historical proof that jesus existed

[c4ts]

By "enjoy" do you mean that Plato's writings and teachings are vaild and worthy of study and as a way to live one' life?

They are indeed worthy of study, and if you examine your own life, you may find that some of it is quite valid indeed. Plato presents us with a way of living, which is to live the just life in the pursuit of knowledge, questioning everything and everyone. (On the boards, we call that "critical thinking.") I don't have to agree with everything Socrates says, because it's the ideas which bring me enjoyment.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

By "enjoy" do you mean that Plato's writings and teachings are vaild and worthy of study and as a way to live one' life?

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

 

[LCBOY]

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself? The other statements are really just opinions not assertions that can be either true or false.

As Dark Cobra would say, "Where's the evidence."

 

[Ruby]

As far as I know Jesus didn't write anything.. His teachings weren't very original, and there are many aspects of his reported life that really are not very admirable.

People who who seem to be caught up in the myth of the perfect, sinless son of God, haven't read the Gospels very closely or ignored what is obvious to some people.

I'd like to see what is so obvious if you don't mind.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yeah', it's just my opinion that the person who said this, was being rude, hateful and uncompassionate.

Matthew 15:22
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

15:23
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

15:25
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Should I bother with any more?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I was so busy digging out my " Mean things Jesus did" notes, I fortgot to address this...

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself?

I don't know. Why do you ask?

 

[Ruby]

please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know if anyone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt most of the great figures in ancient history.

Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Justin Martyr recorded the deaths of all the apostles...save one..John.

There were also writings by Clement of Rome; Ignatius; Quadratus; Barnabas; Aristides; Hegesippus...

 

[Ruby]

Yeah', it's just my opinion that the person who said this, was being rude, hateful and uncompassionate.



Should I bother with any more?

First of all, you need to read the entire passage Matthew 15 22- "And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. "

Jesus did heal this woman. He was only putting her off to prove to others how great her faith was...as she was not Jewish. The word "dogs" actually means "little puppies" .

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Jesus did heal this woman.[/color]

Evidence?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Jesus did heal this woman.

It's O.K. to be hateful if you follow it up with kindness?

He was only putting her off to prove to others how great her faith was...as she was not Jewish. The word "dogs" actually means "little puppies" .

I don't see where it says this. Sounds like a good explanation if it doesn't read too well the way it is written, though.

added:

Why did Jesus say this?

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Was it a lie?
Did he disobey God, if we are to believe he didn't?

 

[c4ts]

The first statement is true, but did Socrates write anything himself? The other statements are really just opinions not assertions that can be either true or false.

As Dark Cobra would say, "Where's the evidence."

Socrates didn't write anything himself. He may not even have existed. And it doesn't change the ideas, whether or not he did, and the logic which Socrates uses does not diminish at all. Why do you insist that Socrates must be interpreted at face value for the arguments he makes with other characters, so that his philosophy would become invalid if he were knocking down strawmen? Are we to play with shadows all day long?

 

[LCBOY]

Socrates didn't write anything himself. He may not even have existed. And it doesn't change the ideas, whether or not he did, and the logic which Socrates uses does not diminish at all. Why do you insist that Socrates must be interpreted at face value for the arguments he makes with other characters, so that his philosophy would become invalid if he were knocking down strawmen? Are we to play with shadows all day long?

Whoa there! That's wasn't my point at all. I was responding to someone else who said that Jesus didn't write anything. I was trying to make a point that doesn't really mean anything, that Jesus didn't write anything. Socrates didn't write anything either but that is not really important either. People find value and truth in what he said and Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not. Though, I believe he did.

 

[c4ts]

Whoa there! That's wasn't my point at all. I was responding to someone else who said that Jesus didn't write anything. I was trying to make a point that doesn't really mean anything, that Jesus didn't write anything. Socrates didn't write anything either but that is not really important either. People find value and truth in what he said and Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not. Though, I believe he did.

Sorry. I'm so used to defending something, it's become a kind of reflex. Must have spent too much time dealing with morons.

 

[LCBOY]

Socrates makes an interesting subject for a new thread...

 

[Loki]

LCBOY,

Christians find value and truth in what Jesus said, regardless if Jesus existed or not.

I've got to question that accuracy of that statement! Are you seriously claiming that *most* christians would be largely unaffected by the discovery that Jesus was a fraud? This can *only* be true if the christians in question treats the New Testament as entirely consisting of parables - in other words, the meaning is what matters, not the method of presentation. I'm sure such "liberal christians" exist (Stamenflicker may be such a beast?), but do you think this is actually true of the vast majority of christians?

 

[davefoc]

Ruby said:

Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Ruby, there may be a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the folks that you mention seem to be suspect or were not contemporaneous with Jesus or both.

Pliny the younger seems like an interesting fellow who writes about torturing people with about the same degree of emotion that one might write an engineering paper but he seems to have been born well after the birth of Jesus.

here's a link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

Thallus is completely suspect. He wrote some strange stuff and no one is quite sure when he lived. Here's a link on him:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Cornelius Tactitus seems to have written around 112 AD so presumably Jesus was way dead by the time Cornelius was around.

I believe the basic theory of the Jesus-didn't-exist people is that a few people soon after the time of his purported death started making up stories based very loosely on the lives of one or a few Jewish Priests. The stories contained so few facts that it is not reasonable to say that they represent the life of any actual person.

