific reasons.

I'm more talking about what perhaps would be called the lapsed-Catholics. The average person on the street who goes to mass but who hasn't turned to the Bible since secondary school.

Certainly I explained some of the concepts discussed on this forum to my less serious Catholic friends and it was met with response like "Oh I'm sure thats not right"

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

I'm more talking about what perhaps would be called the lapsed-Catholics

Fair enough -- I was mumbling about how religion makes itself seem reasonable and appealing

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Fair enough -- I was mumbling about how religion makes itself seem reasonable and appealing

Indirectly that was kinda my point.

Religion has a tendency to morph into what the believer themselves feels make sense.

If Christianity as presented by Paul didn't make sense to those who heard about it 2nd hand it would have morphed into something more logical. Paul's Jesus, a mythological being who lived in heaven, would have morphed into a real person, and as such the early writers of the first works that lead to the Gospels would have drawn on this morphing to construct a history based around what they believed made sense.

pinksoir

Yes, but would the early Christians you posit not in fact have been much more knowledgable of doctrine than the watered down Catholics of today?

edit*In relation to you hell argument.*edit