Originally posted by uberarcanist
BlackGuard, I think you should substitute "proof" with "evidence". One can't even "prove" Julius Caesar existed. Well, think about this. Do you really, really, really think it's credible that anyone could have believed the story of Jesus only about a century after his alleged death if he really didn't exist?

If you say yes, you're just being dishonest.

I just love it when someone mentions Julius Caesar in the same context as evidence for christ. First off the evidence for the existence of Caesar far outweighs the evidence for christ. With christ we have the NT and about 24 lines from non-contempory historians etc (which are very vague and debateable) - Thats IT!!!.
Caesar however, we have multiple contempory accounts, we have treaties and other documents written by the fair hand of Caesar himself, we have statues of Caesar, we have other countries rulers mentioning Caesar. Etc etc

So using this body of evidence I can conclude that the likelyhood of a person named Julius Caesar ruling Rome over 2000 years ago is true - which cannot be said for the jesus story.


G

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
In every Christian post claiming there is physical evidence there is also an absence of any support for that claim. Not one of them point to an actual piece of proof.

Well, I'm not a Christian (I couldn't tell if you were talking about me or not).

There's no proof, yeah, but there's evidence like you said. It's not great evidence--written decades later and with hard-to-believe things mixed in. But it's evidence.

But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast, and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.

If there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed. You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.

Originally posted by shihulud
So using this body of evidence I can conclude that the likelyhood of a person named Julius Caesar ruling Rome over 2000 years ago is true - which cannot be said for the jesus story.

Yeah, it's not a good comparison, though.

Caesar was a famous ruler in an advanced society.

Jesus would've been a nobody, just some teacher, teaching in a highly illiterate place and really only heard of by the Jews until he died.

Originally posted by whiterabbitThere's no proof, yeah, but there's evidence like you said. It's not great evidence--written decades later and with hard-to-believe things mixed in. But it's evidence.

But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast, and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.

If there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed. You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.

I don't hold as high a level of critical thinking skills to people in general, even now, let alone then. It is not hard for me to believe that large numbers of people would not bother to question the veracity of what they were told, and people always love a bandwagon. Jesus may well be a real person, I have said I am a supporter of that theory. My only point is he may not have been, and that I think that position is likely the more rational conclusion based on the evidence.

did jesus exist? maybe, sure Josephus did mention him, but this was years after jesus was crucified. If jesus did exist, then he most likely would have been exicuted as a heritic because of his denoucement of the jewish way of life at the time. back then most of the middle east was ruled by the jews (under the roman thumb of course), and like john the baptist who spoke out against the ruling class which was causing most people to live in poverty, jesus most likely picked up where john left off... defending the poor (...blessed are the poor...) I really don't think that the romans cared too much for the stories about jesus, becuse the romans never enforced thier religon upon the countries that they conqured, until constatine made the bible out of old stories (both judaism, and stories of the christ) that were gaining in popularity at his time. if you look at old roman paganism you will see the adoption of many other religons, i.e. greek, celtic, germanic, etc... but either way if he existed or not as time passes, people will always exsagerate a story because after all, if the legend is more popular than the truth... print the legand.

shihulud, you make a good point there is evidance that confirm the existance of ceaser, such as documants in his own hand. we have yet to find any testament writen by jesus or anything writen by jesus for that matter. ceaser had statues and building made for him in his OWN time, and jesus had stories told after his supposed death. they where however writen down about 60 years after his death, but most of these stories never made it into the bible. the book of thomas, the book of mary, the book of enoc, and the book of jubilee. just to name a few.

Originally posted by Gazrok
It is true, that there seems to be little documentation, other than the Bible, Torah, and the Koran... However, it's enough for me to think that there was a man named Jesus (or more properly, called Jesus)

There were actually several named Jesus that lived, however, none of them fit the bibical description of Jesus Christ.

It is interesting to note that there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived, and one would think that some of the things he was said to have done would have made it into the histories. Example: Turning over the money changers tables in the temple. The earthquake at the crucifixion. Raising Lazarus from the dead. His own rising from the dead. The dead that walked the streets after his resurrection. These things should have made it into history and they didn't. And I didn't even touch on the miracles he supposedly performed.

Here is an interesting bit of reading to think on.

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

5. He performed miracles.

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

7. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

8. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

9. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

10. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ
.
11. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

12. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

13. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

For those who do not know...

Mithra: is an important deity or divine concept (Yazata) in Zoroastrianism and later Iranian history and culture.

Mithra is descended, together with the Vedic deity Mitra, from a common proto-Indo-Iranian entity *mitra "treaty, bond".

Makes for interesting reading and really shines a light onto what is being taught.

