Proof That Jesus Of Nazareth Existed?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Keep that in mind, no matter what the topic is.

It can be.
Especially when we would EXPECT evidence.

That's how we know their are no unicorns.
Or do you believe in unicorns?

That's how we know their are no faeries.
Or do you believe in unicorns?


There is NO historical evidence for Jesus, and much evidence he was a myth.


K.

Im totaly non religouse.

For me its not a case of whether he existed. I do believe that a man by the name of Jesus did exist.

However its the so called "miracles" that he was supposed to have performed that gets me.

I believe its just a case of a story bieng more and more embellished as time has went. One major case of chinese whispers.

get out clause.....

(If you are Chinese, please dont assume that i dont think you can whisper in a clear, easy to understand manner. Im sure you can whisper just fine.)

Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
For me its not a case of whether he existed. I do believe that a man by the name of Jesus did exist.

Why?

Do you believe Krishna existed?
Or Osiris? Bacchus? Aesculapius?

How about Adam and Eve?
Noah? Moses?
Hercules? Odysseus?


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
For me its not a case of whether he existed. I do believe that a man by the name of Jesus did exist.

Why?

Do you believe Krishna existed?
Or Osiris? Bacchus? Aesculapius?

How about Adam and Eve?
Noah? Moses?
Hercules? Odysseus?


K.

I guess im putting faith in the fact that at the creation of the bible. The original christians would have had the good sense to check whether there was such a person. Dont think it would have gotten past the first chapter if there was'nt. lol

But stranger things have happened.

Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
I guess im putting faith in the fact that at the creation of the bible. The original christians would have had the good sense to check whether there was such a person.

The original Hindus would have had the good sense to check whether there was such a person as Krishna, right?

The original Greeks would have had the good sense to check whether there was such a person as Hercules, right?

Shakespeare checked whether Romea and Juliet existed before he wrote his story, right?

See the problem?
You have just assumed that there WAS a Jesus, and they were writing history.

But that's what the argument is ABOUT.
You have just assumed your own conclusion as it's own 'proof'.


G.Mark was written first -
How do you know the author checked?
How do you know the author intended to right history?
You don't.

G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who did not know the area - it's clear he did NOT check anything at all.

The later Gospels COPIED G.Mark while changing some bits - they obviously didn't check anything - they just copied, or made it up.


Secondly -
Please explain WHO would have checked?
When?

Christian writers did not show any knowledge of the Gospel stories until early-mid 2nd century - who could check then?


K.

Right O.K but are'nt you just assuming there was'nt.

You seem to know your religeons, certainly a lot more than i do but what proof is there that he did'nt exist.

All you can really do is take someone elses word for it. Seems to be a pattern amongst religeons. But like God himself, by giving him a name and a character. Have'nt they brought him to life any way. Whether he walked the Earth or not.

As long as people believe in him then he exists, does he not?

Like i've said before i'm non Religeouse so it does'nt make any difference to me, but its an interesting question.

Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
Right O.K but are'nt you just assuming there was'nt.

Wrong.

I presented evidence and argument that argues AGAINST anyone checking anything.

Sadly,
you just ignored all my points, and falsely accused me of assuming.
Disappointing :-(


Perhaps you will address these points eventually :

* G.Mark was written in Rome decades after the events by someone who had never been to Palestine, and makes errors about the geography and the culture. Most of the Gospel is crafted from passages in the Tanakh.

No checking Jesus existed there at all.


* The Synoptics COPIED G.Mark several decades after the events, but made changes here and there to suit their own purposes.

No checking Jesus existed there at all.


* G.John was written very late and has wildly different episodes, and disagrees with the synoptics, and includes events from the 90s as if they happened in Jesus time.

No checking Jesus existed there at all.


By the time the Gospels became known to the wider community in early-mid 2nd century, there was no-one left in Jerusalem to check - all had died or been displaced.


So, WHO do YOU think "check that Jesus existed", Algebra?
Who?

Originally posted by Algebra
You seem to know your religeons, certainly a lot more than i do but what proof is there that he did'nt exist.

What proof is there that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist?
What proof is there that the Krishna does not exist?
What proof is there that the faeries do not exist?
What proof is there that leprechauns do not exist?

See the problem?
You have it BACKWARDS.

It is up to the positive claim to provide evidence.
If YOU believe Jesus existed, then it is up to YOU to cite evidence.

