Jesus (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

We know King Tut was a real historical person because we found a body.

Have they found Jimmy Hoffa's body yet? Was he real?

 

[prosopis]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Right. Or left some art, scientific writings, or JESUS WAS HERE graffiti maybe...something to let people down the road know that he had their backs.

you think he could have bent the rules and used a camera phone at least.. why wait 2000 years till stupid mortals invent it?

If you'd come todayYou could have reached the whole nationIsrael in 4 BC had no mass communication

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Agreed. People would have written a bunch of books about him, he would have attracted a lot of followers, and probably a religion or something would spring up based on his teachings.Edit: I see other people already jumped all over this one. jomar obviously wishes he had given this one a little more though before hitting "post."

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Agreed. People would have written a bunch of books about him, he would have attracted a lot of followers, and probably a religion or something would spring up based on his teachings.Edit: I see other people already jumped all over this one. jomar obviously wishes he had given this one a little more though before hitting "post."

Actually, no I don't. But carry on with whatever crazy #### you believe because some people wrote books about it many, many years after. I take it you believe is Islam as well? People wrote books about Muhammad too. Therefore, it must be true.

I don't believe in Islam, no, but I am extremely confident that Muhammed existed.That's sort of beside the point, though. If you want to argue that Jesus didn't exist or that Christianity is false, the argument you don't want to use is "If Jesus really rose from the dead, people would have written about it." That's a slow one over the middle.

Perhaps then you can point to where I argued that Jesus didn't exist?Arguing Christianity is false is an exercise in futility. I like to deal with things that can be proved true rather than argue about ridiculous ideas people have that can't be proved false.

I specifically phrased my post the way I did because I knew you weren't just arguing Jesus's existence.

 

[shader]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

 

[shader]

We know King Tut was a real historical person because we found a body.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Agreed. People would have written a bunch of books about him, he would have attracted a lot of followers, and probably a religion or something would spring up based on his teachings.Edit: I see other people already jumped all over this one. jomar obviously wishes he had given this one a little more though before hitting "post."

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

Might be softballs but this sure seems like a pretty big swing and miss. Or can you show where in Paul writings there is these references to a historical Jesus? That is the all the references by Paul to things the historical Jesus did.

 

[Chairshot]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

Take a tip from your Uncle Chairshot, shader: this is the thread where people act like the Bible can't be used as a historical document. No need to thank me, happy to help.

 

[loose circuits]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Agreed. People would have written a bunch of books about him, he would have attracted a lot of followers, and probably a religion or something would spring up based on his teachings.Edit: I see other people already jumped all over this one. jomar obviously wishes he had given this one a little more though before hitting "post."

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

some believe Matthew was written as early as 50 AD, Mark somewhere between 55 AD and 70 AD, while John was written a little bit laterthat wasn't the media of choice back then though. Most news traveled from word of mouth. Hard for us that have grown up in mass media and then the internet to comprehend what they experienced back then

 

[loose circuits]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

Take a tip from your Uncle Chairshot, shader: this is the thread where people act like the Bible can't be used as a historical document. No need to thank me, happy to help.

interested to know what other manuscripts survived this long?I know many of the Roman Govt would have tried to remove Jesus from anything, that's kinda how it worked in the day. They tried to remove any rebels from history

also, why wouldn't the Bible be believed to have made it if what was it 4 or 5000 Greek manuscripts were found that matched fragments written in other languages. It's like by far the most historically accurate document of it's time...

 

[Chaka]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

Take a tip from your Uncle Chairshot, shader: this is the thread where people act like the Bible can't be used as a historical document. No need to thank me, happy to help.

interested to know what other manuscripts survived this long?I know many of the Roman Govt would have tried to remove Jesus from anything, that's kinda how it worked in the day. They tried to remove any rebels from history

also, why wouldn't the Bible be believed to have made it if what was it 4 or 5000 Greek manuscripts were found that matched fragments written in other languages. It's like by far the most historically accurate document of it's time...

There is so much more to this than what you are saying. One thing that is important to note is the bible wasn't initially conceived as a single text, or rather what we now consider to be the bible was comprised of multiple texts that were not written as a single cohesive project. It is a compilation of many different texts many of which cannot be accurately dated and are likely not contemporary of each other. Also many writings that were contemporary with what we now see in the bible were excluded from the finished product.I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

some believe Matthew was written as early as 50 AD, ...

