Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

Gday,

As far as the Lord's prayer - yes, it is very important to Christians today. If we look at the historical construct (where Jesus is not a god - he is some sort of rabbi/messiah wannabe) the prayer would not be that important.

Rubbish.
A prayer taught directly from Jesus to apostles.
Not important ?
How ridiculous.

The numerous examples I gave show there was NO Oral Tradition - writers made things up, or changed them at will.

Religious mythology.

No history.
No Oral Tradition.


K.
 
I think that is a pretty naive view of oral tradition if that is what HJers you have argued with have presented to you.

My last history prof. recommended Vansina's Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology as a jumping off point. As I am about 2 chapters into the book, I can't present any detailed argument, but I did find the Oral Tradition Journal site that has many free PDFs to download and read regarding ancient/modern cultures that have very large illiterate populations and how they transmit history. No one expects oral tradition to get it all 100% correct.

I'd say that the whole issue there is exactly its unreliability. A tradition that even in a short time made a complete hash and resulted in wildly contradictory accounts of even important parts, like exactly WTH did that Messiah say as last inspirational words, is not really worth much. You can't really know which details didn't suffer such complete rewrites or re-inventions, if any.

Plus, "oral tradition" is good and fine, but really doesn't tell you if there's anything real at the other end of it. Modern urban legends are a form of oral tradition, for example, and we know that even with Snopes or The Straight Dope around, people still repeat complete fabrications they heard as if they were relating facts. Or for a less frivolous example, think the cult of John Frum, which may not actually have any historical John Frum at the other end of that oral tradition.

Let's face it, for people to retell a story, especially in an age where they didn't have Snopes or other such fact-checking available, its being based on something real is a complete non-factor. To be repeated it needs to be interesting, and that's really the only factor there.

And really, if you look at ages before Snopes, you see urban legends like witches stealing men's penises with magic, or the female pope (actually there was none), etc. Or the Wandering Jew urban legend which is provably based on confabulating about a line in a book (ok, so it was the Bible), yet people kept repeating it and occasionally you heard of people actually meeting him.

And some of them are not even strictly medieval. The last time someone told me in all seriousness that they check the Pope's balls because they once had a female pope, was last year.
 
The last time someone told me in all seriousness that they check the Pope's balls because they once had a female pope, was last year.

To be fair, there could be other reasons to suspect certain popes were lacking balls.

Hans ;)
 
Gday,

And some of them are not even strictly medieval. The last time someone told me in all seriousness that they check the Pope's balls because they once had a female pope, was last year.

Fantastic - I'd heard the story myself, never really looked into it - but not true :-( No official Pontiffical Orb Palpation. ) No senior Cardinals secretly jockeying for the powerful position as the Primary Testicle Squeezer.

Note that the story is set in 1099 - a critical year (the retaking of Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade.)

But - the story appears a bit over a century later. A typical period for myths. What a great and wild story - widely accepted as true.


K.
 
Unless you belong to a religion of non-unicorn belief with sacred texts and dogmas about unicorns not existing then your argument is pure and utter BS.

No, just no.


If he is a Judeo-Chrsitian-Moslim then he believes in all of these mythological creatures (or at least has to if he believes in the scriptures)

Unicorns
Numbers 23:22, 24:8
Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9,10
Psalms 22:21,29:6,92:10
Isaiah 34:7​

Dragons
Deuteronomy 32:33
Nehemiah 2:13
Job 30:29
Psalms 44:19, 74:13, 91:13, 148:7
Isaiah 13:22, 27:1,34:13, 35:7, 43:20, 51:9
Jeremiah 9:11, 10:22, 14:6, 49:33,51:34
Ezekiel 29:3
Micah 1:8
Malachi 1:3
Revelation 12:3-17 and many others​

Satyrs
Isaiah 13:21, 34:14​


Leviathans
Isaiah 27:1
Job 41:1
Psalms 74:14
Psalms 104:26​


Talking Reasoning Donkey
Numbers 22:28-33​


Talking Reasoning Serpent
Genesis 3:1-5​


Familiar Spirits, Wizards, Magicians, Witches, Mediums, and Astrologers
Leviticus 20:27
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
Exodus 22:18​



Giants
Genesis 6:4
Numbers 13:33
Deuteronomy 2:11, 2:20, 3:11, 3:13
Joshua 13:12
1 Chronicles 20:6​
 
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'll give it a shot. :shrug:

How would you go about proving to that degree that any person 2000 years ago existed?

You have none of the pieces of evidence that we drown in today. We have to remind ourselves when we look at things that long ago that the modern information age we live in IS the aberration. Most of human history was not like this.

So, we have no birth certificate for him.
We have no pictures of him.
We have no family home because he came from a poor tradesman family.

What we do have is writings made about the tremendous impact he had on those around him, for good or for ill, from within a generation after his death.