Originally posted by d60944

Scholars agree the "archons of this aeon" refer to spiritual beings.

What scholars?

Well, opinion is divided, then and now - e.g. Origen interpreted the passage as referring to heavenly rulers (de Principiis 3.3), while Tertullian interpreted the passage as referring to earthly rulers (Against Marcion 5.6.)

Currently, the majority favours the spiritual, or demonic theory :
"A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul Ellingworth and Howard Hatton, p. 46.)

Of course, it was wrong of me to say "scholars agree" as if 100% agree :-)
As if that ever happens.

Specifically, here is a list that was compiled over at IIDB -

Scholars that support the spiritual/demonic interpretation :
1. Conzelmann 2. W. J. P. Boyd 3. C. K. Barrett4. Paula Fredriksen5. Jean Hering 6. Delling 7. S. G. F. Brandon. 8. Paul Ellingworth 9. Thackeray 10. Schmiedel. 11. J. H. Charlesworth 12. Earl Doherty.

Scholars that support the earthly interpretation :
1. M. Pesce 2. A. W. Carr 3. T. Ling 4. Archibald Robertson 5. Alfred Plummer 6. William Orr 7. James Walther 8. Gene Miller 9. Leon Morris.


It's not as close as I had remembered.

Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
There's simply more reason and evidence to think Jesus was a real historical man than there is to think he was a myth.

So you keep SAYING.
But that's just your belief, and you keep repeating it.

But,
there isn't actually any hard evidence for Jesus - you haven't cited any.

And, you reasons boil down to "others believe it, so I believe it".

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I mean, cults fool people all the time with wacky made-up stories--but they don't start huge region-wide movements that begin running rampant through the local population.

Nonsense.
Don't you know ANYTHING about humankind?
It was common then, and it is common now -

Scientology started only a few decades ago, and now has millions of followers who all believe in wacky stories about Xenu.

History is full of bizarre religions - the assassins, the bacchic revels, the mysteries....

On and on it goes - people believing all sorts of stuff.

Jesus is no different to any other belief, except in one respect - it's the current leading religion in our cultures.

If our cultures hadn't worshipped this guy for nearly 2000 years, no-one would even know who Jesus was.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
To think that that could've happened without there being a real founder to base it on just doesn't make logical sense.

You appear to be not listening to what I say at all.

There WAS a real founder - Paul.
There WAS a real writer of the Gospels - "Mark".
There were OTHERS who wrote letters.

REAL people who founded the religion based on earlier ideas and themes.

Stop saying my argument claims "there was no real founder".
READ my words -
There WAS a real founder - Paul, based on earlier works, and followed up by "Mark" and others.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Right... But we know for a fact the Christian movement sprang up in the first half of the first century. We know that those Christians, in their lifetimes, were persecuted and martyred. We know that the movement became large and notable.

.
So what?
But we know for a fact the Scientology movement sprang up in the first half of the first century. We know that those Scientologists in their lifetimes, were persecuted and martyred. We know that the movement became large and notable.
SO what?

Don't you get it?
Your entire argument amounts to :

People believed it, therefore it must be true.

But, you completely fail to realise that your argument FAILS when applied to other religions.

According to your argument any religions which grows quickly and is believed must be true.

Your argument claims Scientology is true,
your argument claims Islam is true,
your argument claims ancient Mithraism is true,
your argument claims just about every old religion is true...


It's a nonsense argument.

If you come up with anything new, I may answer.
But continuous repititon of :
"all these people believed it, therefore it must be true"
is just getting SO boring.


Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But what's more swaying than that, is the circumstancial evidence. Like I've said a bunch of times now, we do know that the Christian movement sprang up around the time it did, gained a lot of members very fast,

Really?
How quickly?
Where are you figures please?
Just HOW fast did it grow?
How does it compare to say, Islam?
Please show your specific figures.

We all know you won't, as you have none.
You just repeated what some Christians told you.

In fact -
Christianity grew quite slowly at first.
Of course, Christian STORIES say it grew like wild-fire.
(Gee, what a surprise.)

But the facts do not match the Christian stories.
(Gee, what a surprise.)

Originally posted by whiterabbit
and people started getting killed for it. This happened quickly.

Here we go again.
It's clear whiterabbit does not listen to me, and never learns when he is shown wrong - but here are the facts, again, for lurkers :

1. the tales of Christian martyrs are LEGENDS from long afterwards, not history

2. people die for false beliefs all the time - so what?

whiterabbit just denies these facts.

Islamic suicide bombers DIE for their BELIEFS all the time.