Even 50 AD is not during the time of Jesus. And there is evidence in early writings that there was an early Hebrew gospel written by Matthew. Whether this is the same gospel as the canonical Matthew however is pretty much in doubt, even by conservative Christians. Sadly we don't have this gospel to know.I'm not here trying to disprove a historical Jesus. I'm pretty sure that the ideas that Paul and to a lesser extent Peter, James, and the rest of the followers sold needed to be tied to a once living, breathing person to be relevant to the them rather than abstract ideals. So the best evidence of a historical Jesus to me is that there were Jesus movements that become Christianity at the right time. However, it is still true that Paul, other than mentioning the other apostles (usually defending his own credentials) barely makes any mention of anything even related to a historical Jesus. And the gospels were all written decades after the fact even if Matthew or Thomas or the Q existed around 50AD. And when you slap 2nd and 3rd century tags on the alternative gospels and writings to discredit them, you lose them also.

 

[cstu]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Agreed. People would have written a bunch of books about him, he would have attracted a lot of followers, and probably a religion or something would spring up based on his teachings.Edit: I see other people already jumped all over this one. jomar obviously wishes he had given this one a little more though before hitting "post."

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

You mean the guy who never met Jesus?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...also, why wouldn't the Bible be believed to have made it if what was it 4 or 5000 Greek manuscripts were found that matched fragments written in other languages. It's like by far the most historically accurate document of it's time...

... There is nothing from the New Testament that survives from the first century. Only a few scraps and fragments from the second. A few complete books from the third centuries. And finally the earliest known complete set of the New Testament books in the fourth.1 And all of these, as well as everything into the ten century differ in some way from one another.2 Usually in some non significant manner, and largely not impacting the general theology but that is still nowhere near convincing evidence that we can have any certainty about what was written in the first century. And the Old Testament where we actually have older manuscripts is worst because they show a great diversity in content which suggests that they were still changing right up to point of canonization. 3

Now I have trust that the earliest Christians weren't purposely altering anything and that what we have today is close enough to what was originally intended, but I need to believe this as a statement of faith in either the early Christians and/or God and the Holy Spirit. There is a great quantity of evidence to support this belief, but there is not any real quality.

 

[Raider Nation]

jamny's Jesus thread is gaining on jamny's Favorite Adult Film Star thread.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the existence of so many texts written by different people over a range of time indicates that someone existed. I am not sure what more you expect from someone who lived 2000 years ago and for most of his life was just an unknown child of a carpenter. Not too many video cameras back then.

I expect someone who allegedly had so much impact on the empire to be written about by contemporary scribes of that empire. They recorded the minutiae of the everyday empire business but not someone who caused a stir like this? Unlikely.

Well the impact was somewhat like a snowball going down hill. I don't think any Roman at the time would have expected the empire to follow Jesus' teachings, yet alone it becoming the dominant force in all of Europe 1000 years later. In addition, we do have contemporary historical accounts of Jesus from Josephus and Tacitus.

Jesus' teaching fade away like all of his contemporary want-a-be messiahs if not for Saul. Jesus' followers all grasped and believed his message so well that they ran and hid after his execution. Why was it necessary for Jesus to reappear for the followers that spent much of three years by his side to believe? Isn't it funny that the heirs of those that actually could have witnessed Jesus are not the Christians of the past two thousand years but instead the gentiles in neighboring communities where Jesus is not recorded to have appeared on the Roman highways spread the virus like message that consumed western Europe?

No, I don't think it is funny.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the existence of so many texts written by different people over a range of time indicates that someone existed. I am not sure what more you expect from someone who lived 2000 years ago and for most of his life was just an unknown child of a carpenter. Not too many video cameras back then.

I expect someone who allegedly had so much impact on the empire to be written about by contemporary scribes of that empire. They recorded the minutiae of the everyday empire business but not someone who caused a stir like this? Unlikely.

The Empire was not affected until well after His death. Opposing Him really was only some Jews who held power. Once they managed to have the Prefect execute Him, in their mind the problem is over and done with. They have no reason to write 'against' Him. The Empire, in Rome, would never have known of Him if not for the growth of the Church. Judea was a minor province and Jesus, at the time, would have been one of an ocean full of 'trouble makers'. His influence would have been known until years later- why would you expect one of His enemies at the time to write about Him?

Why was Pilot even in Jerusalem and not comfortably enjoying his waterfront home? The notion that Jesus was executed with the highest form of Roman punishment meant to be gruesome "don't ever go there" deterrent because he upset some Jewish leaders seems pretty laughable. The Romans were spread thin defending their vast empire had thus had zero tolerance for trouble makers like Jesus. If he did as the bible says then Jesus was guilty of more than enough to catch the attention of Roman authorities and more than enough to be hung along side of the two other rebels that day.