1. Flavius Josephus, for one (37CE - 100CE) mentions him twice, once where he wrote "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9).

Secondly, also in Antiquities: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

2. Eusebius much later (4th century) mentions him.

3. The Roman Senator and historian Tacitus (56CE - 117CE) mentions him, specifically his death at the hands of Pilate, by name, specifically as the founder of the faith that bears his name. "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . ."

4. Lucian of Samosata (125CE-180CE), 2nd Century Greek satirist, wrote of Christ's crucifixion, and derisively about Christianity itself, but in a rather dry manner when he said "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguised personage who introduced their novel rites - and was crucified on that account...it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment that they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage and live after his laws"

5. Pliny the Younger (61CE-112CE) wrote what he had learned about the Christians to Emperor Trajan, in a letter, where he said "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

6. Celsus, a great opponent of Christianity wrote a polemic against it in ca. 178 CE, where he wrote that Celsus said that 'Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. So, Celsus discounted Jesus' ancestry, birth, childhood, divinity, and ministry, indicating strongly that these elements of the faith were already firmly in place.

7. Seutonius, another opponent of Christianity who lived from 69CE - 130CE, wrote in "The Twelve Caesars" : "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestos, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"

These are the best references to Christ and the early Christians, from the earliest extra-biblical sources.
 
7. Seutonius, another opponent of Christianity who lived from 69CE - 130CE, wrote in "The Twelve Caesars" : "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestos, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"

If you take this as a reference to a historical person alive at the time these disturbances occur, would it not mean that this Chrestos is in Rome himself? Of course, we don't have to understand it as a reference to a person alive at that time ...
 
Leumas,

You're confusing Christians who are biblical literalists with those Christians who are not. It is certainly possible (I know, because I am proof of it) to regard the Bible as a sacred volume while understanding that not every word of it is the literal Word of God , by its writers' own admission.

The first example I'm thinking of is the passages that refer to Christ as the sacrificial lamb. Now, not even the most fundamentalist Christians I've known have believed that Christ literally became a lamb, so there is room for a more common-sense approach to Biblical studies.
 
Last edited:
Yes, since Claudius' name has been injected into the translation (ie, not present in the original), the context of that bit of it is a bit unclear.

Did you notice the piece where he refers to the followers of Chrestus as Jews? This is exactly how you would expect to hear members of an heretofore unknown faith being referred to in writings. He cast them in the light of people he did know of - Jews.
 
Last edited:
Yes, since Claudius' name has been injected into the translation (ie, not present in the original), the context of that bit of it is a bit unclear.

It is best if you use the "Quote Post" button, so it is clear who and what you are replying to. Welcome, btw, OCaptain my captain.
 
OCaptain

Your "evidence" has already been exhaustively discussed on this thread. It is nonsense. See #249, 252, 348, 465, here, and my post....

Craig,

Respectfully, the historians and chroniclers from the first, second and third centuries CE are not "my evidence". They haven't been discussed in the spirit of open debate in this thread.

But I'm certainly open to it if you are.

Finally, regarding your characterization of these writers as "nonsense": do you deem everything they have written thusly, or just where it touches on fortifying the historicity of Jesus Christ?
 
OCaptain

And why are you giving me evidence from Suetonius about someone called Chrestus causing riots in Rome? Jesus changed his name ten years after his death, went to Rome and made big trouble in the Jewish quarter of that city? That's not what I was taught at Sunday School!

For the common Graeco-Roman name Chrestus, see http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/34749-suetonius-chrestus-tacitus-and-pliny-the-elder/
if you nose around the history of that period you will find that this name (meaning “the Just” or “the Righteous” ) was a rather common name, especially with royalty. When Mithriadates V Euergetes, the king of Pontus was murdered in Sinope, he left his kingdom to his wife and two sons, Mithridates Eupator (later Mithridates VI Eupator) and Mithridates Chrestus. Later when Nicomedes III of Bithynia died, Mithridates VI Eupator, then the King of Pontus, wished to replace the legimate successor, Nicomedes IV, with his brother Socrates Chrestus, a move that was unacceptable to Rome and led to the Mithidatean wars. Because of the number of slaves acquired during those wars, Chrestus became a very common name for slaves and free men, we have numerous funerary and memorial inscriptions with that name.
About 200, I believe.
 
OCaptain

I didn't say the writers wrote nonsense. I mean that you write nonsense.

Pliny wrote in letter 10 to Trajan that Christianity was "depraved, excessive superstition", and you use him as a support for your beliefs? That's nonsense. Pliny was, however, quite right.

And no rational person - Christian or otherwise - believes that Josephus called Jesus "the Christ". It is universally dismissed as an interpolation, even by people deluded enough to accept some parts of Josephus' reference to be authentic. Origen explicitly tells us that Josephus did NOT accept Jesus as Christ. It's tosh.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom