The Historicity of Jesus

[Brännvin]

Lutiferre;

Here one question for those who believe Jesus existed:

1. Why were there no writings by the 42 historians living around the region of Judea
between the years 1-35 AD? Think about this, before apologizing for it. Jesus was supposedly a miracle man and even if he disappeared until he was 30 there should be have been lots written, especially after his resurrection which was supposedly witnessed by hundreds or thousands.

__________


BTW, Vargtand, what you wrote about Odin is also what has been published by actual scholars

[Lutiferre]

Why were there no writings by the 42 historians living around the region of Judea
between the years 1-35 AD? Think about this, before apologizing for it. Jesus was supposedly a miracle man and even if he disappeared until he was 30 there should be have been lots written, especially after his resurrection which was supposedly witnessed by hundreds or thousands.
Now I'll ask, why didn't the 42 historians in Rome mention and record Drusus Julius Caesar's life, who lived from 13 B.C. to 23 A.D, the same time period as Jesus lived?

Well, it might seem that they didn't. At least if silence means absence, but it doesn't. We have no idea if they did, not to mention, of course, that 42 historians didn't even exist. Neither did 42 historians exist in the time and place of Jesus 3-year ministry.

All we know is that the sources we have which record the life of Drusus son of Tiberius, who lived the exact same time period as Jesus, are the exact same sources that record Jesus, namely Tacitus and Suetonius.

Only five historians of the late first to early second century wrote anything on first century Roman history.

1. Livy
2. Plutarch
3. Tacitus
4. Suetonius
5. Josephus.

All other histories of first century Rome and Palestine are derivative of these five men's work. Out of the five, Livy died before Jesus became a known figure; Plutarch wrote only about politicians and statesmen; then the other three have a small but significant record of the early Christians and a person named Jesus.

Since so much of ancient writing was lost including other works by these Roman historians, it's remarkable that we have anything from any of the possible candidates on Jesus -- let alone all three -- and a letter from Pliny the Younger thrown in for good measure!


-- FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born around AD 38. He served Roman commander Vespasian in Jerusalem until the city's destruction in AD 70. Josephus personally believed Vespasian to be Israel's promised Messiah. When Vespasian later became emperor of Rome, Josephus served under him as court historian. In AD 93, Josephus finished his work Antiquities of the Jews in which at least three passages specifically confirm portions of Scripture:

But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism.

...convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;...


-- PLINIUS SECUNDUS (Pliny the Younger)

Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Much of his correspondence has survived including a particular letter written circa AD 112 to the Roman emperor Trajan. This letter does not reference Christ directly, but it does establish several beliefs and practices of early Christians. This includes their loyalty to Christ even when it cost them their lives. Pliny's letter states:

In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.

...They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that 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 perform any wicked deed, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to make it good; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.


-- CORNELIUS TACITUS

Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...


-- GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLAS

Suetonius was a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian writing around AD 120 in his work Life of Claudius:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.


-- LUCIAN

Lucian, the Greek satirist, wrote this rather scathing attack in The Death of Peregrine circa AD 170:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed upon 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.


-- THE TALMUD

The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover.

The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8 ).

Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them.


-- SUMMARY

In summary, what can we conclude about the figure of Jesus Christ by only listening to non-Christians of the first centuries? That he was an invented myth? Absolutely not. Just by listening to Jesus' enemies and outsiders, we can put together the following profile on Christ and his influence; the sum of which positively affirms the believability of the Bible and deity of his person:

* Jesus was a wise man and was called the Christ or Messiah, (Josephus)
* Jesus gained many disciples from many nations, (Josephus)
* He healed blind and lame people in Bethsaida and Bethany, (Julian the Apostate)
* He was accused of practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray, (the Talmud)
* Under Herod, and during the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate condemned Christ to die, (Tacitus)
* Christ was crucified on the eve of Passover, (the Talmud)
* His crucifixion was accompanied by three hours of unexplained darkness, (Thallus)
* Christ's disciples, "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;", (Josephus)
* His disciples took to the habit of meeting on a fixed day of the week and took their name "Christians" from him, (Pliny)
* They gave worship to Christ "as to a god", (Pliny)
* They bound themselves over to abstaining from wicked deeds, fraud, theft, adultery, and lying, (Pliny)
* Christians held a contempt for death and were known for a voluntary self-devotion, (Lucian)
* Christians believed themselves all brothers from the moment of their conversion, (Lucian)
* Christians lived after Christ's laws, (Lucian)
* Christians were willingly tortured and even executed for their refusal to deny their belief in the resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)

[Æmeric]

Who are those 42 historians you speak of?

