So did Jesus live or what?

[geni]

Julius Gaius Caesar would have been well known just for his defeat of the Gauls even if he hadn't moved against Pompeii and made himself emporer. But we have ample evidence for his existence - in statues, coins, witnesses, historical events, etc.

Not authoritative, but check here...

You are talking about a person at the center of a massive imperial power. There could be no question that people at the time knew that this was a person makeing history. People tend to record leaders and generals. Relgious teachers tend to be less widely mentioned (look at how few references to john the baptist there are).

Well, yeah, Yeshua was a back-water hick. But he also spawned the largest religion in Europe for the past two millenia. Nothing was saved? Nothing was written? (Despite the locale, there were plenty of literate Romans, Greeks, and Persians loafing about back then. Obviously much ado about nothing since no records that they may have kept (including Pontius Pilatus') exist today.

Lets see what would have been writen. The gospels claim one significant contact with the authorities. That would have resulted in a record in some archive or other but over the fall of the roman empire and the like people had better things to do than copy archives. Letters? Do you have the letters your grandparents wrote?

It took at least fifty years after the supposed death for 'the story' to be penned. Very suspicious.

It's pretty clear that cristianty started out as an end of the world cult. No point in writeing things down under those conditions.

Chinese kept copious records going back 5000 years! And the Romans and Greeks were very good at keeping records. Many were lost. Surprisingly, again, almost nothing that would provide evidence beyond a couple of unreliable sources and the NT itself.

Many? Outside of egypt pretty much everything was lost.

I dismiss anything to do with Paul. You are trying to use the letters of Paul as extrabiblical? Anything after the gospels is at a time when the spreading Christianity was already established all along the Mediterranean (even if just small cultish pockets). And not even all of them could agree on whether there was a man, a spirit, a logos, or a god.

Paul thought that James was the brother of Jesus. He met James.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Caesars are emporers. We expect them to be on coins and well written about by historians.

Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as well as Cornelius Tacitus' writings. Do you deny, too, that he even existed?

Will you accept only those historical figures who are etched in coin?

What level of evidence will suffice?

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

I'm sorry. Just because someone uses contemporary figures in a fiction doesn't make the fiction fact...

"It says so in the Bible" isn't nearly sufficient, even as a foundation.

 

[Huntster]

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

I'm sorry. Just because someone uses contemporary figures in a fiction doesn't make the fiction fact...

"It says so in the Bible" isn't nearly sufficient, even as a foundation.

So what do you need to come to believe?

 

[geni]

But you missed my point, didn't you? Did this guy get future forecasts from three witches,

Not that we know of

kill the king with the help from his wife,

Yes

see apparitions,

Not that we know of

and the forest move against (etc.)?

Maybe. Certianly the battle was in the right place for it to happen

The link between the real person and the fictional character is spurious at best. Sort of like me writing a story about how George Washington, oh, chopped down a cherry tree. Real person, fictional account.

Shakespear was writeing 600 years later and it was clearly for the most part ment to be fiction

We don't even have this to work on for Jesus! There is an obvious fictional account (four of them, none completely agreeing, and almost assuredly adapted from a single source), but no real person. Show me the body (or anything)!

Show me the body of Mac Bethad mac Findlàech. If it's any help I can tell you where his grave is (of course certian groups claim to have found the grave of Arthur). The sources for his life are things such as Anglo-Saxon chronicle of which parts are clearly incorrect (one puts the roman invasion of britian at 60 BC although with the amount of time elapesed that is pretty good).

 

[kuroyume0161]

You are talking about a person at the center of a massive imperial power. There could be no question that people at the time knew that this was a person makeing history. People tend to record leaders and generals. Relgious teachers tend to be less widely mentioned (look at how few references to john the baptist there are).

Well, yes I am. And the evidence parallels his power. Supposedly Jesus was changing the Mediterranean world even during his lifetime (last three years). And Christianity spread rather quickly from there. But what a dearth of evidence.

