Did Jesus really exist?

[DOC]

Oh, dear. Let's Check the veracity of thier claims...


The title of this paper: "The Resurrection of Christ - The Best-Proved Fact in History" {by Henry M. Morris }

I don't think we have to do much to know that this is complete and utter nonsense. but let's just check to see what is given as evidence for the "best-proved fact in history"

1.) Empty Tomb
2.) Witnesses
Unfortunately, all of this is hearsay evidence since it was reported to us in the bible which was written decades after the fact.

So, the best-proved fact in history wouldn't be enough to make a conviction in trial. .

This is a false statement. It's not "all" hearsay evidence. Peter and all the apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. Why do you think Christianity spread so fast in the dangerous Roman controlled Empire. Peter had Christian followers in Rome only 31 years after the Resurrection. And Paul reported that there was an additional 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. Many whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote his epistles. If Paul was lying it would have been easy to discredit his account that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ.

And having 500 eyewitnesses at a trial would make for a fairly open and shut case.

See this site for more on the 500 witnesses:

"Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell


"OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history."

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[ImaginalDisc]

DOC:

Apollonius was credited with extra-sensory perceptions. When emperor Domitian was murdered on September 18, 96 AD, Apollonius allegedly witnessed the event in Ephesus on precisely the day and hour it happened in Rome, and told those present what he saw. Both Philostratus and renowned historian Cassius Dio report this incident, probably on the basis of an oral tradition. Both state that the philosopher welcomed the deed as a praiseworthy tyrannicide.

Source.

So, based on your "eyewitness testimony trumps all" standard of evidence, is Apollonius of Tyana the messiah?

 

[cj.23]

Your probably right about the records the Romans kept about their executions, they surely would not keep records of common thieves, stirrers and leaders of rebellion. But Jesus was no ordinary thief or trouble maker, he was supposed to have resucitated on the 3rd day

Indeed. The fact remains that I am aware of no official Roman Records of executions in the region at any point, full stop.

Surely they would have written something down about such an event?

I think we have two issues here - the nature of Roman authority in the region, and the question of historiography. On the first, actually the region was relatively autonomous, the Roman military presence small and generally only in Jerusalem during the Passover week and perhaps other festivals. I am suspecting they actually kept no records, but I will check later.

Secondly, arguably we do have sources in the Testimonium Flavium (controversial and difficult) and the Antiquities 20 sections of Josephus. More importantly, Jesus is ridicolously well attested by the normal standards Historians apply to the 1st century. Try and find me contemporary sources for Boudicca, Pontius Pilate (both significantly more important obviously) or say Theudas, John of Gamala and The Egyptian three other messianic figures mentioned in Josephus. What do you find? Now look at how many contemporary sources we have for two of the most important figures of Ancient History, Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar, and the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts. None of this proves the depiction we have of this Jesus bloke is in any way accurate, but it is by normal historiographical standards almost certain.

I have also researched the claims of ''The Jesus Mysteries" and I don't find as you have found, ''rot'' in the parallels. Freke & Gandy are serious researchers.
It all boils down to what kind of sources you study. I try to find neutral sources who study the facts not been influenced by their beliefs.

Er, I tend to try and check out the archaeology and history. Read some reviews of their book - unfortunately Skepticwiki is still down.

cj x

 

[joobz]

This is a false statement. It's not "all" hearsay evidence. Peter and all the apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.

You do not understand what hearsay is.
Did you get proven signed statements from ALL twelve apostles? Did you get proven signed statements from ALL 500 of the crowd, from the women at the tomb, the the guys on the street? No. It is heresay.
The only element that would not be hearsay would possibly be of the testimonies of the 4 gosple authors. Considering that it is doubtable that all but possibly one of the books were written by the apostle in question.. you only have 1 potential witness statement.

This is hardly the "best-proven" anything in history. As such, the article is simply a lie. Anyone using it as fact would, by extention, be lying.

Why do you think Christianity spread so fast in the dangerous Roman controlled Empire.

popularity doesn't equal true. Do you believe that Xenu is real because scientology has spread so much?

Peter had Christian followers in Rome only 31 years after the Resurrection. And Paul reported that there was an additional 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. Many whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote his epistles. If Paul was lying it would have been easy to discredit his account that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ.

unfortunately, these "witnesses" aren't around to substantiate it. Therefore it is hearsay.

And having 500 eyewitnesses at a trial would make for a fairly open and shut case.

if you had all 500 give independant testimonies. However, one person saying that someone else say it to makes it hearsay.