The ONLY subject in which we ever hear this bizarre backwards claim:
"there is no proof he didn't exist"
is Jesus !

No-one ever makes that crazy claim for any other subject.
It's the sacred-cow of our society.
Because there IS NO hard evidence for him existing.

Originally posted by Algebra
All you can really do is take someone elses word for it. Seems to be a pattern amongst religeons.

Do YOU believe the word of Hindus about Krishna?
Do YOU believe the Greek myths about Hercules?
Do YOU believe the Scientologists about Xenu?
Do YOU believe what his followers said about Charles Manson levitating a bus?

Do YOU take THOSE people's word for it Algebra?

Originally posted by Algebra
But like God himself, by giving him a name and a character. Have'nt they brought him to life any way. Whether he walked the Earth or not.
As long as people believe in him then he exists, does he not?

You're preaching.
Please don't do that - we are discussing history.


K.

Ok kapyong. I take everything you say about history bieng taken as fact when its based on a lies and asumptions anyway.

When i say that by giving jesus a name and character, your bringing him in to existance.

How is this preaching? Its a theoretical question. Let me give you an example. "Slim shady" is'nt a real person but he exists anyway. You can by his music and discuss his persona. Despite him bieng created by Marshall Mathers.

Its the same for jesus. Whether he was ever alive or not is irrelavant. He still exists does'nt he? To try and answer this by saying im preaching is a cop out to say the least.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Algebra]

Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
"Slim shady" is'nt a real person

THIS is the part we are talking about - whether Jesus existed as a real physical person in history.

Originally posted by Algebra
but he exists anyway. You can by his music and discuss his persona.

This is the part we are NOT talking about - whether he exists in people's minds.


But for some reason you keep trying to confuse the two different issues.


Yes,
Jesus exists as an idea or myth or fiction.
Just like Hercules or Harry Potter.


No,
Jesus did NOT exist as a physical person in history.


K.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Algebra
"Slim shady" is'nt a real person

THIS is the part we are talking about - whether Jesus existed as a real physical person in history.

Originally posted by Algebra
but he exists anyway. You can by his music and discuss his persona.

This is the part we are NOT talking about - whether he exists in people's minds.


But for some reason you keep trying to confuse the two different issues.


Yes,
Jesus exists as an idea or myth or fiction.
Just like Hercules or Harry Potter.


No,
Jesus did NOT exist as a physical person in history.


K.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by Kapyong]

Then whats the point in arguing. Proving he did'nt exist in real life is pointless. People believe what they believe your just waisting your time.
No amount of trauling through history books is gonna change this fact.

Even if you had incontravertable evidence that he did'nt exist. You cant remove him from peoples minds. So the task is fuetile.

Let me ask you a question. What do you hope to achieve by proving he did'nt exist?



[edit on 29-12-2009 by Algebra]

I believe that the biblical stories of "Jesus", which is not a name but a title meaning "The annointed one", are loosely based on the life and teachings of Esu Immanuel and then highly embelished.

There exists in the "Arckko Volume in the Congressional Library in Washington D.C." a letter or report from Pontius Pilote, who supposedly had Jesus crucified, to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. The man who was preaching to the Judeans was a Galilean who were descended from the Sumarians and were different from the Judeans to the south. If the stories of Jesus are based on Esu Immanuel the "Jesus" was not even jewish, but had blonde hair and a blonde beard and was preaching to and followed by the Judeans. I will quote a bit of the letter below and then link to where you can read more.

To Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome

Nobel Sovereign, Greeting:

"..... Among the various rumors that came to my ears there was one in particular that attracted my attention. A young man It was said had appeared in Galilee preaching with a noble unction a new law in the name of the God that had sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Esu (translated 'Jesus') of Nazareth spoke rather as friend of the Romans than of the Judeans (erroneously translated 'Jews'). One day in passing by the place I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was "Esu Immanuel". This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers with their black beards and tawny complexions.

"..... Never have I read in the works of the philosophers anything that can compare to the maxims of Esu. One of the rebellious Judeans so numerous in Jerusalem, having asked Esu if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, he replied, 'Render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar and unto God the things that are God's.


If indeed the "Jesus" stories are based on Esu Immanuel then historical record of a sort does exist.

Read more here:

abundanthope.net...

Gday.

Originally posted by Algebra
Then whats the point in arguing. Proving he did'nt exist in real life is pointless. People believe what they believe your just waisting your time.
No amount of trauling through history books is gonna change this fact.

Complete and utter RUBBISH.

The vast majority of people DO care what the true facts of history are,
even if you don't.

Originally posted by Algebra
Even if you had incontravertable evidence that he did'nt exist. You cant remove him from peoples minds. So the task is fuetile.

So you will continue to believe in falsehoods even if proven wrong ?!
What an incredible admission!
You DON'T CARE about knowing the truth!

Originally posted by Algebra
Let me ask you a question. What do you hope to achieve by proving he did'nt exist?

I am interested in the true facts of history,
unlike you, sadly.

You ignored the facts and evidence and argument I posted, and just kept right on preaching....



K.

Gday,

Originally posted by AwakeAndAware
There exists in the "Arckko Volume in the Congressional Library in Washington D.C." a letter or report from Pontius Pilote, who supposedly had Jesus crucified, to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome.

Wow.

You think the Archko volume is authentic?
Incredible.

It's a KNOWN FORGERY !

There you have it - the evidence for Jesus is NON-existant, so believers are forced into making FORGERIES - then other Christians fall for it - even long after the FORGERY has been exposed.

Incredible.

It was Goodspeed who showed this was a FORGERY :
www.tertullian.org...


Well, AwakeAndAware, you better change your name to:
"AsleepAndUninformed."


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday.

Originally posted by Algebra
Then whats the point in arguing. Proving he did'nt exist in real life is pointless. People believe what they believe your just waisting your time.
No amount of trauling through history books is gonna change this fact.

Complete and utter RUBBISH.

The vast majority of people DO care what the true facts of history are,
even if you don't.

Originally posted by Algebra
Even if you had incontravertable evidence that he did'nt exist. You cant remove him from peoples minds. So the task is fuetile.

So you will continue to believe in falsehoods even if proven wrong ?!
What an incredible admission!
You DON'T CARE about knowing the truth!

Originally posted by Algebra
Let me ask you a question. What do you hope to achieve by proving he did'nt exist?

I am interested in the true facts of history,
unlike you, sadly.

You ignored the facts and evidence and argument I posted, and just kept right on preaching....



K.

Just because the idea of relentlessly searching through old books sounds so tediouse that i'd rather stab myself in the eye with a spoon.

Dont assume that i dont want to get to the bottom of more relavant and interesting subjects. I could,nt give a damn whether jesus existed or not. It has absolutely no impact on me what so ever.

If this is what gets you hot then fair enough and i see that you avoided my question. What do you hope to achieve by proving he never existed?

Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all agree he existed -- although each religion has a different idea of "what" Jesus was.

There is quite a bit of evidence that historical (secular) events as described in the bible that coincided with Jesus' life actually happened. Much of the Epistles written by some of the Apostles (who were real people) match each other and match other historical documents.

I'm not saying Jesus necessarily was the son of God, but there is evidence that he existed -- at least as a real person.



[edit on 12/31/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Gday,

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all agree he existed -- although each religion has a different idea of "what" Jesus was.

Many people believe he DIDN'T exist too.
Do you think BELIEF proves anything?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
There is quite a bit of evidence that historical (secular) events as described in the bible that coincided with Jesus' life actually happened.

No there isn't.
Which is why you didn't produce any evidence.

There is NO historical evidence of ANY events actually involving Jesus.
None.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Much of the Epistles written by some of the Apostles (who were real people)

No they weren't.
The apostles are merely characters in the STORY.
The same STORY you are claiming is true.

But,
we do NOT have even ONE authentic claim to have met a historical Jesus.

How do YOU explain that, Soylent Green Is People?

That not one single Christian writer ever claimed to have actually met Jesus !
(Apart from the known forgery 2 Peter.)

We do NOT even have ONE 2nd-hand claim from anyone who met anyone who said they met Jesus.

Nor do we have even ONE claim to have met Mary, Joseph, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Martha, Mary...

How do YOU explain that, Soylent Green Is People?
Not ONE Christian ever claimed to meet ANYONE in the stories!

What we have is books written by unknown people, then later CLAIMS about the books. The NT is of unknown authorship (not counting Paul.)