If the authorities in Palestine at the time feared Jesus they could have suppressed any info about him. We have current examples in the 21st century, e.g the Knoxville Massacre which is not recieving any national press coverage & would be unknown by most of those following the case if not for the web. And the Wichita Massacre in the 90s in Kansas. In the era when even the printing press did not exist it would have been much easier to censor the official history.

[Skandi]

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)


This "FAQ", often referred to as the "Historicity of Jesus" FAQ, is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue. In order to do this, one should consider not only these texts, but also the canonical and non-canonical Christian texts, Jewish texts, and archeological evidence. In fact, one can be a completely orthodox Christian, perhaps even a fundamentalist, and agree with virtually everything in this document. The purpose of this document is to partially answer the question, "To what extent are the events described in the New Testament corroborated by contemporary non-Christian texts?" I argue that the answer to this question is "not much"--at the very best, some of the texts I consider support the proposition that Jesus existed and perhaps was executed by the Romans. They do not prove that he performed any miracles, rose from the dead, or did anything else ascribed to him in the New Testament. At worst, ancient texts tell us nothing new, and provide no independent support for the New Testament accounts. The question of whether the Christian sources even need independent confirmation is beyond the purview of this document--I do not argue for or against the accuracy of the New Testament accounts here.

The author goes through a whole list of sources and attempts to look into their authenticity.

[Lutiferre]

Of course atheists who dislike religions can always deny that the historical accounts prove that Jesus existed. Maybe Napoleon Bonaparte never existed (http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed). Maybe it's all a big lie, after all. And maybe someone implanted all the memories of our past in our brain a second ago, and we really are not real persons. Maybe reality doesn't exist. Maybe all that exists is my mind.

But these skeptical thoughts have to stop at some arbitrary point, or if they don't, so they don't. It's arbitrary and can be selected according to desire and bias.

This debate can be had a thousand times, but the debate itself is nothing. It comes down to presuppositions and bias. Neutrality is a myth.

[Nationalitist]

Jesus Lived in India

Holger Kersten: "It is simply of vital importance to find again the path to the sources, to the eternal and central truths of Christ's message, which has been shaken almost beyond recognition by the profane ambitions of more or less secular institutions arrogating to themselves a religious authority. This is an attempt to open a way to a new future, firmly founded in the true spiritual and religious sources of the past".

Thus begins Holger Kersten's book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ's life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa's teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ's life, teachings and crucifixion.

For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.

The first step in Christ's trail after the Crucifixion is found in the Persian scholar F. Mohammed's historical work "Jami-ut-tuwarik" which tells of Christ's arrival in the kingdom of Nisibis, by royal invitation. (Nisibis is today known as Nusaybin in Turkey) . This is reiterated in the Imam Abu Jafar Muhammed's "Tafsi-Ibn-i-Jamir at-tubri." Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed"), whose behaviour, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.

The many Islamic and Hindu historical works recording local history and legends of kings, noblemen and saints of the areas thought to be travelled by Jesus also give evidence of a Christ like man; the Koran, for example, refers to Christ as "Issar". Further east, the Kurdish tribes of Eastern Anatolia have several stories describing Christ's stay in Eastern Turkey after his resurrection. These traditional legends have been ignored by the theological community.

Kersten also suggests that prior to Christ's mission in the Middle East, he may have been exposed to Buddhist teachings in Egypt. After his birth in Bethlehem, his family fled to Egypt to avoid Herod's persecution. Surprisingly some scholars now acknowledge that Buddhist schools probably existed in Alexandria long before the Christian era.

More clues are drawn from the Apocrypha. These are texts said to have been written by the Apostles but which are not officially accepted by the Church. Indeed, the Church regards them as heresy since a substantial amount of the Apocrypha directly contradicts Church dogma and theology. The Apocryphal 'Acts of Thomas', for example, tell how Christ met Thomas several times after the Crucifixion. In fact they tell us how Christ sent Thomas to teach his spirituality in India. This is corroborated by evidence found in the form of stone inscriptions at Fatehpur Sikri, near the Taj Mahal, in Northern India. They include "Agrapha", which are sayings of Christ that don't exist in the mainstream Bible. Their grammatical form is most similar to that of the Apocryphal gospel of Thomas. This is but one example giving credibility to the idea that texts not recognised by the Church hold important clues about Christ's true life and his teachings.