Look, I am not disagreeing that records like this would be absent. It is just that for this very reason, Christians have no place making assertions that such a person ever existed. I can't back it up and neither can they. They should leave it at that. But they don't! They keep asserting it because doctrine requires it and the Bible says it's so.

It's pretty clear that cristianty started out as an end of the world cult. No point in writeing things down under those conditions.

Too convenient. There were too many impartial parties who could have written without such motives.

Paul thought that James was the brother of Jesus. He met James.

Ambiguous. This has been discussed at great length by scholars. 'Brother of Jesus' could be taken literally (this is not the stance usually supported) or figuratively (as in anyone who is a member of the Christian belief was a 'brother') or even titlurly (as in someone who was considered an 'apostle' or 'disciple', directly or indirectly wrt Jesus, was considered a 'brother of Jesus').

 

[geni]

Yah, and we remember all other sorts such as Roman Senators, philosophers, generals all from copious records and writings.

These people were at the centre of major civilisations. Lets consider egypt. It is a pretty solid civerlisation. It has a climate suited for preserving records and the egyptions wrote down everything. We don't know the dates and order in which all the pharos reighned.

 

[kuroyume0161]

These people were at the centre of major civilisations. Lets consider egypt. It is a pretty solid civerlisation. It has a climate suited for preserving records and the egyptions wrote down everything. We don't know the dates and order in which all the pharos reighned.

That's a little disingenuous. Egypt goes back 5000 years itself. Layer upon layer of new dynasties, invasions, religions with the new regimes sometimes obliterating records of the past or rewriting it. But by the time of JGC, the Ptolemy's were pretty much the final dynasty in Egyptian civilization. They were Greek descended and there were good records for them. I state this since the Ptolemys run concurrent with Rome.

There is more evidence for the existence of some Roman legionary grunts at that time than for Jesus. The main body of so-called evidence is in the NT (and the omitted non-canonical books), none of which has verifiable sources, datings, nor much of anything else that could be considered evidential.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

I am definitely on the mythicist camp. Not only is there zero evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed, but we would expect such evidence (even if he was just a crucified lunatic). Furthermore, the fact that early Christian fathers do not write about his earthly life is the clinching evidence that "Jesus" started as a myth.

 

[geni]

Well, yes I am. And the evidence parallels his power. Supposedly Jesus was changing the Mediterranean world even during his lifetime (last three years).

Source? Jesus is meant never to have left Israel. He survived a mear few days in the capital before haveing a rather terminal contact with the authorities

And Christianity spread rather quickly from there. But what a dearth of evidence.

Not really. Sure Pauls travels gave it a fair geographical area but from the letter is appears that individual communities were pretty small.

Look, I am not disagreeing that records like this would be absent. It is just that for this very reason, Christians have no place making assertions that such a person ever existed. I can't back it up and neither can they. They should leave it at that. But they don't! They keep asserting it because doctrine requires it and the Bible says it's so.

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

Too convenient. There were too many impartial parties who could have written without such motives.

Name one. Why would anyone else care. Christians seem to have been pretty small comunities for quite a while.

(there is also speculation about Q but i've never really been convinced by that)

or figuratively (as in anyone who is a member of the Christian belief was a 'brother') or even titlurly (as in someone who was considered an 'apostle' or 'disciple', directly or indirectly wrt Jesus, was considered a 'brother of Jesus').

Doesn't really work since Paul didn't use the title for anyone else.

 

[geni]

I am definitely on the mythicist camp. Not only is there zero evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed, but we would expect such evidence (even if he was just a crucified lunatic).

What evidence would you expect? Can you name the other petty trouble makers who were crucified in that period?

Furthermore, the fact that early Christian fathers do not write about his earthly life is the clinching evidence that "Jesus" started as a myth.

Evidence? Remeber the letters are a large degree an argument amoung competeing theologens. To them it matters little what jesus had for dinner.

 

[kuroyume0161]

So what do you need to come to believe?

Nothing. I don't think there is any justiable evidence for gods, deities, god-men, religious faiths, ghosts, cults, new-age cults, UFOs, homeopathy, Kabbalah, the boogie man, Santa Claus, and so on.