James - forged by someone who never met Jesus.
Jude - forged by someone who never met Jesus.
1,2 Peter - forged by someone who never met Jesus.
1,2,3 John - forged by someone who never met Jesus.

G.Mark - crafted by someone who never met Jesus.
G.Matthew, G.Luke - copied from G.Mark by someone who never met Jesus.
G.John - written very late by someone who never met Jesus.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
match each other and match other historical documents.

Match?
Match what?
What on earth is your argument here?

The NT is NOT "historical documents".
You are playing the old bait and switch game that believers love so much.

You say "historical documents" because they are documents from history. But you pretend the phrase means "accurate ancient history books" when it certainly does not.

The NT is religious mythology, not history.

Which is why you cannot produce a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your faithful beliefs.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm not saying Jesus necessarily was the son of God, but there is evidence that he existed -- at least as a real person.

Really?
Why can't you show us this evidence then?

Please don't pretend the NT is evidence though.
It's no more evidence than the Greek myths are evidence for Hercules.

Nor Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius etc. - long since debunked.

There is NO hard or contemporary evidence for Jesus ever existing



K.

Originally posted by BlackProjects
You basically have hit on ultimate question for mankind...

If that is your "ultimate question" then you aren't asking the right questions. For myself and many others it is all too simple. Jesus probably never existed but if he did and the so-called gospels are any indication then Jesus was suffering from full blown Paranoid Schizophrenia.

So,

No-one can provide any of the alleged "evidence" for Jesus that we keep hearing about?

Instead we get endless preaching, but no facts.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
There is quite a bit of evidence that historical (secular) events as described in the bible that coincided with Jesus' life actually happened.

No there isn't.
Which is why you didn't produce any evidence.

There is NO historical evidence of ANY events actually involving Jesus.
None.

I didn't say anything about events involving Jesus. I said historical Events that coincided with events as described in the bible. One example is the existence of Pontius Pilate, who seems to be a real historical person who appears in the bible and who also appears in other non-christian and historical writings.

The 1st-century AD Jewish historian Josephus had two references to Jesus (as a man/preacher, not as "The Son of God") in his work The Antiquities of the Jews. Many historians find these references are important and possibly genuine because Josephus was writing about Jewish history and NOT Christian history. Historians who have studied Josephus think that his writings were based on independent non-Christian sources.

So, that means a person named Jesus who seems to fit Jesus' "professional" description also appears in a potentially independent account of Jewish history (independent of the Christian view).

I would call that some evidence.

...Which is why you cannot produce a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your faithful beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by my "faithful beliefs". Are you assuming I'm a Christian? I don't think I ever said that I was a Christian.

I'm just talking about history here, not religious beliefs. It seems that there is historical evidence -- even evidence from non-christian sources -- that a man named Jesus existed who preached the word of his God.

Whether or not he was more than just a regular man is beyond history or me to decide. Was he the "Son of God"? Hell if I know -- all I know is that there is evidence that "a man" named Jesus, who was a preacher/teacher, existed around 30 AD.



[edit on 1/3/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Gday,

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I didn't say anything about events involving Jesus.

So, like I said :

There is NO historical evidence of ANY event involving Jesus.
There is NO historical evidence for Jesus.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I said historical Events that coincided with events as described in the bible.

So what?
Many books of legend or fiction include historical things - that does NOT make them historical.

James Bond contains real historical events,
Harry Potter contains real histporical places,
Greek myths contain real historical people.

Does that make Harry Potter, James Bond, or Herules historical?
No.

So,
why do you think it doesfor Jesus ?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The 1st-century AD Jewish historian Josephus had two references to Jesus (as a man/preacher, not as "The Son of God") in his work The Antiquities of the Jews. Many historians find these references are important and possibly genuine because Josephus was writing about Jewish history and NOT Christian history. Historians who have studied Josephus think that his writings were based on independent non-Christian sources.

Rubbish.
Only faithful BELIEVERS do so.

But the VAST majority of real scholars agree the T.F. has been TAMPERED with - it's CORRUPT and can not be trusted.

That's your best "evidence" for Jesus?
A passage CORRUPTED by Christians.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Hell if I know -- all I know is that there is evidence that "a man" named Jesus, who was a preacher/teacher, existed around 30 AD.

All you cited was a passage CORRUPTED by Christians.
Essentially USELESS as evidence.




K.






[edit on 8-1-2010 by Kapyong]