In tracing Christ's movements to India and beyond, Kersten also discovered that many of his teachings, which have been gradually edited out of the modern Bible were originally Eastern in nature. Principles such as karma and re-incarnation, for example, were common knowledge then, and seem to have been reaffirmed by Christ. Imagine the implications that this discovery holds for Western Christianity and its churches, who have kept Christ in their doctrinal top pockets and have constrained the entire Western culture within the narrow teachings of blind faith, organised religion and original sin!

Further clues are cited from The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas which are of Syrian origin and have been dated to the 4th Century AD, or possibly earlier. They are Gnostic Scriptures and despite the evidence indicating their authenticity, they are not given credence by mainstream theologians. In these texts Thomas tells of Christ's appearance in Andrapolis, Paphlagonia (today known as in the extreme north of Anatolia) as a guest of the King of Andrappa. There he met with Thomas who had arrived separately. It is at Andrapolis that Christ entreated Thomas to go to India to begin spreading his teachings. It seems that Christ and Mary then moved along the West coast of Turkey, proof of this could be an old stopping place for travellers called the "Home of Mary", found along the ancient silk route. From here Christ could easily have entered Europe via France. He may have even travelled as far as the British Isles, for in England there is an ancient oak tree called the "Hallowed Tree" which (says local legend) was planted by Christ himself.

In his travels through Persia (today's Iran) Christ became known as Yuz Asaf (leader of the Healed). We know this because a Kashmiri historical document confirms that Isa (the Koranic name for Christ) was in fact also known as Yuz Asaf. The Jami - uf - Tamarik, Volume II, tells that Yuz Asaf visited Masslige, where he attended the grave of Shem, Noah's son. There are various other accounts such as Agha Mustafa's "Awhali Shahaii-i-paras" that tell of Yuz Asaf's travels and teachings all over Persia. It seems that Yuz Asaf blessed Afghanistan and Pakistan with his presence also. There are for example two plains in Eastern Afghanistan near Gazni and Galalabad, bearing the name of the prophet Yuz Asaf. Again in the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Thomas says that he and Christ attended the Court of King Gundafor of Taxila (now Pakistan), in about 47AD, and that eventually both the King and his brother accepted Christ's teachings. Kersten claims that there are more than twenty one historical documents that bear witness to the existence of Jesus in Kashmir, where he was known also as Yuz Asaf and Issa. For example the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains an account of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). It describes Christ's arrival in the Kashmir region of India and his encounter with King Shalivahana, who ruled the Kushan area (39-50AD), and who entertained Christ as a guest for some time.

{Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery.|

The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or "The final resting place of Mary". The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa's (ie Christ's) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.

Following Christ's trail into Kashmir, 40km south of Srinagar, between the villages of Naugam and Nilmge is a meadow called Yuz-Marg (the meadow of Yuz Asaf, ie. Jesus). Then there is the sacred building called Aish Muqam, 60km south east of Srinagar and 12km from Bij Bihara. "Aish" says Kersten is derived from "Issa" and "Muqam" place of rest or repose. Within the Aish Muqam is a sacred relic called the 'Moses Rod' or the 'Jesus Rod', which local legend says, belonged to Moses himself. Christ is said to also have held it, perhaps to confirm his Mosaic heritage. Above the town of Srinagar is a temple known as "The Throne of Solomon", which dates back to at least 1000BC, which King Gopadatta had restored at about the same time as Christ's advent. The restoration was done by a Persian architect who personally left four inscriptions on the side steps of the temple. The third and fourth inscription read: "At this time Yuz Asaf announced his prophetic calling in Year 50 and 4" and "He is Jesus -- Prophet of the Sons of Israel"! Herein lies a powerful confirmation of Kersten's theory. Kersten suggests that Christ may have travelled to the South of India also, finally returning to Kashmir to die at the age of approximately 80 years. Christ's tomb, says Kersten, lies in Srinagar's old town in a building called Rozabal. "Rozabal" is an abbreviation of Rauza Bal, meaning "tomb of a prophet". At the entrance there is an inscription explaining that Yuz Asaf is buried along with another Moslem saint. Both have gravestones which are oriented in North-South direction, according to Moslem tradition. However, through a small opening the true burial chamber can be seen, in which there is the Sarcophagus of Yuz Asaf in East-West (Jewish) orientation!

