Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Aepervius]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

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

There are a quite few indication that Jesus might have existed as a human (the rest of the story is naturally Myth). There is no solid evidence. You can see on wiki the list of very weak evidence , textual criticism etc... So it seems likely Jesus existed, however if one honestely look at that list of weak evidence, the likelyhood can't really be said whether it was high or low in my opinion. nothing really solid.

That said, I would not expect anything solid for a no-name guy of that epoch, neither do i think the likelyhood of existence of jesus is relevant at all. What is relevant is that from our knowledge of the world, the physic, the biology, the evidence for the existence of miracle is about zero and the whole description in the bible is a nice story a myth but irrelevant to whether the guy existed or not.

*shrug* if the miracle are myth, does it matter the guy they were assigned to is real ?

 

[Craig4]

have you ever heard of any of this before?
I never have. Josephus is very difficult to follow in places. Years ago, when I was about thirty, my mind was very sharp and I could sit there and work it all out and keep everything straight, where I find the same stories today rather difficult close to impossible. At one time, it just seemed obvious to me but it is not something well known. There is a whole bunch of other evidence that adds to it, my big theory but it is getting into all the controversial parts.

If by "this" you mean the history of the cult that became Christianity, yes I have heard of it.

 

[DOC]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed...

If you don't value biblical sources, here are facts from non-biblical sources. From the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler and F. Turek. Pg. 223.

All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some interpret that as cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

 

[Ethnikos]

You believe in the reality of the miracles performed by Jesus as reported in the NT?

I may have a sort of mental filter where I have been trained not to have such thoughts, as strange as that may seem.
The stories in Josephus of John Hyracanus would most likely have come from popular legend. My point is that if it was so strong after 70 AD, it really would have been at the tome Jesus would have been in his ministry.
So regardless of what happened, in the minds of the people, it was already there, a minimum amount of miracles expected from any claimant to the Messiah.

 

[pakeha]

Saying, Jesus, in a prayer would differentiate a Christian prayer from one of a different belief system.

Of course.
And why does that count as evidence Jesus actually existed?

Luke goes way out of its way to create the High Priest, the Temple, and Jesus...

Create is the word.

 

[Ethnikos]

If by "this" you mean the history of the cult that became Christianity, yes I have heard of it.

No, I mean this little story I was telling.
As far as I know, the Christians never tried to make that link, unless it was done but removed where it makes any conclusions.
Your earlier question was if there was info added to create a legitimacy.
The Jews hated a lot about all these royals and did not think they were of the right stuff, so the Christians would have hidden all that to make Jesus more holy than people Like John Hyrucanus who defiled himself by taking a Greek name.

 

[DOC]

There's no extra Biblical evidence for the view that Jesus did any miracles what so ever.

Actually just the fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is evidence for the Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity. So without a resurrection it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

 

[Ethnikos]

Of course.
And why does that count as evidence Jesus actually existed?
Create is the word.

That was a question someone asked, about how a prayer would be different from someone else's prayer. If I was to pray for a person in the name of Jesus and his prayer was answered, then it would have been Jesus doing it.
Luke was definatly "created", for why, a good question.

 

[Craig4]

If you don't value biblical sources, here are facts from non-biblical sources. From the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler and F. Turek. Pg. 223.

All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some interpret that as cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

Yeah, all this is nothing to take seriously. There's no evidence that the wonders above described are even possible so we need not be bothered with them. As for people dying for their beliefs, the 9/11 hijackers died for their beliefs that doesn't mean horses can fly.


Oh and Pilot turned a lot of people into public art projects. That doesn't make them gods.

 

[DC]

Actually just the fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is evidence for the Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity. So without a resurrection it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

in no way. just because you guys believe him to be resurrected doesnt mean he actually was.

with that logic we can prove Mohhamed was a prophet and Reincarnation is true because the Dalay Lahma exist and Budhism exist etc.
and Lord Xenu is kept captured etc etc.

 

[sphenisc]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

What set of properties would be sufficient to identify someone as being Jesus?
What evidence would persuade you that someone had each of those properties?

 

[Oystein]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

Not simple. If we agree that the biblical accounts of this man cannot be entirely true, and that we shoud not treat the miracle stuff etc as facts, the question first to be answered would be: Who is this Jesus whose existence you want proven?

You see, there is little doubt that several men wrote an extensive history of this man and his followers. Now there are several possibilities:

1. There was Jesus born from a virgin from Nazareth and God who wandered through the lands of Galilee and Judea, teaching, prophetizing, proselytizing, and doing miracles, and after his execution by the Romans and resurrection to the heavens, his disciples founded a church. Just no miracles and no divinity. (full historic divine Jesus)
2. There was Jesus from Nazareth who wandered through the lands of Galilee and Judea, teaching, prophetizing, proselytizing, and after his execution by the Romansm, his disciples founded a church. Just no miracles and no divinity. (full historic human Jesus)
3. There was a man by the name of Jesus who isn't quite the man from the NT, but he was a preacher and had disciples and all that stuff; only Paul and the evangelists usurped that historical figure and did their own thing with it (historic figure, written about with artistic freedom)
4. The writers of the NT invented a Jesus figure, but the biblical Jesus is inspired by one man, or possibly several, of whom very little is or can be known (fiction based on historic example)
5. The whole NT and its Jesus stories are entirely ficticious (fiction, period)

So which level of historicity to this Jesus do you want proven?


Then comes the question of what you will accept as proof!
Most people from that age that we know about are only know to us because they have been written about. Often by authors who lived after them and did not know them personally, often the documents are dubious, as we only have fragments of copies of copies. For most of these old guys we have no image, no grave, no bones. So how can you prove that, say, Arminius the Cherusc ever existed? You see, even Charlemagne's existence has been seriously doubted by fringe historians!

Was Confucius a real man? Prove it! How about Socrates? Can you prove he ever existed? Shakespeare! What evidence do you have Shakespeare was one man, and not the Alan Smithee of the 16th century?

 

[Oystein]

Actually just the fact that Christianity Islam is in existence to the extent it is is evidence for the Resurrection divine origin of the Holy Q'uran because the Resurrection divine origin of the Holy Q'uran is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity Islam. So without a Resurrection divine origin of the Holy Q'uran it doesn't even make sense for Christianity Islam to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

I exchanged a couple of terms in your post.
Since you accept that the existence of Christianity is evidence for the Resurrection, you surely accept that the Holy Q'uran originated with God, because Islam exists. Right?

 

[sphenisc]

I exchanged a couple of terms in your post.
Since you accept that the existence of Christianity is evidence for the Resurrection, you surely accept that the Holy Q'uran originated with God, because Islam exists. Right?

"Evidence for" is not equivalent to "surely accept".

 

[Oystein]

"Evidence for" is not equivalent to "surely accept".

Let DOC sort that out.

 

[sphenisc]

Let DOC sort that out.

Why? It's your post.

 

[H'ethetheth]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

I guess evidence for his existence would be the fact that there is a collection of ideological stories about him that purport to be history and roughly agree on the time and place he lived.

Granted, that's pretty abysmal as far as evidence goes, but there it is.

 

[tsig]

Actually just the fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is evidence for the Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole focal point and essence of Christianity. So without a resurrection it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist. Since it does exist that can be considered some evidence. This is a very obvious point but many people have never considered it.

So Christianity exists because of the Resurrection and we can be sure that the Resurrection happened because Christianity exists?

 

[tsig]

in no way. just because you guys believe him to be resurrected doesnt mean he actually was.

with that logic we can prove Mohhamed was a prophet and Reincarnation is true because the Dalay Lahma exist and Budhism exist etc.
and Lord Xenu is kept captured etc etc.

It was all a scribal error, in the original it talked of the Erection not the Resurrection so it's not too surprising that of the third day, seeing the women, he rose again.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So Christianity exists because of the Resurrection and we can be sure that the Resurrection happened because Christianity exists?

Ooooh, another logic wheel for Aken to play with...