evidence of jesus christ.
#1
is there any and is it reliable, is it true?

this is an open question with room for side lining, but
it has to be serious.
i'l star the ball rolling by stating i think there is evidence, but manufactured evidence, created in order to gain control of the populace in a period in history.
Reply
#2
Are you asking if there's evidence that an itinerant rabbi named Jesus walked the earth?

Or are you asking if there's evidence for the biblical claims about this Jesus?
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Reply
#3
of a specific jesus that was the son of god.
as for a travelling priest named jesus i'd suggest there were a few of those.
Reply
#4
My understanding has always been that, as an individual, he's known to have existed. With at least as much certainty as other historical figures are known to have existed. I mean I couldn't personally direct you to any specific evidence but then I couldn't do that for Julius Caesar either. I assume there are records somewhere.

As for him being the son of God? Well, I don't believe in God, so needless to say I don't believe there is (or even could be) any evidence to suggest that the real live human being who was called Jesus Christ was the son of a non-existent entity.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Reply
#5
Since the reason Mary and Joe were on the road when Jesus was born was a census, surely there are records of his birth -- though I'll guarantee it doesn't say "God" in the father section. And there are other third party accounts around the place that indicate JC's existence as a preacher, though I'm prepared to bet that the turning water into wine trick was just wishful thinking on the part of some jakie who was telling the story to his mates later.

As for being the Son of God, I really don't consider it that important -- it was 2000 years ago, people were not enormously good at scientific explanations for things and deities tended to come into it a lot more than necessary, often at the convenience of priests/rabbis. So yes, the man himself existed and many of the events actually occurred -- though it does seem odd that people today try to scientifically prove/disprove miracles as recorded in those times, when we know full well the effect of Chinese whispers. One of the apostles may well have been a fishmonger with his cart at the ready, right next to his baker mate.

At the time of his life, Jesus wasn't used to control any populace -- he wasn't particularly well-received and neither were his disciples, for a good couple of hundred years. By the time the Romans got properly involved and codified things, in their very selective way, the whole mythology had become Romanised so that he could be officially claimed (Romulus and Remus were born of a virgin too, after all). At the end of the day, people get very hung up on whether he was in fact the third leaf of the holy clover, but seem to ignore the fact that whether he was or wasn't, he had some really quite nice things to say and it can't hurt to apply his lifestyle advice to our own times.

(Anyone want to start with the moneylenders? Big Grin)
It could be worse
Reply
#6
(08-26-2011, 05:14 AM)Leanne Wrote:  At the time of his life, Jesus wasn't used to control any populace -- he wasn't particularly well-received and neither were his disciples, for a good couple of hundred years. By the time the Romans got properly involved and codified things, in their very selective way,
whether it was year nought or 1 or a 100 or 300 years later is irrelevant. the fact is that most of the what we know as the bible was written in order to control the populace.
if no one considered him son of god as being important people would still probably be wiccans or there'd be a lot more of something else. islam may even be something else. the writings about him changed the world. that people thought him god changed the world.

you say he wasn't well received neither were his disciples, how do we know that. i saw a nat geo on jesus and after saying jesus did this and was that and went here and there it used a disclaimer that said "no one really knows and most of what went on is conjecture. (not that nat geo is the bees knees on jc hehe) and not scientific proof what i'm wondering is , is there any imperricale proof?

Reply
#7
The empirical proof that he wasn't as influential/important at the time he was alive is, presumably, the lack of proof that he was. Certainly there are records from that time, as opposed to "records" from several hundred years later. That our "knowledge" of the man is based on those later records is evidence in itself.

Leanne is correct though--the points that were made by him/in his name are basically decent points. You're also correct even though you've actually missed the point. "the writings about him changed the world. that people thought him god changed the world." is correct. But the writings would still have been written even without him, and would still have changed the world, they'd simply have anointed someone else as the deity.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Reply
#8
I always find it funny that Jesus is who people claim to follow and prostrate themselves to, when all doctrine I have encountered was generated by Paul.
Under such circumstances, does evidence matter? What exists is largely ignored or distorted anyway.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#9
And Paul was essentially a politician, the most trustworthy of sources Smile I don't know about you, but I think the last person I'd be holding up as credible would be some bloke who was pretty much trafficking in Christian slaves and then saw a greater profit in creating a religion, so he claimed to be struck down and had visions of someone his people had persecuted and crucified.