According to Professor Hassnain, who has studied this tomb, there are carved footprints on the grave stones and when closely examined, carved images of a crucifix and a rosary. The footprints of Yuz Asaf have what appear to be scars represented on both feet, if one assumes that they are crucifixion scars, then their position is consistent with the scars shown in the Turin Shroud (left foot nailed over right). Crucifixion was not practised in Asia, so it is quite possible that they were inflicted elsewhere, such as the Middle East. The tomb is called by some as "Hazrat Issa Sahib" or "Tomb of the Lord Master Jesus". Ancient records acknowledge the existence of the tomb as long ago as 112AD. The Grand Mufti, a prominent Muslim Cleric, himself has confirmed that Hazrat Isa Sahib is indeed the tomb of Yuz Asaf!

Thus Kersten deduces that the tomb of Jesus Christ Himself is in Kashmir!

The implications of Kersten's discovery are monumental. Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten's!

The Synopsis of "Jesus Lived In India" by Holger Kersten was written by Dr Ramesh Manocha & Anna Potts.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

[Mesrine]

There's 9 999 chances out of 10 000 that Jesus existed, no doubt about that. But believing in his divinity, that's another concern. :D

[Lutiferre]

There's 9 999 chances out of 10 000 that Jesus existed, no doubt about that. But believing in his divinity, that's another concern. :D

Exactly. But the atheists are not happy with simply disbelieving in his divinity. No. They want more. They want him to be merely a myth.

Well, excuse me, but I also am not very fond of Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't mean he didn't actually exist.

[Brännvin]

The nearest we get to evidence for Jesus having lived is the anonymously authored and partisan four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for everything else is far more, or could be, hearsay than what they are.

If Jesus had really been a new messenger from God, had he really been the Son of God, some writings of his would have been left behind. He left nothing at all. There are no writings attributed to Jesus. There are no archaeological artefacts. It is impossible to believe that God would have done nothing to make sure that some direct evidence to Jesus existed. All we have is hearsay. Hearsay is not always wrong but it is not very convincing at least to me.

Lutiferre, nothing against your faith, indeed you rely on Kiekergaad's conception of faith (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/11301/kierkegaards_philosophy_of_faith.html) to feed the your faith in Jesus's existence and Christianism not bad at ll very intrigant, as for me I'm not atheist, either.

[Lutiferre]

The nearest we get to evidence for Jesus having lived is the anonymously authored and partisan four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for everything else is far more, or could be, hearsay than what they are.
And these writers record accurate historical information about the time and place of Jesus life and ministry (Galilee, Judea, early first century), information whose source can only be contemporary.

The fact is that the Jews recorded exact historical references -- the best of all the ancient historians -- because they believed that God was trying to teach them something through history. In keeping with this tradition, the writers of the Gospels sought to record accurate historical events surrounding the life of Christ.

For instance, in Luke 2:1, we see that Jesus was born in the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria; and when Caesar Augustus was Emperor. In Luke 3:1, we are given the exact year of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry: “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea; Herod being tetrarch of Galilee; his brother Phillip the tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”

These were the rulers of the surrounding countries of Judea in the first century. These are all true persons and places that may be corroborated in other recorded histories.

There are many examples of how recent archaeological finds have corroborated the people, places and events that are recorded in the Gospel stories.

The difference between the Gospels and the pagan god-man myths is that the Gospels record dates, actual historical events and people. There is real physical evidence for the reliability of the Gospel stories. Recently, there have been inscriptions found about Caiaphas the High Priest and Pontius Pilate that were previously unknown.

In addition to the New Testament, there are volumes of writings by Christians who were eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry or the ministry of the Apostles. They believed Jesus lived, performed miracles, died on a cross and was resurrrected.

In contrast, the pagans viewed their stories as myths. The ancient Greeks did not actually believe that Hercules was a historical person. There is no date assigned to any ancient myth because there were no eyewitnesses who recorded the events. In fact, the recorders of ancient myths do not even pretend to be factual.

You may have read that a statue of Ramses II was found in Egypt. These archaeologists accept the biblical account that this was the Pharoah whom Moses confronted in the story of the Exodus. These archaeologists assign a date to Ramses rule which is corroborated by the chronologies and genealogies given in the Bible.