It is HEARSAY.

 

[DOC]

Did you get proven signed statements from ALL twelve apostles?

I got something better than signed statements. I got this:

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).


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

 

[Hokulele]

16 reasons not to be a Christian!



(If you can repeat yourself, I can too.)

 

[joobz]

I got something better than signed statements.

No it isn't.
DOC, I clearly proved that the link you submitted was a lie. It claimed that HEARSAY evidence of a magical event made the resurection the best-proven fact in history. This is in contrary to the multitudes of other historical events where we have photographs, videos, sworn independantly verified statements,etc. The article waspure preaching with no basis on fact. Admit it and move on.

 

[kmortis]

No it isn't.
DOC, I clearly proved that the link you submitted was a lie. It claimed that HEARSAY evidence of a magical event made the resurection the best-proven fact in history. This is in contrary to the multitudes of other historical events where we have photographs, videos, sworn independantly verified statements,etc. The article waspure preaching with no basis on fact. Admit it and move on.

/me hands joobz a sedative
Here, you look like you need it.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

First off, claiming that there were 500 witnesses is still another form of circular logic, since the claim originates in the same book whose validity you are trying to prove. If I were to pad that number out with several more zeroes, would Christians be even more impressed? If this kind of eyewitness evidence counts as proof, then Christians must also accept the miracles of Buddha as were witnessed by many, or the splitting of the moon by Mohammed which was witnessed by all of Mecca. They're just words in a book. Is Harry Potter real just because all of Hogwarts witnessed his final battle with Lord Voldemort?

Secondly, martyrdom doesn't prove a damn thing. There have always been plenty of people willing to die for their beliefs. By your logic, the Mor(m)ons must also be right, because of the way Joseph Smith and many of his followers died. The Heaven's Gate cult and the Branch Davidians must also be right, because they were willing to die for their beliefs. There are tons of other examples, such as the 9/11 hijackers and other suicide bombers. Clearly dying for one's religion does not make it true.

 

[amb]

I got something better than signed statements. I got this:

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).


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

So they all received what they deserved, for blasphemy, and leading people astray with their wild tales of a man-god who was crucified and resuscitate 3 days later, and then was taken up by a cloud into heaven which they believed was a plane just out of sight of a flat earth up in the sky. Sounds like a tale for children, doesn't it? I wonder if the author of Jack and the Beanstalk based his fantasy on that? If you took this tale to a court of law, even if you had 10 thousand witnesses, it would be laughed out of court.
Futher, Paul wrote that Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and was buried. He does not speak of a resuscitated lord. According to most biblical scholars this is the first mention and writings of Jesus's death. This is the sum total of what the christian church has in writing about the death and burial of Jesus until the eighth decade some fifteen or so years after Paul's writing, when the first gospel of Mark was written. In Gal.1:18 Paul states he went to visit Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. Is it not reasonable to assume that this was the source of his information? Then we have to ask whether this is all that Paul remembered of what Peter had told him, or whether it was all that Peter knew and thus passed on. The myth only gets bigger as time went on. The earliest writings make no mention of a empty grave, no Calvary, no Joseph of Arimathea, no mention of Pilate, no mention of the chief priests or even a trial. All this was written about twenty years after the facts. [if any]
An astute defence lawyer would decline your case as been impossible to win.

 

[amb]

Indeed. The fact remains that I am aware of no official Roman Records of executions in the region at any point, full stop.



I think we have two issues here - the nature of Roman authority in the region, and the question of historiography. On the first, actually the region was relatively autonomous, the Roman military presence small and generally only in Jerusalem during the Passover week and perhaps other festivals. I am suspecting they actually kept no records, but I will check later.

Secondly, arguably we do have sources in the Testimonium Flavium (controversial and difficult) and the Antiquities 20 sections of Josephus. More importantly, Jesus is ridicolously well attested by the normal standards Historians apply to the 1st century. Try and find me contemporary sources for Boudicca, Pontius Pilate (both significantly more important obviously) or say Theudas, John of Gamala and The Egyptian three other messianic figures mentioned in Josephus. What do you find? Now look at how many contemporary sources we have for two of the most important figures of Ancient History, Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar, and the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts. None of this proves the depiction we have of this Jesus bloke is in any way accurate, but it is by normal historiographical standards almost certain.




Er, I tend to try and check out the archaeology and history. Read some reviews of their book - unfortunately Skepticwiki is still down.

cj x

There is written evidence for Pontius Pilate in the Roman records as prefect of Judea. It has been stated many times that the evidence of Josephus writing of Jesus does not hold water, as the part where it's written seems out of context to what he is talking about. The chance that it was interpolated by the early christians is as high as 99%. All other references are of hearsay. [ a friend of a friend of friend type ]

 

[ceo_esq]

There is written evidence for Pontius Pilate in the Roman records as prefect of Judea. It has been stated many times that the evidence of Josephus writing of Jesus does not hold water, as the part where it's written seems out of context to what he is talking about. The chance that it was interpolated by the early christians is as high as 99%.

If by "written evidence for Pontius Pilate in the Roman records", you mean solely a couple of faded words engraved on a single limestone slab unearthed in 1961, then yes. If one disregards the same sources that attest to the existence of both Pilate and Jesus (e.g. the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus), I think one is left with just the single recorded mention (such as it is) of Pilate, notwithstanding that the man is believed to have enjoyed relatively prominent bureaucratic status for at least a decade.

You're also strictly correct that "it has been stated many times" that Josephus' references to Jesus are bogus. However, the prevailing scholarly view (discussed on numerous occasions on this forum) is that one of the two references is probably authentic and that there's a decent chance that the other reference is only a partial interpolation.

 

[ceo_esq]

A good source book is The Jesus Mysteries, authored by two British archeologists named Freke and Gandy. You can find it on Amazon. They are experts on the languages and cultures of the ancient world, and went to original sources for references to Jesus and to the stories and quotes attributed to him.

Freke and Gandy are not archeologists. Neither are they professional scholars, nor in any conventional sense "experts on the languages and cultures of the ancient world". I believe Freke has a bachelor's degree in philosophy, while Gandy has the slight edge with a master's degree in classical civilization.

They are British, so partial marks there.

However, in light of the foregoing (except the British part, naturally), it would obviously be imprudent to take any of their theses in The Jesus Mysteries other than with a dose of salt.

 

[amb]

Freke and Gandy are not archeologists. Neither are they professional scholars, nor in any conventional sense "experts on the languages and cultures of the ancient world". I believe Freke has a bachelor's degree in philosophy, while Gandy has the slight edge with a master's degree in classical civilization.

They are British, so partial marks there.

However, in light of the foregoing (except the British part, naturally), it would obviously be imprudent to take any of their theses in The Jesus Mysteries other than with a dose of salt.

If Freke and Gandy need a pinch of salt. How much salt is needed to take anything written in the bible as truth.? A ton at least! Darwin was British as well. It does not prove the British are superior. Galileo was my country man, as was Marconi. Let's just say European civilazation may have been a bit more scientificaly advanced than the rest of the world.

 

[joobz]

* kmortis;3300658 hands joobz a sedative
Here, you look like you need it.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

How can something that only has hearsay evidence be the most proven historical event in history?

And how does a list of people who were killed have ANY bearing on that point? Does the number of people who were killed for robbery make robbery sacred?

 

[Foster Zygote]

And how does a list of people who were killed have ANY bearing on that point? Does the number of people who were killed for robbery make robbery sacred?

I've addressed this question to DOC several times. If martyrdom is to be taken as proof if the validity of Christian beliefs then DOC is forced to accept that the martyrs of most every other religion are evidence of their validity. Predictably, DOC has failed to address this problem with his argument.

 

[cj.23]

All other references are of hearsay. [ a friend of a friend of friend type ]

If you want a full discussion I am happy to do. Let's start with the Jewish sources, from the Mishnah say. They are unflattering - why do you reject these?

j x

 

[ceo_esq]

Darwin was British as well. It does not prove the British are superior.

I know. I didn't mean to give partial credit to Freke and Gandy for being British; I was giving the poster partial credit for correctly identifying Freke and Gandy as British, even though nearly every other thing he or she said about the authors of The Jesus Mysteries was incorrect.

 

[joobz]

I've addressed this question to DOC several times. If martyrdom is to be taken as proof if the validity of Christian beliefs then DOC is forced to accept that the martyrs of most every other religion are evidence of their validity. Predictably, DOC has failed to address this problem with his argument.

It is unfortunate that he avoids these points. I do not think he realizes that by evading criticism rather than addressing them head on, it makes his argument appear weak, ill conceived and dishonest.

 

[tsg]

It is unfortunate that he avoids these points. I do not think he realizes that by evading criticism rather than addressing them head on, it makes his argument appear weak, ill conceived and dishonest.

I don't think he cares.