Shroud of Akron
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Messages
- 129
please provide it for me. i am not being sarcastic, i just have never seen any evidence that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
historical proof that jesus existed
- Thread starter Shroud of Akron
- Start date
-
- Tags
- existed historical jesus
http://lordco.virtualave.net/content/tcp/index.shtml
There you go, birth certificate, licence, everything.
There you go, birth certificate, licence, everything.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
We really shouldn't go there yet again...
Perhaps you can give us the historical proof that Josephus existed. Or Socrates, or Mark Anthony. We accept or deny the historical records based on little more than personal preference. I mean even today we are screaming for the "real" Sadaam to please stand up-- and we are buried over in technology.
Flick
Perhaps you can give us the historical proof that Josephus existed. Or Socrates, or Mark Anthony. We accept or deny the historical records based on little more than personal preference. I mean even today we are screaming for the "real" Sadaam to please stand up-- and we are buried over in technology.
Flick
Shroud of Akron
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Messages
- 129
i am not looking to for proof of josephus, socrates, or mark anthony. i am not trying to stir ◊◊◊◊ up, i just wondered if anyone has evidence. it stems from a debate i have been having with my wife, i claim that there is no proof, she claims that there is. no more than a request, and i will not criticize anyone.stamenflicker said:
BRILLIANT!!!!Torment said:
Well, one thing that makes Jesus different from most other figures in history is that his existence is a core belief of a very large group of people, and it is upon what they consider the truth of his words that they have based much of their lives. If it were proven tomorrow that Plato never existed, it wouldn't matter very much, since it is the works attributed to him that are important. However, it if were conclusively proven that there never was a Jesus, and that the New Testament is some sort of historical fraud, then it would have a profound effect on every modern Christian.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,515
Its never going to happen, If it were possible to prove the non existence of anything jesus would be on the list. His existence cannot be disproven, It could only be proven...so lets sit back and wait for the proof, I'm a patient person.....2000 years so far.Sanamas said:
davefoc
Philosopher
I have been interested in this question for awhile and have read through quite a few of the secular historical Jesus sites.
The most extreme position is presented by this guy:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
My own view, after reading this site and several others is that there was an historical Jesus, although even the phrase "historical Jesus" is ambiguous and there is a line of argument that goes something like this: "even if there was an individual that served as the inspiration for Christianity, if the content of the gospels is mostly made up there was no historical Jesus.
My view is that the content of the gospels was mostly made up, they aren't written contemporaneously with the life of Jesus (let me say here just once this is disputed and so is everything else about Jesus, but I'm giving you my take), they contain some stories that are pretty iffy on their face (virgin birth, water into wine, etc.), they are not consistent with each other, reconciling them to historical details is difficult, Paul who seems to be the most contemporaneious writer doesn't corroborate most of the stories and there is no other contemporaneous corroboration.
The best information outside the bible that Jesus existed was in some writings of Josephus. Unfortunately they are scant and what there is, is believed to be entirely planted by some scholars. Some scholars think that just some of the Jesus stuff was planted. I read through some of the arguments one night and decided that I thought the guys that thought only some of it was planted were most likely to be correct, but if I had to choose between all true or all planted I'd pick all planted.
So after that you've got the Ossuary with the James the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus inscription. That's a really good fake if it is one, but there's some really good hoaxers around and they've been around for a long time so an early forgery is also possible and then maybe even if it's not a forgery it may have nothing to do with the Jesus in question.
After that there's an Occam's razor kind of argument. It's just simpler to believe that there was a charismatic, rebellious priest who inspired some folks to tell stories about him than that one or a few folks just started writing about a completelely fictional Jesus and the stories caught on. I find it more likely than not that Paul was writing about a real person. Of course, given the almost complete lack of known contemporaneous writing on Jesus, a person that was far less well known at the time than the biblical accounts would suggest.
Lastly, the consensus amongst secular sbiblical cholars seems to be that he probably did exist, perhaps a far stronger argument than my ramblings about stuff I know so little listed above.
The most extreme position is presented by this guy:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
My own view, after reading this site and several others is that there was an historical Jesus, although even the phrase "historical Jesus" is ambiguous and there is a line of argument that goes something like this: "even if there was an individual that served as the inspiration for Christianity, if the content of the gospels is mostly made up there was no historical Jesus.
My view is that the content of the gospels was mostly made up, they aren't written contemporaneously with the life of Jesus (let me say here just once this is disputed and so is everything else about Jesus, but I'm giving you my take), they contain some stories that are pretty iffy on their face (virgin birth, water into wine, etc.), they are not consistent with each other, reconciling them to historical details is difficult, Paul who seems to be the most contemporaneious writer doesn't corroborate most of the stories and there is no other contemporaneous corroboration.
The best information outside the bible that Jesus existed was in some writings of Josephus. Unfortunately they are scant and what there is, is believed to be entirely planted by some scholars. Some scholars think that just some of the Jesus stuff was planted. I read through some of the arguments one night and decided that I thought the guys that thought only some of it was planted were most likely to be correct, but if I had to choose between all true or all planted I'd pick all planted.
So after that you've got the Ossuary with the James the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus inscription. That's a really good fake if it is one, but there's some really good hoaxers around and they've been around for a long time so an early forgery is also possible and then maybe even if it's not a forgery it may have nothing to do with the Jesus in question.
After that there's an Occam's razor kind of argument. It's just simpler to believe that there was a charismatic, rebellious priest who inspired some folks to tell stories about him than that one or a few folks just started writing about a completelely fictional Jesus and the stories caught on. I find it more likely than not that Paul was writing about a real person. Of course, given the almost complete lack of known contemporaneous writing on Jesus, a person that was far less well known at the time than the biblical accounts would suggest.