If Jesus had really been a new messenger from God, had he really been the Son of God, some writings of his would have been left behind. He left nothing at all.
No. Jesus was not an "author". He was the Son of God, who came to found a Church, which he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against (and they haven't, so far), and which would be his body on Earth and in Heaven. He did found a Church, and it is his body on Earth. The Church recorded his earthly life in written record and canonised these writings into what we call the bible.

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by montecarlo http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed)
Whatley's pamphlet (http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/library/doubts-napoleon.html) should be required reading
for all conspiracy-theorists, current and future.

[Brännvin]

Unlike Jesus Christ, of course Napoleon existed :speechless-smiley-0 :thumbs up (by the way, what Napoleon has to do with the topic? just wondering), while the existence of Jesus lack still concrete and archeological evidence outside the Gospels, there is just rumors, the idea or/ilusion of a coming savior Messiah is a Jewish tradition that already existed before of Christ's supposedly existence.

If he existed or not, that's not the point, I am only skeptical of it and I'm not alone, many historians and archeologists on now days also have questioning it..

[Lutiferre]

(by the way, what Napoleon has to do with the topic? just wondering)
If you can't figure that out yourself, any comments I could offer would be a waste. But sure, I'll go ahead and waste a few words: it's about the rigorous methodological application of criteria for historical knowledge.


while the existence of Jesus lack still concrete and archeological evidence outside the Gospels,
The Gospels themselves contain archaeologically verified data. Read this 800 page giant: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Archaeology-James-H-Charlesworth/dp/080284880X


there is just rumors,
Wow, that's a strong argument.

the idea or/ilusion of a coming savior Messiah is a Jewish tradition that already existed before of Christ's supposedly existence.
Yes......................... and? Non-sequitur.


If he existed or not, that's not the point,
No, obviously not, it's not the point, at all, we're talking about something else.. I mean... I mean.. something.


I am only skeptical of it and I'm not alone, many historians and archeologists on now days also have questioning it..
By far most historians and scholars on the historical Jesus believe that Jesus did exist. A strong scientific consensus exists. "Mythical Jesus" is a fringe idea, which I have heard described by mainstream scholars as "an ideologically driven project of methodologically unwarranted revisionism".

[Germanicus]

Unlike Jesus Christ, of course Napoleon existed :speechless-smiley-0 :thumbs up (by the way, what Napoleon has to do with the topic? just wondering), while the existence of Jesus lack still concrete and archeological evidence outside the Gospels, there is just rumors, the idea or/ilusion of a coming savior Messiah is a Jewish tradition that already existed before of Christ's supposedly existence.

If he existed or not, that's not the point, I am only skeptical of it and I'm not alone, many historians and archeologists on now days also have questioning it..

Of course Jesus existed, but up to when he appears when he is 30 years old litte is known of him, or where he went to or who he studied with.
This is fundemental in the history of Christianity.....why no history there?
It is widely known now that there were Baptistic cults around, John the Baptist was believed to have practised this at a cult site near a river, where the ground was hacked out to form a baptistic pool bath.
This area has yet to be properly excavated but from early signs it is very important.
Could Jesus have been an early member of this cult of Baptists?

[Liffrea]

I’m no expert on this subject but could Jesus have been a “composite” figure in the same sense that some believe Pythagoras wasn’t actually a single individual?

I write it only as a suggestion.

Personally I believe a man called Jesus probably did exist and is a figure that can be found in most cultures, a path finder, an enlightened personality, I believe so, son of a God? That’s something else.

[Germanicus]

I’m no expert on this subject but could Jesus have been a “composite” figure in the same sense that some believe Pythagoras wasn’t actually a single individual?

I write it only as a suggestion.

Personally I believe a man called Jesus probably did exist and is a figure that can be found in most cultures, a path finder, an enlightened personality, I believe so, son of a God? That’s something else.

Exactly my thoughts....:)

[Brännvin]

If you can't figure that out yourself, any comments I could offer would be a waste. But sure, I'll go ahead and waste a few words: it's about the rigorous methodological application of criteria for historical knowledge.

I can not see what is wrong with being skeptical about it.




The Gospels themselves contain archaeologically verified data. Read this 800 page giant: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Archaeology-James-H-Charlesworth/dp/080284880X

Interesting but then some questions and doubts will always exist. :coffee: As for the individual Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament, which talk about the life of Jesus), the earliest of them has been dated to have been written about 30 years after the alleged time Jesus died.