The amount of "catching our attention" required to get executed as opposed to written about is quite different in a Roman province.

 

[Ilov80s]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Right. Or left some art, scientific writings, or JESUS WAS HERE graffiti maybe...something to let people down the road know that he had their backs.

you think he could have bent the rules and used a camera phone at least.. why wait 2000 years till stupid mortals invent it?

If you'd come todayYou could have reached the whole nationIsrael in 4 BC had no mass communication

And yet the message has still reached the whole world. That kind of is the definition of a miracle.

 

[mr roboto]

I think the existence of so many texts written by different people over a range of time indicates that someone existed. I am not sure what more you expect from someone who lived 2000 years ago and for most of his life was just an unknown child of a carpenter. Not too many video cameras back then.

I expect someone who allegedly had so much impact on the empire to be written about by contemporary scribes of that empire. They recorded the minutiae of the everyday empire business but not someone who caused a stir like this? Unlikely.

The Empire was not affected until well after His death. Opposing Him really was only some Jews who held power. Once they managed to have the Prefect execute Him, in their mind the problem is over and done with. They have no reason to write 'against' Him. The Empire, in Rome, would never have known of Him if not for the growth of the Church. Judea was a minor province and Jesus, at the time, would have been one of an ocean full of 'trouble makers'. His influence would have been known until years later- why would you expect one of His enemies at the time to write about Him?

Why was Pilot even in Jerusalem and not comfortably enjoying his waterfront home? The notion that Jesus was executed with the highest form of Roman punishment meant to be gruesome "don't ever go there" deterrent because he upset some Jewish leaders seems pretty laughable. The Romans were spread thin defending their vast empire had thus had zero tolerance for trouble makers like Jesus. If he did as the bible says then Jesus was guilty of more than enough to catch the attention of Roman authorities and more than enough to be hung along side of the two other rebels that day.

Here's why I would imagine Pilot would have been there, and why he would have cared enough to show up for this accused blasphemer's trial.It was Passover. This is a major time in the Jewish province that the Romans occupied and controlled. A street preacher and Rabbi who claims to be the Messiah is in Jerusalem. He came into town the week before Passover to much fanfare and fervor. Pilot is there to make sure things are running smoothly. The Jewish leaders come to him and tell him this Jesus guy needs to go. Pilot wants to keep the peace when a large number of the diaspora are all in one place, at one time. The Romans let the Jews have their religion and their own religious rules and laws in and around Jerusalem. It was no real threat, as long as the populace didn't get stirred up.

I honestly think the Christian church posed a much biggest threat toward the middle and end of the first century than the man Jesus did leading up to his arrest and death. The Romans didn't care much at that point (let's say 33 AD). They cared greatly once the Jewish cult knows as 'The Way' grew and spread.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?

I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

Take a tip from your Uncle Chairshot, shader: this is the thread where people act like the Bible can't be used as a historical document. No need to thank me, happy to help.

interested to know what other manuscripts survived this long?I know many of the Roman Govt would have tried to remove Jesus from anything, that's kinda how it worked in the day. They tried to remove any rebels from history

also, why wouldn't the Bible be believed to have made it if what was it 4 or 5000 Greek manuscripts were found that matched fragments written in other languages. It's like by far the most historically accurate document of it's time...

There is so much more to this than what you are saying. One thing that is important to note is the bible wasn't initially conceived as a single text, or rather what we now consider to be the bible was comprised of multiple texts that were not written as a single cohesive project. It is a compilation of many different texts many of which cannot be accurately dated and are likely not contemporary of each other. Also many writings that were contemporary with what we now see in the bible were excluded from the finished product.I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

Most people don't know the truth.

 

[Chairshot]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

What do you feel happened at the Council of Nicaea that would negate the Bible as a historical document?

 

[Chaka]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

What do you feel happened at the Council of Nicaea that would negate the Bible as a historical document?

They cherry picked data and presented the results as fact three centuries after the events occurred.Lots of room for error and bias there.

 

[matuski]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

Eyewitness writings. Pretty much the same reasons we know about anyone that lived 2,000 years ago.

Could you show us a few of these writings?

I have a feeling you've seen them before.

Take a tip from your Uncle Chairshot, shader: this is the thread where people act like the Bible can't be used as a historical document. No need to thank me, happy to help.