Full credit to him, he was way more successful than L. Ron Hubbard, but unfortunately most of his converts were poor. It wasn't until much later that the Church became the most influential institution in the known universe, but since the Bible doesn't mention Paul's death maybe he cryogenically froze himself and is just waiting for the right time to cash in.
It could be worse
Reply
#10
I think I just fell in love with you :Relax:
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#11
No concrete physical evidence that a certain Jesus H. Christ, son of God, existed during that time... just many, many accounts of varying thoroughness, with small details that passably match the time and place the accounts claim Jesus lived in (In other words, the bible text is pretty much its own evidence). To be fair, back in those days if you weren't a king or at least someone loosely associated with a political heavyweight, chances are there'd be no historical evidence of your existence, either. Keep in mind that Jesus only got really famous after he was dead.

Even if we did find evidence of a historical Jesus, would that evidence prove he was God? It wouldn't. That's really the dichotomy of the church's message... on the one hand, we have divine relics and stuff like shroud of turin, but on the other hand the overarching message is that there will never be unquestionable PROOF because that's not how faith works.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#12
(08-26-2011, 07:15 AM)Touchstone Wrote:  "the writings about him changed the world. that people thought him god changed the world." is correct. But the writings would still have been written even without him, and would still have changed the world, they'd simply have anointed someone else as the deity.
which is my point. we have no proof as such that he (the jesus they said was god) for all we know it could have been an invented jesus.
as for the good things that were attributed to him, most of the same sayings have been attributed to many of the gods through the ages.
even Confucius is quoted with many quotes from the bible (he died bc)

my point is; jesus, the god version; was a fictitious person. they can't even say for sure and it seems to be far from the truth "the jesus" or even "A jesus was pitted against "A barabus" etc. so for me we only have proof "the god jesus" didn't exist. i understand it doesn't mean a lot, i'm of the same mind on a personal level but it already seems to be a fairly open discussion.

Reply
#13
(08-26-2011, 11:19 AM)addy Wrote:  No concrete physical evidence that a certain Jesus H. Christ, son of God, existed during that time... just many, many accounts of varying thoroughness, with small details that passably match the time and place the accounts claim Jesus lived in (In other words, the bible text is pretty much its own evidence). To be fair, back in those days if you weren't a king or at least someone loosely associated with a political heavyweight, chances are there'd be no historical evidence of your existence, either. Keep in mind that Jesus only got really famous after he was dead.

Even if we did find evidence of a historical Jesus, would that evidence prove he was God? It wouldn't. That's really the dichotomy of the church's message... on the one hand, we have divine relics and stuff like shroud of turin, but on the other hand the overarching message is that there will never be unquestionable PROOF because that's not how faith works.

The evidence for a historical Jesus, i.e. Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph, exists. Jesus is a Greek word meaning something akin to 'healer' and is more like a title that was universally adopted. Christ is also a title meaning Messiah. He was not born of a virgin (mistranslation that the Catholic church finally owned up to last year) or ascend - he did however continue to heal and teach what could be considered Kabbalah. For the record, according to Deuteronomy death by hanging from a tree (crucifixion) is a curse and would automatically negate a messianic claim. So does birth by a virgin - which is not only not prophecy regarding the messiah, but in direct opposition to Judaic law - virginity is not a blessed state, it is one of incompleteness. According to the TANAKH (Hebrew scriptures the Old Testament is taken from) in order to be Moshiac (Messiah) all prophecy and laws must be fulfilled. He was not God incarnate, or God with skin - denominations who refer to Jesus as God have problems, for lack of desire to go into a long winded theological debate.
Also - and I realize this is erroneous information, but it is a pet peeve of mine - the word Jehovah is NOT a Hebrew name of God and did NOT stem from the Jewish Pietist movement. It is a blatant mistranslation of the Tetragrammaton and literally has no meaning, so congregations who pray to Jehovah are praying to nothing whatsoever.

As far as no records being kept except for kings: Jews kept meticulous records, specifically regarding the Tribe of David, The Kohanim, and The Levites. The Tribe of David because Moshiac is supposed to come directly from his line, The Kohanim, because they were the High Priests and still have special duties in Temple today, and The Levites because they assisted The Kohanim.

PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#14
But again, there's no definitive, brook-no-argument proof that Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph (who is being attributed as Jesus) was a historical, flesh and blood person. Like I said, it's mostly the text, the gospels themselves that we have as proof of his existence... it acts as its own proof, with very few other facts or evidence to bash it against. Subjected to the rigorous scientific standards of hard-boiled skeptics, it's no better than a fairy tale. It's the reason why scholars can't agree and the speculation is still ongoing.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#15
i kind of like this answer i found on the net.
Quote:There is some scholarly debate as to whether Jesus was a real, historical person, with no clear-cut outcome. Some of the evidence against the historicity of Jesus is circumstantial. For example, no first century epistle, even when discussing Christian baptism, ever mentioned the baptism of Jesus, or even John the Baptist. Moreover, neither Paul nor any other first century Christian author expressed any desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, visit Nazareth, or Calvary where Jesus was supposed to have died to save humanity, or to see the tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead. It was as if they knew only a spiritual Jesus, not a historical Jesus. Until Mark's Gospel, written decades later, there is a silence that suggests that mid-first century Christians did not know of the momentous events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He was never mentioned by any contemporary Jewish or pagan writer, even those who could be expected to have written of him.