By far most historians and scholars on the historical Jesus believe that Jesus did exist. A strong scientific consensus exists. "Mythical Jesus" is a fringe idea, which I have heard described by mainstream scholars as "an ideologically driven project of methodologically unwarranted revisionism".

This is not about revisionism, many historians and archaeologists over some facts argue that Jesus really existed, on another hand, many them questions the accuracy of existence based upon the same facts.

[Lutiferre]

Interesting but then some questions and doubts will always exist. :coffee: As for the individual Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament, which talk about the life of Jesus), the earliest of them has been dated to have been written about 30 years after the alleged time Jesus died.
That dating is based on the presupposition of the inherent supposed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, which is unnecessary. Anywhere between 1 and 30 years is possible. Besides, earlier documents are generally believed to have existed according to the mainstream scholarly position of two-source hypothesis.

[Mercury]

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

There is a huge gap at the heart of the Jesus story. There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive. There is plenty of evidence that people believed that there was a man named Jesus who was killed, but none that he was alive. By that I mean nothing exists from the time of the supposed life of Jesus. No letters exist that mention Jesus the preacher or miracle worker. No Christian letters or diaries, no Jewish ones, no Greek ones, no Roman ones. Nobody wrote about a single aspect of his life while he was living it. Just think for a moment about what the man was supposed to have done. He was supposed to have had meetings with thousands of people. He was supposed to have cured people, even raised a man from the dead. He was supposed to have entered the city of Jerusalem at the head of a triumphal procession and yet nobody wrote anything about it at the time. Not a book, not a diary, not a graffito, not even a sale or return catering order for loaves and fishes. Isn't that just a little hard to believe?

There is not a single physical description of Jesus, not one. Isn't that a little odd? Had the man got no distinguishing features at all?

Granted, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence and the idea that anything that is hard to believe isn't true is not exactly scientific but the lack of evidence is quite alarming. There are many gospels, many more than are accepted in the official church canon, but none of these are contemporary. All are written in the past tense: there was a man named Jesus who died and was returned to life, and this is his story. There are no rough drafts available from the time the authors didn't know the ending.

In addition to non-contemporary stories written by followers of Jesus, man or myth, there are some reports by non-Christians. These are pathetic evidence.

The best non-Christian source is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian. He mentions James as the brother of Jesus (yes, James, the son of the eternal virgin Mary... ) and he appears to call him the brother of Jesus, known as the Christ. That phrase is suspected by some as being a forgery, but I see no reason to doubt it. Earlier in the work of Josephus there is clear evidence of Christian tampering. The Christian apologist scholar Origen, writing a century after the time of Josephus, states clearly that the Jew Josephus does not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. And yet later, after the establishment of the official Roman church the Christian Eusebius produces the only extant copy of the work of Josephus and lo and behold it contains a clear reference to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Of course it is faked. Clumsily. There is a lot of controversy over exactly how much of the passage is faked.

“At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist, for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvellous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.”

Now some of that passage is blatant forgery, totally out of character for Josephus, something a Jew with his beliefs simply would never think, let alone write. On the other hand some of it is more plausible. Remember that Origen was certain that Josephus had not acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, why would he have written that if he meant Josephus had not mentioned Jesus at all? There must have been some reference to Jesus, the big question remains just exactly how much was original Josephus and how much was written by Eusebius or other Christians looking to create pious forgeries to give greater witness to their saviour?

The following is what I believe to have been the core:

“At this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.”

Any websites that report the full Eusebian version of Josephus without mentioning the possibility of forgery should be shunned as totally unreliable, if there were not already enough clues to their bias.

Like all the rest of the non-Christian writers whose writings “prove” the historical existence of Jesus Josephus was not born until after Jesus, man or myth, was safely dead. It is impossible to consider Josephus as a contemporary witness, everything Josephus has relayed must be considered hearsay, it cannot be anything else as he could not have witnessed events before his own birth! Joseph ben Mattathias was born in 37 CE. He was from a privileged Jewish background, he travelled to Rome as a young man and was very impressed with its civilization, he was later forced into a Jewish rebellion against Rome and was captured, in his later life as a Roman citizen he took the name Flavius Josephus. Given his upbringing of orthodox Judaism and his adopted Roman political sympathies he is as likely to be proclaiming Jesus as the Jewish Messiah as Shakespeare would be calling the murderer of a king a working class hero. It is simply incredible for such a man to make such an identification, it goes against everything he believed in.