I've been asking pretty much my whole life, in heartfelt earnest, for a sliver of actual evidence.. the bible doesnt work as evidence for itself, this is just silly.Inevitably your defensive response is the best I ever get.

 

[cstu]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Right. Or left some art, scientific writings, or JESUS WAS HERE graffiti maybe...something to let people down the road know that he had their backs.

you think he could have bent the rules and used a camera phone at least.. why wait 2000 years till stupid mortals invent it?

If you'd come todayYou could have reached the whole nationIsrael in 4 BC had no mass communication

And yet the message has still reached the whole world. That kind of is the definition of a miracle.

Like Islam

 

[Chairshot]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

What do you feel happened at the Council of Nicaea that would negate the Bible as a historical document?

They cherry picked data and presented the results as fact three centuries after the events occurred.Lots of room for error and bias there.

That's fair enough, but I think that speaks to what is considered divinely inspired scripture and what is not.The books that the Council chose not to include are widely available. Perhaps those books should be included in the Bible's canon, perhaps they shouldn't. Either way, they are historical documents from a very long time ago. Unless there is some reason to believe they are falsified, I don't see why they should be dismissed out of hand in a discussion like this one. There may be books that should be dismissed, but just tossing the whole collection out the door because the Council of Nicaea likely held some bias seems short sighted.

 

[Chairshot]

I've been asking pretty much my whole life, in heartfelt earnest, for a sliver of actual evidence.. the bible doesnt work as evidence for itself, this is just silly.Inevitably your defensive response is the best I ever get.

I admit my response was a little snarky, but it wasn't intended to be offensive. I was just being a little bit of a wise guy, no harm intended - my apologies.I'm not arguing that the Bible should be evidence of itself, in this case (though, as a side point, I don't necessarily agree that it's silly thought). I'm saying that the Bible certainly should be considered as historical evidence that a person named Jesus once walked the earth. It doesn't have to be the only evidence considered, but I see no reason to discard it in this discussion.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think the existence of so many texts written by different people over a range of time indicates that someone existed. I am not sure what more you expect from someone who lived 2000 years ago and for most of his life was just an unknown child of a carpenter. Not too many video cameras back then.

I expect someone who allegedly had so much impact on the empire to be written about by contemporary scribes of that empire. They recorded the minutiae of the everyday empire business but not someone who caused a stir like this? Unlikely.

The Empire was not affected until well after His death. Opposing Him really was only some Jews who held power. Once they managed to have the Prefect execute Him, in their mind the problem is over and done with. They have no reason to write 'against' Him. The Empire, in Rome, would never have known of Him if not for the growth of the Church. Judea was a minor province and Jesus, at the time, would have been one of an ocean full of 'trouble makers'. His influence would have been known until years later- why would you expect one of His enemies at the time to write about Him?

Why was Pilot even in Jerusalem and not comfortably enjoying his waterfront home? The notion that Jesus was executed with the highest form of Roman punishment meant to be gruesome "don't ever go there" deterrent because he upset some Jewish leaders seems pretty laughable. The Romans were spread thin defending their vast empire had thus had zero tolerance for trouble makers like Jesus. If he did as the bible says then Jesus was guilty of more than enough to catch the attention of Roman authorities and more than enough to be hung along side of the two other rebels that day.

The Prefect likely was there to watch over the Passover festivities which would see Jerusalem bulge in population and national fervor. As you said, there was zero tolerance for trouble makers, so an execution of a non-Roman in a minor province of the Empire was not a notable event. Romans simply did not value human life in the way we do today in America and that is even more so the case when talking about a non-Roman. To kill some guy that may or may not be some sort of threat to the stability of the province was not a huge decision to make- you just did it and let the gods sort it out. So, again, why would any of this suggest that His enemies would write about Him?

 

[Chadstroma]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Right. Or left some art, scientific writings, or JESUS WAS HERE graffiti maybe...something to let people down the road know that he had their backs.

you think he could have bent the rules and used a camera phone at least.. why wait 2000 years till stupid mortals invent it?

If you'd come todayYou could have reached the whole nationIsrael in 4 BC had no mass communication

And yet the message has still reached the whole world. That kind of is the definition of a miracle.

Like Islam

So, your position is that a historic Muhammad did not exist?

 

[Chaka]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

What do you feel happened at the Council of Nicaea that would negate the Bible as a historical document?

They cherry picked data and presented the results as fact three centuries after the events occurred.Lots of room for error and bias there.