The kind of evidence that would refute this theory is to find contemporary writings and/or artifacts that corroborate the Biblical stories. To a lesser degree finding that the Biblical Jesus stories accurately report historical details and are self consistent with themselves would also argue for the existence of an historical Jesus.

At this time time, there are very few contemporaneous documents outside the Bible that have been put forth that mention Jesus at all. In fact there are significant historical inaccuracies in the Bible and it is difficult to find an exact correlation with between Biblical stories and other recorded history. And of course, as is often reported, the Gospels are self-contradictory.

So while, I personally think it is likely that Jesus existed, I also think the case is pretty weak. However, I would be very interested in any evidence that you supply that relates to whether a historical Jesus existed.

 

[Loki]

Ruby,

I don't know if anyone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt most of the great figures in ancient history.

True enough, but the discovery that we were wrong about the existence of Helen of Troy would hardly threaten a major world religion. Helen's historical role has little relevance, therefore assumptions of her existence can be granted by a certain level of proof. Jesus' historical role - for many - is central to our entire system of morals and laws, therefore the level of proof (to me) should be correspondingly much higher. It isn't, in my opinion.

Still, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

All of it indirect, and none of it substantiating any of the major claims that make Jesus so important. I can easily grant the provisional claim "a man called Jesus probably existed in the time and place depicted by the New Testament" based upon the evidence you refer to. I find it impossible to extend that assumption of existence to the claim that "he was a man who walked on water and rose from the dead" based on the same evidence.

Some extra-biblical sources are used as evidence. There was Cornelius Tactitus...a Roman historian who made some mention of Jesus and especially of the existence of Chrstians. Other sources came from: Lucian Samasata; Suetonius; pliny the younger; Thallus; Phlegon. There was also Josephus.

Justin Martyr recorded the deaths of all the apostles...save one..John.

There were also writings by Clement of Rome; Ignatius; Quadratus; Barnabas; Aristides; Hegesippus...

The problem with these sources is that they *all* are indirect sources. At best, they quote other people who claim to have seen/heard Jesus. At worst, they simply mention christians (which obviously does not more than imply Christ).

 

[stamenflicker]

Dave,

At this time time, there are very few contemporaneous documents outside the Bible that have been put forth that mention Jesus at all.

That's just the problem though. The documents do exist, we just force them through more scrutiny than comparable documents for other figures based solely on the claims they make.

Loki,

The problem with these sources is that they *all* are indirect sources. At best, they quote other people who claim to have seen/heard Jesus. At worst, they simply mention christians (which obviously does not more than imply Christ).

The evidence doesn't suggest they are completely indirect and it should be noted that surviving documents of existing historical figures have been proven to be copies written much later (even as late as the 12th century) of earlier documents.

I would argue that "at best" the documents are true; and at worst, they are still historical documents in that they represent the thought of the early church-- real Jesus or not. Even at worst, they (as surviving documents), predate most surviving copies of existing histories.

Anyone looking for a historical Jesus is really looking to the wrong things anyway IMHO... as you have stated it's more interesting and beneficial to see if he is who the authors of these documents say he is, which cannot be objectively verified in the slightest. One is pretty much left to his or her own devices, and the meaning that can be extrapolated should the path be chosen.

Flick

 

[Loki]

Flick,

The evidence doesn't suggest they are completely indirect ...

Hmmm...perhaps a terminology problem? I'm not aware of any document outside of the New Testament and the "rejected gospels" in which the author claims direct knowledge of Jesus. Do you any details on such documents?

But the real issue is why does Jesus not directly appear in "non-christian" writings of the time. Didn't *any* of the multitude fed by the loaves and fishes think to write a letter informing a friend or relative? No one in the general audience at the sermon on the mount was moved to try and record the event?

 

[stamenflicker]

Hmmm...perhaps a terminology problem? I'm not aware of any document outside of the New Testament and the "rejected gospels" in which the author claims direct knowledge of Jesus. Do you any details on such documents?

No I meant that some of the evidence would counter the notion that the gospels themselves are indirect references to the historicity of Jesus.... i.e. second hand.

But the real issue is why does Jesus not directly appear in "non-christian" writings of the time. Didn't *any* of the multitude fed by the loaves and fishes think to write a letter informing a friend or relative? No one in the general audience at the sermon on the mount was moved to try and record the event?

Besides the current opinion that much of the Josephus narrative is authentic, there is no good explanation. The portions were Josephus seems to validate Jesus are clearly "corrections" to the orginial text. But it does appear that Josephus made reference to him, probably a negative one, hence the "correction."

The idea that a group of peasants had the skills to write anything down is a bit much to assume. Given the costs of associated with writing, I'd bet only a small fraction, even if they had the notion and the ability, would have been able to do it. As to the fishes and loaves, Jesus ended up ticking a bunch of them off later in the story. The gospel of John says, "many left him on that day." Regarding the sermon on mount, most of the evidence suggests that someone did in fact right it down, and it became the imfamous Q document that was incoportated into the gospels. I suppose the same could be said of the fish and loaves. There is no reason to assume it was not written down, incoportated into the "official" version of the gospel after which no further versions were needed. We wrongly assume that the ancient man needed a plethora of sources. He seems quite content with few sources as evidence by the massive expansion of the church; and next to zero sources as evidenced by the mission of Paul.

Flick