Even if there is a historical figure at the base of Christianity, what does that offer in terms of 'believing'? Not a single miraculous event in the Bible is plausible (and some of the supposed historical events don't agree). So there goes the idea that Jesus was a god-man. We are left with a set of tenets to live by, but they aren't all very good. Hating your family, wearing sackcloth, and turning the other cheek are bad ideas.

What do you actually believe in?

 

[geni]

That's a little disingenuous. Egypt goes back 5000 years itself. Layer upon layer of new dynasties, invasions, religions with the new regimes sometimes obliterating records of the past or rewriting it. But by the time of JGC, the Ptolemy's were pretty much the final dynasty in Egyptian civilization. They were Greek descended and there were good records for them. I state this since the Ptolemys run concurrent with Rome.

So? We are talking about kings here in a climate which presevers records.

There is more evidence for the existence of some Roman legionary grunts at that time than for Jesus.

So? Lots of people's names get remeber by accidents of history.
Samuel Pepys is an important person in english history in his own right but do you think we would know nearly as much about him if it wasn't for the those diaries?

The main body of so-called evidence is in the NT (and the omitted non-canonical books), none of which has verifiable sources, datings, nor much of anything else that could be considered evidential.

We can make pretty good guesses for many of those things. Again the egpytion kings a key bit of evidence for sorting the whole thing out comes from a list of names scribbled on the back of a tablet by an unknow scribe.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Source? Jesus is meant never to have left Israel. He survived a mear few days in the capital before haveing a rather terminal contact with the authorities.

I never said that Jesus spread it personally around the Mediterranean. It was alluded to that his word was spreading throughout the entire region and that tens of thousands were listening to his surmons. They all lived in that small region? None were visitors or travelers moving on to tell the tale elsewhere? Didn't he direct his disciples to go out and teach to everyone (although 'everyone' differs from 'only Jews' to 'only gentiles' to 'everyone')?

The region wasn't exactly so remote that noone knew about it. It was an obvious overland route from Europe to Egypt as well as settled by outsiders.

Occams razor says someone existed. If you say he does no exist you have the problem of a relgion turning up very very fast with a very strong ceneralisation on one person.

No, Occam's razor says that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the better. The simple explanation is that a cult sprang up somewhere (some think it may have started in Egypt or Greece) and it morphed as it spread. The problem here is that there isn't just the "Jesus was the real founder" cult. There are also Christian cults where Jesus was a spirit (dove), a symbolic sacrifice (dying god-man), a god only (Gnosticism), was never crucified and resurrected, and so forth. All of these taken together don't lead to 'someone existed as the founder represented by Jesus'.

 

[geni]

I never said that Jesus spread it personally around the Mediterranean. It was alluded to that his word was spreading throughout the entire region and that tens of thousands were listening to his surmons. They all lived in that small region? None were visitors or travelers moving on to tell the tale elsewhere? Didn't he direct his disciples to go out and teach to everyone (although 'everyone' differs from 'only Jews' to 'only gentiles' to 'everyone')?

And thus we write off the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for that 60BC error.

The region wasn't exactly so remote that noone knew about it. It was an obvious overland route from Europe to Egypt as well as settled by outsiders.

So? Again name another petty trouble make who was crucfied who we have records of.

No, Occam's razor says that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the better. The simple explanation is that a cult sprang up somewhere (some think it may have started in Egypt or Greece) and it morphed as it spread.

Even fewer records and you are makeing things up on zero evidence.

The problem here is that there isn't just the "Jesus was the real founder" cult.
There are also Christian cults where Jesus was a spirit (dove), a symbolic sacrifice (dying god-man), a god only (Gnosticism), was never crucified and resurrected, and so forth. All of these taken together don't lead to 'someone existed as the founder represented by Jesus'.