That's fair enough, but I think that speaks to what is considered divinely inspired scripture and what is not.The books that the Council chose not to include are widely available. Perhaps those books should be included in the Bible's canon, perhaps they shouldn't. Either way, they are historical documents from a very long time ago. Unless there is some reason to believe they are falsified, I don't see why they should be dismissed out of hand in a discussion like this one. There may be books that should be dismissed, but just tossing the whole collection out the door because the Council of Nicaea likely held some bias seems short sighted.

Wait. Wat?I'm not tossing out anything, the Council of Nicaea did the tossing, not me.ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

 

[Chairshot]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

Wait. Wat?I'm not tossing out anything, the Council of Nicaea did the tossing, not me.

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

I guess I made an assumption based on the bolded above that you included yourself in the group that simply doesn't accept the Bible as a historical document containing facts, which seems to be a mistake on my part. I really didn't mean to point a specific finger at you. I do think many people dismiss the Bible completely with these types of historical discussions, which doesn't make sense to me. Whether a person believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, it's still a valid historical document.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

Wait. Wat?I'm not tossing out anything, the Council of Nicaea did the tossing, not me.

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

I guess I made an assumption based on the bolded above that you included yourself in the group that simply doesn't accept the Bible as a historical document containing facts, which seems to be a mistake on my part. I really didn't mean to point a specific finger at you. I do think many people dismiss the Bible completely with these types of historical discussions, which doesn't make sense to me. Whether a person believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, it's still a valid historical document.

What exactly does that mean? Do you consider ancient Egyptian texts as "valid"? Greek texts? Roman texts?

 

[Chairshot]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

Wait. Wat?I'm not tossing out anything, the Council of Nicaea did the tossing, not me.

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

I guess I made an assumption based on the bolded above that you included yourself in the group that simply doesn't accept the Bible as a historical document containing facts, which seems to be a mistake on my part. I really didn't mean to point a specific finger at you. I do think many people dismiss the Bible completely with these types of historical discussions, which doesn't make sense to me. Whether a person believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, it's still a valid historical document.

What exactly does that mean? Do you consider ancient Egyptian texts as "valid"? Greek texts? Roman texts?

Speaking in general terms, unless I had a reason to believe that the text was falsified, why wouldn't I? Especially if all I'm trying to do is collect evidence that a historical figure actually existed. We aren't exactly going to get video evidence of any of these guys. In what other way are we going to find out what happened hundreds or thousands of years ago?What I mean is that the Bible is a legitimate historical document. The men who wrote the Bible were often eyewitnesses to the events they recorded. In other cases they received reports from others and committed those reports to record. In some other cases they recorded oral histories that were possibly hundreds of years old. In all those cases, the records have historical merit and deserve consideration.

I have met people who will dismiss these accounts as invalid simply because they are from the Bible, often because they don't have faith in the Bible as it relates to religion. In a discussion like this, faith in the Bible as a religious document has little bearing - whether the Bible is a legitimate historical document has a large bearing. Some don't make that distinction.

I'm not saying that everyone has to have faith in the Bible as a religious text. I'm really just saying that the Bible has legitimacy as a historical document and that the eyewitness reports of the historical figure Jesus are likewise legitimate and are strong evidence of his existence.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

Might be softballs but this sure seems like a pretty big swing and miss. Or can you show where in Paul writings there is these references to a historical Jesus? That is the all the references by Paul to things the historical Jesus did.

You seriously need me to point out specific references to Jesus in Paul?

I'm not here trying to disprove a historical Jesus. I'm pretty sure that the ideas that Paul and to a lesser extent Peter, James, and the rest of the followers sold needed to be tied to a once living, breathing person to be relevant to the them rather than abstract ideals. So the best evidence of a historical Jesus to me is that there were Jesus movements that become Christianity at the right time. However, it is still true that Paul, other than mentioning the other apostles (usually defending his own credentials) barely makes any mention of anything even related to a historical Jesus.

I don't get what you're saying here. The first paragraph seems to argue that Paul's statements along the lines of "Jesus taught us X, Y, and Z" serve as evidence that somebody named Jesus existed. But then the second paragraph seems to do a 180.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which one of those books was written within a decade or even three of Jesus' execution? Other than possibly Luke, which ones even claim to be historical?

Most of Paul's writings.Why are people offering up such softballs today? Feeling charitable or something?

Might be softballs but this sure seems like a pretty big swing and miss. Or can you show where in Paul writings there is these references to a historical Jesus? That is the all the references by Paul to things the historical Jesus did.

