Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: windword
earliest fragments that we have are dated centuries after the supposed facts.

Your information is out of date.
The most recent fragment of the Gospel of Luke discovered has been dated to the year 90.

Care to provide evidence for your claim?

Because here's clear evidence that counters your statement:

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38. Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands P52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range such that "any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third century.

Source

And that's just quick-Googled-low-hanging fruit.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a fantastic point. Studying the mythology arising around L. Ron could be a good case study in figuring out how the mythology arose around Jesus Christ.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a fantastic point. Studying the mythology arising around L. Ron could be a good case study in figuring out how the mythology arose around Jesus Christ.

It is literally astounding. Not the Hubbard story per se, but the cultic nature of the human psyche. Look at any recent "religions" ... Mormonism, for example. Heck, I'll even be fair about it and throw in Wicca.

It just seems like we are susceptible to a powerful personality that tells us what the world is like and offers us a way to cope.

Let me know what you come up with if you dig into Hubbard and Scientology.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well it's not just L. Ron. Look at how cult leaders are viewed by their membership. You get a charismatic individual who is nice and helps the membership through tough times. Eventually they begin to respect him, idolize him, and at times do anything for him even as his ideology takes a sharp turn down crazy lane.

It's called hero worship.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Your information is out of date.
The most recent fragment of the Gospel of Luke discovered has been dated to the year 90.

Can you link us to this discovery/information? There's a great deal of speculation that Plutarch wrote the Book of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles. www.thenazareneway.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well it's not just L. Ron. Look at how cult leaders are viewed by their membership. You get a charismatic individual who is nice and helps the membership through tough times. Eventually they begin to respect him, idolize him, and at times do anything for him even as his ideology takes a sharp turn down crazy lane.

It's called hero worship.

I hear you.

And how I wish hero worship were only a feature of religion ... sadly, it shows up in politics, and every area of our lives.

There's the leader, the followers ... and then those of us who go back and forth between the two positions, intimately aware of the illusory nature of both.

Hmm. I think I need another cup of coffee .. that's way too philosophical for this early in the day.

Best, Krazy ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can study it in history as well. Look at our history classes. Most of the information taught about the actions of our American "heroes" aren't true. We've already talked about George Washington and some of the myths associated with him.

If you want an extreme example. Look at Christopher Columbus. He was a slave trader. He didn't discover the new world as many europeans, africans, and asians (as well as the natives already living there) already had found it before him. He wasn't a scientist trying to prove the world is round; very few people thought the world was flat even in those times. Heck even the story about his crew being ready to mutiny just before seeing land is a complete lie. He was just some asshole who saw some people he could enslave and did. Then afterwards our history books whitewashed his crimes and hyped him up to be the discoverer of the new world while also throwing in a few underdog accounts (like the mutiny story or the story about proving the world was round) to make us sympathize with him.

PS. WHY OH WHY can we not have a history forum?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want a good examples look at the Alamo and the Daniel Boone accounts.

The myths, legends, and then there are the realities.

After reading through this thread I'm left with a nagging question. When looking at "evidence" presented or refuted there seems to be a black or white acceptance or denial of it. Something that should be considered is the track record of the writer being discussed. If they are considered solid why throw out a section of their writings? I have seen posters in one sentence refute an authors reference in one post and use that same authors other writings a couple posts later to prove a point as if that section should be valid and taken as true. I'm aware of the dispute of some of the references as forgeries or embellishments. You have historians writing writing about the civil war that people have no issue believing yet they weren't there they simply rely on the records they have available I fail to see the difference. But that's just my humble opinion of course.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah good point. I know about the lies regarding that event as well. It's pretty much the reverse of what Texans accuse Mexicans of doing today with Mexican immigration. A bunch of American immigrants immigrated to Texas and refused to adopt to Mexican culture then went to war with the Mexican government when the government tried to get them to change. Much of the failure to adapt had to do with owning slaves and the Mexican government had abolished slavery.

Causes of the Texas Revolution

Looking at the past, America has been the bad guy in many of the wars that we've fought (many of which aren't even mentioned in history books like Woodrow Wilson's war with Russia), but the ones that are get glazed over to make us look like liberators.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those two stories stand out to me because I can remember them from high school history books then later they changed. My father remarked on the Alamo especially because when he was a kid his history books painted another picture.

I think they are good examples to go by when discussing something like handed down tales of the Bible because of the amount of time it took for tall tales to become even taller even with record keeping. People have tendencies to embellish their heroes that is just a fact.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Care to provide evidence for your claim?

Sure thing!
Linky! It's pretty new info.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Your information is out of date.
The most recent fragment of the Gospel of Luke discovered has been dated to the year 90.

Sure thing.
Linky

It's new info, and of course might end up being incorrect, as with most things.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If you forget everything you learned in history classes to erase any confirmation biases then start your history education over again, you will find there is much about what we think we know about history that is VERY wrong. And that is just the near past. Jesus lived 2000 years ago. Accounts written after he was already passed away just don't cut it knowing these things.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent


Sure thing.
Linky

It's new info, and of course might end up being incorrect, as with most things.

Very interesting article, although the secrecy and the fact that after 3 years it hasn't been released yet makes me wonder why....

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: StalkerSolent


Sure thing.
Linky

It's new info, and of course might end up being incorrect, as with most things.

Very interesting article, although the secrecy and the fact that after 3 years it hasn't been released yet makes me wonder why....

I got the impression that they had a set date they were supposed to make the "big reveal" and we wouldn't have heard anything about it at all if there weren't leaks. I'm guessing they want to be able to talk about all the discoveries they made at the same time, rather than being like "Sorry, guys, work in progress."
The full announcement is supposed to be made sometime this year, so I guess we'll here more soon. Hopefully.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Well, gloryosky! I learned something new today. I had indeed missed that article of January 2015.

Nice find.

Here's what may be the kicker though:

The business and personal letters sometimes have dates on them, he said. When the glue was dissolved, the researchers dated the first-century gospel in part by analyzing the other documents found in the same mask.

That sounds good and reasonable ... there's a dated letter in the same mask? Awesome ... but then ...

Soon after the 2012 leak, speculation surrounded the methods that the scholars used to figure out the gospel's age.

Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. With the nondisclosure agreement in place, Evans said that he can't say much more about the text's date until the papyrus is published.

I guess we'll see what the final number is. I'll also be interested to see the other documents recovered!

Mark is generally agreed upon as the oldest gospel ... but one wonders if they might actually uncover "Q" with this method.

Ah well. I sit corrected, probably. Good find!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Nice find.

Thanks I think I actually ran into it on ATS, but it may have been someplace else.

I guess we'll see what the final number is. I'll also be interested to see the other documents recovered!

Yup! Hopefully there will be other goodies. I really want to hear about why they found the Gospel of Mark with a mummy, of all places.

Mark is generally agreed upon as the oldest gospel ... but one wonders if they might actually uncover "Q" with this method.

Yup. It's also possible, of course, that "Q" doesn't exist, and it was Mark that got the ball rolling.

Ah well. I sit corrected, probably. Good find!

Thanks again It might be me who sits corrected when all the data comes out, but they sound pretty confident right now.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You can say anything you want to about Bart Ehrman and I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he is certainly not just "some guy" on Youtube but is rather a well-known ACADEMIC New Testament scholar that has published multiple books on the subject.

So how come nobody has brought up the fact Ehrman consistently lambasts mythicists and has stated in no uncertain terms that a historical Jesus existed?