The others don't appear to be as widespread or early. The Jesus was real cult appear to be based around Peter who would be very early


Consider. Someone wounders around the villages and towns of isreal preaching (we know that this was happening at the time). He gains a bit of a following (hardly unbeliverble). He goes to juruselem causes a disturbance at the temple. This upsets the jew elders who turn to the romans to neutalise him. This they do. The cult doesn't go away though. Decades latter the cult figures out the world is not going to end striaght away (they really thought it was going to. remeber the mentions in the letters of suprise that some memebes of the comunity had died before the return of jesus) and finaly starts writeing things down.

 

[kuroyume0161]

You are advocating that the lack of evidence is to be expected. And, again, I agree with this. But then you are advocating that because there is a religion and eventually a story, then it must be based on historical fact at some level. That does not make sense. Scientology is a religion and there is a book all about it. Does that make it historical fact? I certainly hope not!

There are direct ties to cynical doctrine, dying god-man and mystery religions of the time (mainly Greek in origin).

Can you justify the 'cult of Peter' as being the earliest (without references to Christian references)?

No, I can't consider all of that. Even then, it is speculation to support speculation. That is just one set of possible events. There is an entire other set of events conspicuously omitted from the canonical texts, some of which tell an altogether different story. And you are incorrect. The variations in Christianity existed at the earliest stages. That is what confounds the idea of an original doctrine being splintered afterwards by isolation and distance.

The Gnostics seem to be flourishing at the same times that the other Christianities were. We're talking 100 C.E. (Valentinus) and earlier (most definitely).

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So what do you need to come to believe?

Nothing. I don't think there is any justiable evidence for gods, deities, god-men, religious faiths, ghosts, cults, new-age cults, UFOs, homeopathy, Kabbalah, the boogie man, Santa Claus, and so on...

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.

...What do you actually believe in?...

Many things, but in terms of religion, I believe in God exactly as the Nicene Creed states.

 

[Huntster]

...And the evidence parallels his power....

Considering the fact that 20% of today's human population consider themselves Christian, I'm in awe of His power.

When added to the world's Jewish and Moslem populations, the God of Abraham is worshipped by more than half of all humanity today (not to mention the past 3,000 years).

 

[geni]

You are advocating that the lack of evidence is to be expected. And, again, I agree with this. But then you are advocating that because there is a religion and eventually a story, then it must be based on historical fact at some level. That does not make sense. Scientology is a religion and there is a book all about it. Does that make it historical fact? I certainly hope not!

It is a historical fact that it was founded in 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard

There are direct ties to cynical doctrine, dying god-man and mystery religions of the time (mainly Greek in origin).

Evidence?

Can you justify the 'cult of Peter' as being the earliest (without references to Christian references)?

Paul is an accepted historical figure. Peter's lot pretty clearly predate him.

No, I can't consider all of that. Even then, it is speculation to support speculation. That is just one set of possible events. There is an entire other set of events conspicuously omitted from the canonical texts, some of which tell an altogether different story.

Were any of these texts writen before the Gospel of Mark?

And you are incorrect. The variations in Christianity existed at the earliest stages. That is what confounds the idea of an original doctrine being splintered afterwards by isolation and distance.

Evidence?

The Gnostics seem to be flourishing at the same times that the other Christianities were. We're talking 100 C.E. (Valentinus) and earlier (most definitely).

So that would put them several decades latter than Peter's group.

 

[Huntster]

I think it's time to recall the title of the thread:

...So did Jesus live or what?...

There have been several historians from the era cited. At least one was Roman, writing in Rome just 30 years or so after the crucifixion of Christ.

Multiple cults springing up during the era are cited.

Written manuscripts are still being found, as late as the 1940's (the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Gospel of Thomas) which support the earlier writings.

Skeptics offer only criticism of the writings.

That is all skeptics offer - doubt.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Thus, your rejection is complete. No amount of evidence, study, or consideration will spur your faith.

There is no evidence. Study and/or consideration have nothing to do with it. If that were the case, then have you studied and considered every other religion (and there are thousands and thousands that have existed and exist) to determine whether maybe you are mistaken in your current belief?

As it is said, the only difference between me and you is that I reject all beliefs base on (blind) faith whereas you reject all but one.