You seriously need me to point out specific references to Jesus in Paul?

I'm not here trying to disprove a historical Jesus. I'm pretty sure that the ideas that Paul and to a lesser extent Peter, James, and the rest of the followers sold needed to be tied to a once living, breathing person to be relevant to the them rather than abstract ideals. So the best evidence of a historical Jesus to me is that there were Jesus movements that become Christianity at the right time. However, it is still true that Paul, other than mentioning the other apostles (usually defending his own credentials) barely makes any mention of anything even related to a historical Jesus.

I don't get what you're saying here. The first paragraph seems to argue that Paul's statements along the lines of "Jesus taught us X, Y, and Z" serve as evidence that somebody named Jesus existed. But then the second paragraph seems to do a 180.

Paul doesn't write about a historical Jesus in the sense that Paul doesn't say Jesus did this or Jesus said that. I may be overstating this, but I can't recall a single passage from Paul along those lines. If there are some they are stray comments. Paul was not about spreading stories about the historical Jesus, but about spreading the message that would keep the churches he founded and/or supported going. So from what survives of Paul's writings, both those pretty much universally attributed to him and those where his authorship is debated there is nothing (or very close to it) about the man Jesus, about the historical Jesus. Paul's writings in and of themselves are not much evidence of the man walking around earlier name Jesus. I believe that the existence of the communities that Paul is writing to is stronger evidence to a historical Jesus. I still think that these communities are mostly popular first and foremost because the whole "it takes a village to" do anything was foreign to these Roman communities and very appealing as it is being introduced by early Christians. Maybe These early get togethers for a meal and fellowship don't really need Jesus to be real either to get started and to spread. Maybe I'm falling into the same trap that I am saying you guys are doing in believing that there should be an embodiment of the ideas that were the basis of these communities (and Paul's writings) but I still think that these communities are stronger evidence, not necessarily convincing evidence for someone looking for a historical Jesus. Oh, references to Jesus and references to a historical Jesus are not one and the same. Paul argues his "spiritual" encounters with Jesus are just as real as those of the "real disciples" in order to establish his credentials. See Jayrok's Jesus Myth people as a group that runs with this idea.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Empire was not affected until well after His death. Opposing Him really was only some Jews who held power. Once they managed to have the Prefect execute Him, in their mind the problem is over and done with. They have no reason to write 'against' Him. The Empire, in Rome, would never have known of Him if not for the growth of the Church. Judea was a minor province and Jesus, at the time, would have been one of an ocean full of 'trouble makers'. His influence would have been known until years later- why would you expect one of His enemies at the time to write about Him?

Why was Pilot even in Jerusalem and not comfortably enjoying his waterfront home? The notion that Jesus was executed with the highest form of Roman punishment meant to be gruesome "don't ever go there" deterrent because he upset some Jewish leaders seems pretty laughable. The Romans were spread thin defending their vast empire had thus had zero tolerance for trouble makers like Jesus. If he did as the bible says then Jesus was guilty of more than enough to catch the attention of Roman authorities and more than enough to be hung along side of the two other rebels that day.

The Prefect likely was there to watch over the Passover festivities which would see Jerusalem bulge in population and national fervor. As you said, there was zero tolerance for trouble makers, so an execution of a non-Roman in a minor province of the Empire was not a notable event. Romans simply did not value human life in the way we do today in America and that is even more so the case when talking about a non-Roman. To kill some guy that may or may not be some sort of threat to the stability of the province was not a huge decision to make- you just did it and let the gods sort it out. So, again, why would any of this suggest that His enemies would write about Him?

I am not suggesting that the Romans would have written much about him, and whatever official record they would have wrote would have likely survived. I'm only arguing against the idea that the Sadducee leadership was a necessary component in Jesus' execution. Something I think you do a reasonably good job of supporting in your reply.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here's why I would imagine Pilot would have been there, and why he would have cared enough to show up for this accused blasphemer's trial.It was Passover. This is a major time in the Jewish province that the Romans occupied and controlled. A street preacher and Rabbi who claims to be the Messiah is in Jerusalem. He came into town the week before Passover to much fanfare and fervor. Pilot is there to make sure things are running smoothly. The Jewish leaders come to him and tell him this Jesus guy needs to go. Pilot wants to keep the peace when a large number of the diaspora are all in one place, at one time. The Romans let the Jews have their religion and their own religious rules and laws in and around Jerusalem. It was no real threat, as long as the populace didn't get stirred up.I honestly think the Christian church posed a much biggest threat toward the middle and end of the first century than the man Jesus did leading up to his arrest and death. The Romans didn't care much at that point (let's say 33 AD). They cared greatly once the Jewish cult knows as 'The Way' grew and spread.

