Is there any historic proof that Jesus existed?

Post Reply New Topic

(Sigh) I know from personal experience as an Aspie that very often, we feel it's my way of the highway. But the fact remains, there are as many opinions on WP as there are members, and so it's more than a little unfair that you expect all the rest of us to fall in line behind you in lock-step agreement. My suggestion is, do what I do - state your opinion, and regard those in disagreement with you with smug condescension.
If not... Well, all I can tell you is not to let the proverbial door hit you on the ass on your way out.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

@ Autinger: What you said has no relation with what I said, whatsoever.

I'm not religious at all. I'm not even baptised. The Bible is not "my" story. I treat is as a document, that's all.

Read my previous posts before making unjustified statements. I never said that Jesus was right or that he did all that he says he has done, only that he existed. Of course, beyond the man, Jesus is also a construct within Christianity. In the same way, George Washington is a construct within American national conscience -- yet no one denies that George Washington existed.

A document in the sense is literature. There is very little factual content in the Bible. Most of it is made up nonsense.

ruveyn

The Old Testament is pure mythology. The New Testament should not be dismissed lightly. It was written relatively close to the fact, and we have no better source on what it describes -- the birth of a then insignificant Jewish sect. Most of it is still made up nonsense, but that only means we should be careful with it. There is some truth to beneath all the inventions.

But it isn't real. It's a copy of various myths starting with the Egyptian god Horus.

The fact that it was inspired by other myths does not mean there is nothing in it.

We have millions of artefacts from the Egyptian times 2000bc.
You would have thought someone as holy as Jesus would have left at least one of his flip flops to someone, he was supposed to have lived 2000 years after the Egyptians, he left nothing, not a bread crumb.

If you go to see Shakespeare's house at Stafford-on-the-Avon, you will see the place filled with furniture of that time period, but actually not of it belonging to the Bard himself. While there is a right wing literary movement trying to prove that Shakespeare was not really Shakespeare, but the Earl of Oxford, few actually believe such nonsense. If Shakespeare could have gotten away leaving little or nothing behind and yet obviously had existed, I see no reason why the same thinking couldn't apply to Christ.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He became important after his death -- way after it. That is also why we have few texts about him.

Also, there is something 10 metre's worth of fragments from the True Cross, dozens of nails, very many thorns from the crown, and a decent number of lances, all attributed to Jesus's life. Obviously, most (or all) of them are fake or reinvented as such, but technically, what you said is untrue.

Finally, you will notice that there is a difference between finding objects from one civilization and from one person -- especially when that person is not a monarch.

The Hebrew scriptures were written in pre-scientific times and many of the sources are from the late bronze age and early iron age. The kind of stories you see in the Hebrew Scriptures are just the kind of stories Bronze Age Dudes would tell around the camp fire.

Here is one from Genesis. How did Jacob get sheep to come out spotted and striped? He whittled wooden sticks to produce striped and spotted wood which he showed to female sheep while they were rutting. It is a good story and has nothing to do with sheep genetics.

ruveyn

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY[/youtube]

No archaeological evidence of the birth.

No supporting historical evidence. Where is the slaughter of the newborns ordered by Herod? Or the census? What historical facts are in the Gospels? It is obviously not the dead rising, or the blind or crippled being healed, or ascending to Heaven, or Jesus repairing an ear of a Roman (where the heck is the Roman version of that event?).

There is only one explanation for the Christian Bible: to undermine Jews, subvert their religion, and form a new branch. Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic at its core, and the New Testament is a reverse-engineered document to try to make a figure named Jesus the Messiah and break away from Judaism. The slaughter of newborns is not found during the history of the period, but is found in the story of Moses being put in a river and floating away. It is rather coincidental that the stories of the Old Testament just happened to be in line with the New Testament, right? And I'm sure it was also coincidental for Jews to be crying for Jesus' head in the story of the Passion

I won't listen to the video because it is long and I am a busy person. Summarize the argument.

Well, what are you expecting? A birth certificate? This is 1st century Judea. You won't find evidence of anyone's birth. We are lucky when we can pin point the year of birth of kings and emperors within a year (death is easier, though). Don't expect tons of evidence about the illegitimate son of a carpenter's wife.


None of this disproves the character of Jesus. The invented nonsense is characteristic of all writings about saintly people (go read on hagiography). Virtually all saints have had incredible stories written about them, yet most of them existed, for all we know.

You believe George Washington existed even if there is no corroborating evidence about the cherry tree story, do you?



Hanhan.

I can give you another, simpler explanation: This man Jesus went on a mystical journey, like many others at the time. He said many things, some strange and mystical (which is mandatory for prophet types), some reasonnable and practical ("love thy neighbour", etc.). He attracted a bunch of disciples. Eventually, he was executed by the Romans (probably crucified), which was far from exceptional at the time. After his death, some other person who looked vaguely like him, or even not at all, said he was Jesus back-from-the-dead. Of course, since he was also very sensible, he hid the body first. The disciples saw it as a miracle and probably believed it was true, since they didn't need Jesus himself, only a Jesus figure. Eventually, for some reason (maybe someone recognized him?), he went away, probably saying that God wanted him back or some other excuse.

Years later, after much over-thinking and recursive retelling, the story is written down. Some parts were improved, some were reinterpreted, some were added. There you are, Gospels.


Why did you say that? We agree about the Old Testament.

It took you how long to write this post? The rest of your response to me doesn't make sense then based on what you just said above.

There was no evidence of a village or synagogue of "Nazareth," despite how hard people are trying to make it happen. That is the gist of it.



It is in the video, which probably lasted less than the time you took to write this post. When you show a video, you post a little comment summarizing the video somewhere near it. The summary of the video was, "no archaeological evidence for the birth." It's not my fault you cannot push the play button as you write to see what my argument is. Don't get condescending with me when you cannot do the basics to respond to my post.

You would find evidence of the town, right? Which they haven't...there was nothing there at the time and place of Jesus' supposed birth.



Yes: BECAUSE WE HAVE PROOF OF GEORGE WASHINGTON'S BIRTH!! ! My video did explain this. This is rather ignorant on your part. Do not respond to posts or try to argue with someone when you did not look at all parts. Your post is not just, "summarize," which is a sensible request for an 11-minute video (I guess, well not really). you tried to make an argument against my post as well.

Oh wait, sorry, I missed this...despite all the "nonsense," simply stating Jesus existed is good enough for you to believe it. There is nothing really true to any of this story, except for the mention of Jesus in a book biased towards his existence which just so happens to coincide with a lot of the Old Testament. There are no Roman records except for maybe one act of plagiarism, but this ONE biased source is good enough for you. What other sources do you have, exactly?

You are really going, "well, yes, that is not true, but..." But what?



The Gospels aren't just the only books in the Bible. I just crafted an argument based on the entire structure of the Bible over ALL books and what its true meaning was, and your argument goes by only 4 books. Are you kidding me? What are trying to accomplish by this, exactly?

It took me around 20 minutes. However, I can't write when I listen to a video. The video is 11 minutes, and to understand it properly, I would probably want to listen to it twice or more, so we are talking at least 30 minutes. I have better things to do.

You are trying to convince me; you do the effort.

Besides, the Youtube video is a Youtube video, not a scientific article. I would not use it as a source. I see no reason to believe it would be more knowledgeable than either of us, even though it is not difficult to be more knowledgeable than I on this issue.


I don't see why we need other sources. Actually, I would be surprised that there be more than those written by Christians. We are talking about the foundation of a minor sect, which, by chance, grew into a major religion. At the time, Roman officials and the like were probably completely indifferent to it, if they knew what was going on at all.

The point is, there is no reason to believe that anyone invented Jesus.


I don't care about the other books of the Bible. They have nothing to do with the discussion. The thread is about the existence of Jesus, not the veracity of the Bible.

It is not an extraordinary claim. There were half-crazed prophets everywhere in the Ancient Era, and most of them ensnared followers from the ranks of philosophers and lunatics. That one of them, named Jesus, created Christianity strikes me as highly plausible.

You seem to answer with the impression that I am Christian and defending Christianity. Nothing is further from the truth. Go back to my posts, and actually read what I said, instead of interpreting what you think I meant.

Then don't post and waste my time repeating it. And you even responded to this, so I guess you got free this time.



I like how you accuse me of being intellectually lazy. You keep keep going around claiming it is all nonsense, yet somehow come to the conclusion that the aspect which should be questioned the most is true.



This is exceedingly frustrating. Maybe you should background check the person doing the video, that would be great. How much work do you want me to do before you just wave your hand of it?



The fact you don't want a corroborating source or can find any reason why you would want to start a new religion which is rather similar to an old religion is incredulous.



Reread that please. Pretty sure we are talking about veracity of something in the Bible. I'm trying to tell how how they crafted it and the books in it (including what happens in the Gospels), but you do not seem to care.

Enrico is right, though. One doesn't have to agree with a particular view to recognize whether an attack on that view is well-reasoned or not. You're the one trying to persuade someone in favor of your views. It's your problem, not his.