Because Josephus cannot be a contemporary witness it is not particularly relevant what he says about Jesus. Josephus was writing in Rome about the history of his Jewish people. He was relying on evidence from unnamed sources. There were several Christians around in Rome at the time, it is not inconceivable that Josephus had heard the tales about Jesus and mistook myth for fact. The story of Jesus the man is not that incredible, there was a man named Jesus who preached and stirred up Jews and Greeks and Romans with his preaching. It's not exactly a tale of a six headed dog biting Herod is it? Why should anybody doubt that there was such a man? Or that he was crucified? Or even that he was unjustly crucified? But the fact remains that there is no evidence that there was such a man except from accounts given by people who believed he was the Messiah or historical records that did not appear in any form until a generation after his supposed death. Why would Jews or Romans be bothered to argue about his existence? Whether Jesus was a man or not was never the issue, what mattered to the Jews and Romans who did not accept the new cult was whether he was the son of God, to disprove he was the son of God it was considered better to make the slightly more plausible suggestion that Jesus was just this guy.

Would you consider yourself a good and reliable witness to the historical events that happened before you were born? Of course not. Josephus cannot have known Jesus, he was born at least one year before the death of Jesus in 36 CE. Isn't the ambiguity of the death date of Jesus a little worrying too? The single most important date in the history of life on Earth if you are to believe the hype and they are not even particularly clear about when it was!

Nothing of Christian history was written down in any language, everything was as fluid as the accounts of a football match in a pub. It would not have taken an effort to create a myth around Jesus, it would have taken an effort to prevent it. The earliest Christian writings that have survived are not gospels, they are the work of Saul of Tarsus, who did not become a Christian until after he caused the martyrdom of Stephen and the destruction of the world's first (and at the time only) Christian church, in Jerusalem, in 37 CE. A little later Saul claims he sees a vision of Jesus (who was crucified at least one year before, if he lived at all) and he goes on to become Saint Paul, the leading Christian, and the first author of a Christian work. Isn't that just a little odd? The number one Christian is a man who never met the man and yet the stories say that THOUSANDS of people met and followed Jesus and he had a dozen close disciples. It is difficult to believe that the “true disciples” of Jesus would not have felt they outranked this Johnny-come-lately.

An alternative hypothesis is that there never was a Jesus, he was a mythical figure around which fashionable mythic ideas could be draped. There had to be a Jewish Messiah at some time, it was anticipated in the Scriptures. What would be the name of this Messiah? Naturally he would be The New Joshua, sent by God to free the nation of Israel. For some strange reason Christians always translate Yeshua as Joshua in the Old Testament and in the New Testament it is translated as Jesus. The Galileans of the time used old Hebrew names for their children but spoke Aramaic. The name Yeshua or YAHSHUA means God is Salvation. What other name could the Messiah have?

I find it hard to imagine an imaginary Messiah doing anything else other than that which is ascribed to Jesus. Jesus did nothing that a literate Greek educated Jew could not have scripted. Nothing he is reported to have said or done is out of character for a man following the script laid down by a Hellenized Jew wanting to create a mystery god-man cult. He showed no extraordinary insights about the future, he does not prophesy anything that came to pass, such as, well, for example you might expect him to predict that his enormous number of believers would be gentiles rather than Jews for a start!

Was Jesus a man or a myth? I don't know. I am unconvinced by both arguments. I find the constant Christian assertions that Jesus is as well attested to as any figure in history to be laughable. Nothing was recorded about Jesus the man until he was no longer a man, if he ever had been.




http://mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm

[Neanderthal]

Me cago en el puto Odín, can we stop talking about Jesus?

[Odoacer]

Nothing was recorded about Jesus the man until he was no longer a man, if he ever had been.

He was publically active for THREE YEARS. Why would there be any expectation that there would be a flood of surviving documents written about him while he was alive? The earliest Christian writings date within 20 years of his death, which is hardly a lifetime. Anyway: Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth (http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm).

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."


—Graham Stanton, Cambridge Univ. New Testament Studies chair


Me cago en el puto Odín, can we stop talking about Jesus?

This is in the "Christianity" subforum ...