Nor is there any archaeological evidence to support the existence of Jesus. The one possible clue was an ossuary (bone box) with the inscription, "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus," allegedly found in Egypt and potentially providing circumstantial evidence for Jesus. One limitation on its value as evidence would be that Jesus, James and Joseph were all particularly common first century names, another is that the text was not clear as to whether James was the brother of Jesus or whether Joseph was. However, a committee appointed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) to examine the ossuary declared the inscription to be a forgery. The ossuary was indeed ancient, but the inscription was added in modern times.
and this from wiki.

Josephus (c.37 – 100, also known as Yosef ben Matityahu, Hebrew יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century Jewish historian. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are considered authoritative and provide an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the New Testament. Books 18 to 20 of the Antiquities are the most important in this regard.[2] Josephus was fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

Josephus writes of a Jewish sect led by James the Just, whom he calls the brother of Jesus. Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.

A third passage, the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form summarizes the ministry and death of Jesus; but the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. The most widely held current scholarly opinion is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.[3][4]

In those parts of the Testimonium that are commonly regarded as authentic, Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death; but, other than James, Josephus names none of the founders of the Church such as St. Paul, St.Peter or any of the Twelve Apostles, nor does he refer to basic Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation or the Atonement. This led William Whiston to suggest that Josephus may have been an Ebionite Christian.[5]
i highlighted the relevant part.
Reply
#16
Great post, Billy. Even though there is controversy over the Testimonium Flavianus, most Biblical scholars accept it as valid.

Also, Philo mentioned Jesus' death while writing about Pontius Pilate. Some of the contested portion of Antiquities was quoted by Eusebius, saying Jesus was slain although he was a just (righteous) man.
In Pakistan there is the Mai Mari da Asthan (final resting place of Mother Mary) and in Srinagar in India there is a gravesite called Rozabel (tomb of a prophet). The inner chamber has 2 gravestones. One for Yuz Asaf (Jesus) and one for a 16th century Islamic prophet.

Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies that Jesus lived to be an old man and died during the days of Emperor Trajan.

I'd like to add here that he would have been born during the census, in the spring, not on Dec 25th, which the Catholic church as his birthday in an attempt to convert pagans easier, transitioning Yule and the winter solstice celebrations (which were bloody) into Christmas (Christs Mass).

The controversy over whether or not this man lived may never be settled by our modern standards, which is interesting to me since many other 'failed Messiahs' have been documented through antiquity and no one gives their lives a second glance regarding authenticity. I blame the Council of Nicea and Constantine, who irrevocably decided many things which not only mandated a plethora of doctrine and set the calculation for celebrating Easter (also originally pagan), but also set the relationship of Jesus to God and declared Jesus Divine.

Interestingly, what Jews look for in the Messiah and what Christians look for in the second coming are quite parallel.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#17
All very true and relevant, but I think we're overlooking the most important fact of all, the incontrovertible proof:

Dan Brown wrote a book about him so it must be true.
It could be worse
Reply
#18
(08-30-2011, 09:24 AM)Leanne Wrote:  All very true and relevant, but I think we're overlooking the most important fact of all, the incontrovertible proof:

Dan Brown wrote a book about him so it must be true.

Hysterical

PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#19
I thought this was appropriate and interesting Smile A 'new' ossuary discovery

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/3...test=faces
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Reply
#20
(09-01-2011, 10:04 AM)Aish Wrote:  I thought this was appropriate and interesting Smile A 'new' ossuary discovery

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/3...test=faces
an extremely good read and find, with one glaring fault;
all we have to do is look at dan brown, courtesy of leanne.
he wrote a book about god and other supposed characters. many of which we know existed. he wove fact into fiction.
of course when Rome decided to pay for a book about a fictitious jesus christ, saviour of mankind to be written called the bible, they would have expected the authors to have done their home work. it wouldn't be hard in those times to weave the names of real characters such as the priest into the story. there is probably a lot of facts that are genuine in the bible. but i personly doubt 'the jesus christ' was one of them. he was dan browns rose. the fabled blood line he created. he mixed the fact of the cern hadron collider being at the center of numerous deaths. he used the real names and places.

we know browns stories ar fiction but in three hundred year, his book could be taken literally by some; i two thousand years, who know what people will believe to be true.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!