Guys like Jesus routinely showing up and stirring up the passions of the crowd was. Jesus wasn't the first guy crucified for causing trouble at passover. I think it is a stretch to believe that Pilot expected Jesus to be there and care, he just had to be prepared for troublemakers like Jesus. And even at the end of the first century the Roman's were not all that concerned about the Christians. Even the end of the second.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I've decided I will become a Christian as soon as somebody shows me Jesus' long form birth certificate

 

[Chadstroma]

The Empire was not affected until well after His death. Opposing Him really was only some Jews who held power. Once they managed to have the Prefect execute Him, in their mind the problem is over and done with. They have no reason to write 'against' Him. The Empire, in Rome, would never have known of Him if not for the growth of the Church. Judea was a minor province and Jesus, at the time, would have been one of an ocean full of 'trouble makers'. His influence would have been known until years later- why would you expect one of His enemies at the time to write about Him?

Why was Pilot even in Jerusalem and not comfortably enjoying his waterfront home? The notion that Jesus was executed with the highest form of Roman punishment meant to be gruesome "don't ever go there" deterrent because he upset some Jewish leaders seems pretty laughable. The Romans were spread thin defending their vast empire had thus had zero tolerance for trouble makers like Jesus. If he did as the bible says then Jesus was guilty of more than enough to catch the attention of Roman authorities and more than enough to be hung along side of the two other rebels that day.

The Prefect likely was there to watch over the Passover festivities which would see Jerusalem bulge in population and national fervor. As you said, there was zero tolerance for trouble makers, so an execution of a non-Roman in a minor province of the Empire was not a notable event. Romans simply did not value human life in the way we do today in America and that is even more so the case when talking about a non-Roman. To kill some guy that may or may not be some sort of threat to the stability of the province was not a huge decision to make- you just did it and let the gods sort it out. So, again, why would any of this suggest that His enemies would write about Him?

I am not suggesting that the Romans would have written much about him, and whatever official record they would have wrote would have likely survived. I'm only arguing against the idea that the Sadducee leadership was a necessary component in Jesus' execution. Something I think you do a reasonably good job of supporting in your reply.

The only account of the motives of His death say otherwise. I am only pointing out that to the Romans, executing some random guy in a minor province was not a big deal. It would not take much for the local leaders to push for an execution for the Romans to go ahead with it. As long as the person was not a Roman citizen then it was certainly a 'rather be safe than sorry' attitude.

 

[Clinton]

Who believes there was never even a preacher named Jesus during the time described?

7% of American adults according to a recently conducted Rasmussen poll...A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 86% of American Adults believe the person known to history as Jesus Christ walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. Just seven percent (7%) don’t share this belief. The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on April 3-4, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2012/77_believe_jesus_rose_from_the_dead

 

[Chadstroma]

Here's why I would imagine Pilot would have been there, and why he would have cared enough to show up for this accused blasphemer's trial.It was Passover. This is a major time in the Jewish province that the Romans occupied and controlled. A street preacher and Rabbi who claims to be the Messiah is in Jerusalem. He came into town the week before Passover to much fanfare and fervor. Pilot is there to make sure things are running smoothly. The Jewish leaders come to him and tell him this Jesus guy needs to go. Pilot wants to keep the peace when a large number of the diaspora are all in one place, at one time. The Romans let the Jews have their religion and their own religious rules and laws in and around Jerusalem. It was no real threat, as long as the populace didn't get stirred up.I honestly think the Christian church posed a much biggest threat toward the middle and end of the first century than the man Jesus did leading up to his arrest and death. The Romans didn't care much at that point (let's say 33 AD). They cared greatly once the Jewish cult knows as 'The Way' grew and spread.

Guys like Jesus routinely showing up and stirring up the passions of the crowd was. Jesus wasn't the first guy crucified for causing trouble at passover. I think it is a stretch to believe that Pilot expected Jesus to be there and care, he just had to be prepared for troublemakers like Jesus. And even at the end of the first century the Roman's were not all that concerned about the Christians. Even the end of the second.

The Biblical account shows that Pilot had no idea who He was until brought before Him to decide on His fate.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Oh, references to Jesus and references to a historical Jesus are not one and the same. Paul argues his "spiritual" encounters with Jesus are just as real as those of the "real disciples" in order to establish his credentials.