Lastly, the consensus amongst secular sbiblical cholars seems to be that he probably did exist, perhaps a far stronger argument than my ramblings about stuff I know so little listed above.
While there's no proof that Jesus existed historically, there is evidence to that effect. It's not dispositive evidence. I would say rather that it is more likely than not that Jesus existed historically, or that there is good reason to believe that Jesus existed historically.
This has been discussed in several older threads, including the "Titulus from Jesus' cross" thread. (I note in passing that the alleged titulus itself is not good evidence, but simply provided an excuse to assess the various arguments during the course of the thread.)
This has been discussed in several older threads, including the "Titulus from Jesus' cross" thread. (I note in passing that the alleged titulus itself is not good evidence, but simply provided an excuse to assess the various arguments during the course of the thread.)
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Well, it's a virtual certainty that there were one or more itinerant preachers with gaggles of followers running around the right area at the right time.
The real question is this: Is there any hard evidence that such a guy articulated, let alone originated, the religious and philosophical ideas in the New Testament?
(Taking it for granted there's no hard evidence of silliness like walking on water that was clearly a later addition).
The real question is this: Is there any hard evidence that such a guy articulated, let alone originated, the religious and philosophical ideas in the New Testament?
(Taking it for granted there's no hard evidence of silliness like walking on water that was clearly a later addition).
The historical documentation for Christ's existence is rather sketchy. He isn't mentioned by in any contempory source which is rather surprising considering the amount of trouble he's supposed to have stirred up. All of the historical accounts (including what went in to make up the New testament) is dated from several decades after his death.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Agammamon said:
Plus there is the assertion that he rose into heaven in front of dozens of witnesses after his resurection. Given the fact that the Romans were literate and very good record keepers one would think that if a criminal that they executed was walking around three days later and then flew up into the sky, more than one account would have been written about it
I assume that the question is whether Jesus existed historically. Whether the "miraculous" aspects of his life are true or not is another question. As an analogy, we can pretty much agree that George Washington existed. There are documents and know many facts about his life are known. There are many "stories and legends" about him that are pretty much known to be not true, i.e. cutting down a cherry tree, etc. So I suggest that we focus on the debate of whether or not Jesus existed then move on from there.
davefoc
Philosopher
LCBOY,
I think you make the situation out to be a little simpler than it is. There are really two questions here:
1. Was there a single individual that was the inspiration for the Biblical stories about Jesus.
2. Were the events of the life of that person close enough to the Biblical Jesus to say that he was the historical Jesus.
As the above posts have indicated the answer to question one at this point in history can probably not be answered with certainty. I, and it looks like several others that have posted, think probably yes, but this guy thinks probably not:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
The answer to the second question depends both on the facts and a personal subjective decision about what constitutes "close enough".
You used the example of George Washington. Yes there are a lot of myths concerning George Washington, but there is no doubt that the major events in his life as historically recorded did actually occur. Suppose on the other hand that there were doubts about whether George Washington was the leader of the continental army and as to whether he actually served as president of the US. Would it still be obvious to you that the historical George Washington existed?
I look forward to reading the summary of the historical evidence that you mentioned. This is also one of my favorite topics.
I think you make the situation out to be a little simpler than it is. There are really two questions here:
1. Was there a single individual that was the inspiration for the Biblical stories about Jesus.
2. Were the events of the life of that person close enough to the Biblical Jesus to say that he was the historical Jesus.
As the above posts have indicated the answer to question one at this point in history can probably not be answered with certainty. I, and it looks like several others that have posted, think probably yes, but this guy thinks probably not:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
The answer to the second question depends both on the facts and a personal subjective decision about what constitutes "close enough".
You used the example of George Washington. Yes there are a lot of myths concerning George Washington, but there is no doubt that the major events in his life as historically recorded did actually occur. Suppose on the other hand that there were doubts about whether George Washington was the leader of the continental army and as to whether he actually served as president of the US. Would it still be obvious to you that the historical George Washington existed?
I look forward to reading the summary of the historical evidence that you mentioned. This is also one of my favorite topics.
aggle_rithm
Unregistered
A
Nyarlathotep said:
This account did not appear in the earliest Gospel, Mark. Matthew and Luke both appear to be elaborations on the Gospel of Mark, using it as a framework and adding new details (for instance, the two Nativity stories).
It depends on whether the doubts had serious merit. Again when it comes to history we will always be missing some information or knowledge. Using GW as an example with the information we have it is clear that he did lead the Continental Army and was President. Any person that make a counter claim would have to produce the followingdavefoc said:
#1 evidence that shows that the knowlwdge the GW was a General and President is false or lacking
or
#2 evidence that someone else led the Continental Army and was the 1st President.
Even if #1 were true that doesn't prove that GW wasn't the leader of the Continental Army and President because there maybe other evidence that shows this or all evidence is lost. Kind of the "if there is no one in the forest and a tree falls is there any noise?"
When the name "JESUS CHRIST" is mentioned it always generates a mulititude of reaction. Many people try to disprove his existence or at least debate that it is possible that he didn't exist. I don't see as many people agruing over the existence of Alexander the Great, or Socrates, or Plato. Is there lots of evidence that these men ever lived?
LCBOY said:
Well, does proving or disproving that these people existed have any effect on the appreciation of their works? Plato can be a hoax created by Franko for all I care, and I will still enjoy his dialogues. I don't need to believe in Plato.