[Logan]

'Josephus ben Matthias is the best known ancient Jewish historian. He was born in 37 CE, only a few years after Jesus' execution. Josephus was well educated in biblical law and history.'

'Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.'

'First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

'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 among 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.'

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

'Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.'

'But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.'

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

[Frederick]

Me cago en el puto Odín, can we stop talking about Jesus?

This is the Christian section of the Forum.
You belong here as Niggers belong to Europe. ;)

Have you ever seen ME, show up in the heathen forum and troll around there? :P

Even the initial post is aimed to troll.

[Curtis24]

Until the 19th century, there wasn't any archeological evidence that Assyria existed either, just some mentions in the Bible. Or that Bronze Age civilization existed in Greece - just the tales of Homer. Point being, our supposed myths and legends usually have some factual basis.

[Mercury]

This is the Christian section of the Forum.
You belong here as Niggers belong to Europe. ;)

Have you ever seen ME, show up in the heathen forum and troll around there? :P


Europe consists of many secular nations which are tolerant of different races and different religions. You, and other nationalists, represent a fringe element within European society. So you have the right to tell others who belong in Europe?


Even the initial post is aimed to troll.

Read the last paragraph in the original post. The writer came tot he conclusion he didn't know the answer and was agnostic on the issue. He still remains unconvinced by both arguments. As am I, I'm trying to research the issue without being biased. Although I doubt his supernatural powers, but I think that goes without saying.

[Frederick]

@Nobody
A Jesus without supernatural powers is identical to a Jesus who didnt exist. ;)

An atheist, heathen or agostic shouldnt have any right to post in a christian section of a forum. Thats my opinion. Basta.

Any kind of research on the topic of Jesus is pure blasphemy and aimed to make Christians lose their faith.

[Frederick]

@Nobody:
Be sure that god wont forget you to post this article here.
Its a sin that is worse than murder even. ;)

[Loki]

On the historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus), there are mentions by Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius.

[Logan]

One shouldn't argue against everything. It's not so difficult to find an opposing view. The difficulty is being left without anything.

[Mercury]

@Nobody
A Jesus without supernatural powers is identical to a Jesus who didnt exist. ;)

But why does Jesus NEED to have supernatural powers? He still made a gigantic impact on the world without them.

I guess the same kind of applies to the Buddha, he more than likely never existed, but he still had a large impact on the world for the better.




An atheist, heathen or agostic shouldnt have any right to post in a christian section of a forum. Thats my opinion. Basta.

As long as it's done in a respectful manner it should be good. Early Christians were fed to lions, I think we can handle a civil discussion.

[Logan]

That's why Wycliffe was in bother. The Pope knew we all might make our own interpretations.

[Frederick]

That's why Wycliffe was in bother. The Pope knew we all might make our own interpretations.

The pope is send by the satan to corrupt christianity.

[Aces High]

Any kind of research on the topic of Jesus is pure blasphemy and aimed to make Christians lose their faith.

There is no difference between you and some islamic fanatic......and with your retarded mentality we would still be living in an age where we all thought the world was still flat.

[Loki]

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died)

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

What do Christian writings tell us?
The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

How controversial is the existence of Jesus now?
In a recent book, the French philosopher Michel Onfray talks of Jesus as a mere hypothesis, his existence as an idea rather than as a historical figure. About 10 years ago, The Jesus Project was set up in the US; one of its main questions for discussion was that of whether or not Jesus existed. Some authors have even argued that Jesus of Nazareth was doubly non-existent, contending that both Jesus and Nazareth are Christian inventions. It is worth noting, though, that the two mainstream historians who have written most against these hypersceptical arguments are atheists: Maurice Casey (formerly of Nottingham University) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina). They have issued stinging criticisms of the “Jesus-myth” approach, branding it pseudo-scholarship. Nevertheless, a recent survey discovered that 40% of adults in England did not believe that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Is there any archaeological evidence for Jesus?
Part of the popular confusion around the historicity of Jesus may be caused by peculiar archaeological arguments raised in relation to him. Recently there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”.

It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence.

These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.

[Thordis]

Does history prove that Jesus actually existed? Some groups of people say Jesus never existed..when did this start? Is Jesus as Reliable as a fingerprint? Did Jesus prove God's existence?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J8jtxRICoU

Also relevant: Who Is Jesus? Just Who the Bible Says He Is... (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?256623-Who-Is-Jesus-Just-Who-the-Bible-Says-He-Is)