Why would Paul do this if there wasn't actually a man named Jesus who this movement sprung up around?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Guys, it's Pilate. This has been getting on my nerves for three pages now.

 

[jon_mx]

Who believes there was never even a preacher named Jesus during the time described?

7% of American adults according to a recently conducted Rasmussen poll...A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 86% of American Adults believe the person known to history as Jesus Christ walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. Just seven percent (7%) don’t share this belief. The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on April 3-4, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2012/77_believe_jesus_rose_from_the_dead

That 7% represents closer to 70% of posters on this forum.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Guys, it's Pilate. This has been getting on my nerves for three pages now.

yeah, Punchus Pilate - EVERYONE knows that

 

[cstu]

Sounds to me that he existed and that his family thought he was nuts until they realized they could make a living out off of it.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, and particularly the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was once teaching a large crowd near the home of his own family, and when this came to their attention, his family went to see him and "they" (not specified) said that Jesus is "...out of his mind." Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’ -Mark 3:20-21 NRSV And he comes back home, and the crowd gathers again, to the point where they couldn't even eat a meal. Hearing of that, his folks came out [from Nazareth] intending to take him away, saying, "He's gone mad!" -Mark 3:20-21 (Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, 1991) And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." -Mark 3:20-21 New American Standard Bible

 

[jamny]

Jewish historians point to the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, at least in the case of Josephus, it appears that additions were made to his historical account that tried to answer divinity claims. However, it cannot be denied his non-edited accounts described the human Jesus. There are numerous sources - the easiest synopsis is just look up historical Jesus on Wikipedia and they cite numerous claims and counterclaims from Jewish, pagan and Roman sources concerning the historical figure of Jesus. Again, these do not in any way address the divine aspects of his nature - they just point to the existence of the historical figure.

Having looked at wiki, it remains true that I've never seen anything to allow for a definitive claim. I see no concrete evidence.

That's fine, people use different standards for what they consider evidence. I simply directed you there to get an overview of extra-biblical claims for the historical Jesus. That question is one that dogged me for a long time. How did I know that there was even a person upon which the Bible and many Christian belief systems were built on. I guess my standards were just lower because I eventually came to the conclusion that the person existed. As for the claims to divinity, that is another story and resides solely on religious texts and tradition passed down by others. Yes, one could have that a ha moment of personal experience - but in reality that is not what the OP was asking for.

I'm starting to think that's what it's going to take. I've always been a "by the book" type of person and don't think I can ever just reason myself to truly believe. If I can't even believe the man existed, I don't have much hope in finding faith in some kind of divinity.

 

[Neofight]

Here's why I would imagine Pilot would have been there, and why he would have cared enough to show up for this accused blasphemer's trial.

It was Passover. This is a major time in the Jewish province that the Romans occupied and controlled. A street preacher and Rabbi who claims to be the Messiah is in Jerusalem. He came into town the week before Passover to much fanfare and fervor. Pilot is there to make sure things are running smoothly. The Jewish leaders come to him and tell him this Jesus guy needs to go. Pilot wants to keep the peace when a large number of the diaspora are all in one place, at one time. The Romans let the Jews have their religion and their own religious rules and laws in and around Jerusalem. It was no real threat, as long as the populace didn't get stirred up.

I honestly think the Christian church posed a much biggest threat toward the middle and end of the first century than the man Jesus did leading up to his arrest and death. The Romans didn't care much at that point (let's say 33 AD). They cared greatly once the Jewish cult knows as 'The Way' grew and spread.

Guys like Jesus routinely showing up and stirring up the passions of the crowd was. Jesus wasn't the first guy crucified for causing trouble at passover. I think it is a stretch to believe that Pilot expected Jesus to be there and care, he just had to be prepared for troublemakers like Jesus. And even at the end of the first century the Roman's were not all that concerned about the Christians. Even the end of the second.

The Biblical account shows that Pilot had no idea who He was until brought before Him to decide on His fate.

Think You got carried away there.

 

[Sea Duck]

It's weird to see certain posters defend the existence of Jesus with the same kind of reasoning that they oppose on virtually every other topic.

 

[jon_mx]

Guys, it's Pilate. This has been getting on my nerves for three pages now.

yeah, Punchus Pilate - EVERYONE knows that

IMHO, Erik Estrada greatest role.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You'd think a guy who raised people from the dead, and who himself reappeared after dying, would've received a little more press at the time.

Blame the liberal media.