Therefore,
according to whiterabbit's argument,
Islamic suicide bombers beliefs are TRUE!.

whiterabbit supports Islamic suicide bombers.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
if there hadn't been a real historical Jesus, a teacher or a healer or whatever, I just don't think they could've convinced that many people that quickly to get themselves killed.

Same old same old.

whiterabbit -
How many?
How quickly?
Show your figures please.

And, as I have said dozens of times, and as you have ignored just as many -

The martyrs are LEGENDS, later STORIES.

And, people die for false beliefs all the time.

Therefore,
according to your argument,
Islamic suicide bombers beliefs are TRUE!.

You supports Islamic suicide bombers.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You can always sucker a few people with a cult, but I don't think they could've convinced that many lifelong Jews to just start following some new-fangled teacher named Jesus if he wasn't real.

Yup,
that's your belief.
It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your argument claims SCientology is true.
It grew fast, members died for their beliefs.

Therefore, whiterabbit believes in Xenu.


Iasion


[edit on 6-12-2007 by Iasion]

Originally posted by effin_a_hole
shihulud, you make a good point there is evidance that confirm the existance of ceaser, such as documants in his own hand.

Mate,
he is one of the most famous people EVER.
How much effort does it take to get his name right ?

He was not a person who ceases.
His name means "baldy".

Caesar.


Iasion

One thing that has always intrigued me about this argument, and by the way i'm not christian or religious but certainly interested in spirituality.

If Jesus didn't exist then why did the majority of his followers who were around at the time allow themselves to be martyred, executed and killed if they didn't believe in the truth of Jesus Christ?

I'm not getting into the argument about whether he was reserructed or not but the fact is that something extroadinary must have occurred in the belief systems of the people closest to him to have led themselves to die in his name and cause.

Imagine if you had witnessed that first hand, nothing could be as powerful and certianly the idea of physical death would have been put into perspective.

One could argue that they were fanatics like some of the modern day terrorists who are so keen to kill themselves in the name of their religion but these people weren't encouraged (as far as i know) to do this yet they died acknowledging the miracle of Christ.

Hi I believe I posted on this thread a long time ago, I am an active worshipping Christian, so therefore obviously believe that Jesus existed, that he died for me and rose again so I could obtain his inheritance. However I will not be called close minded either so I have been "listening" to the arguments for and against the existence of Jesus, obviously been a believer I don't consider facts when I'm thinking about whether or not Jesus existed, I believe he did and that is that, but I actually came to faith through considering the facts. So I have a few things to add to this argument. First off Iasion has made some good points but the somewhat abusive tones that some of his later posts took on has made me question his IQ surely anyone who can argue that logically doesn't need to stoop to the realms of petty name calling. However now that's out of the way onto what I have to offer. Starting with Caesar it was mentioned earlier that many documents were signed in his name, and I'm sure they were but are we talking about Julius Caesar, or Augustus Caesar or etc, from my own studies I know Julius Caesar as a prominent historical figure to some stories and poems written by his supposed contemporaries, and a book of which there are only a few (and none complete) copies in existence, and these were written by Romans, now there are many more copies of original documents recording Jesus existence, strangely enough these were written by Christians. So here is my argument if you say there is no proof Jesus Christ existed, I say;
There is no proof Julius Caesar existed...."Oh, illogical fundie" you're probably thinking...but go with me on this one(I believe he existed, just using him as a reference).

Say William Shakespeare never wrote that play about him. I would not know Caesar said "Et tu Brute" or whatever...

If I were not taught in school about how him and Augustus and Marcus Anthony, and all them...I would not know they existed...

There are lost of stuff written about Julius Caesar...but weren't they all done by Romans(then people following that.)? So if I asked..."Where is the Persian historical records of Julius Caesar?"....what would you say?

When a person asks me "Where is a non-Christian record of Jesus?" If people wrote about Jesus it was probably because they believe He was the son of God, the Messiah...so why would they be non-religious but would still write about Him?

If you hate, or dislike, someone...do you write about them so people in 100 or more years will know they were real?

And as a final point I would like to point out that there is one non-christian record of Jesus, when Luke started writing his gospel he was writing a historical record of things, it was only after examining his subject matter that he came to faith. Obviously I expect my simple argument to be rebuked by someone with a towering intellect, that far over shadows my own, however I have this to say too. Have you ever stopped arguing for a second to think what if He did exist, what if I stopped examining things looking to disprove them (people have tried thousands of times to disprove Jesus, many of which have come to faith, I know some, myself included, and know of more) and instead tried standing on the other side of the fence. Think about it.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Elron]

2000 years ago sure why not, Christ into days world also exists because I am him, No I am not joking and I don't care for any conversation about it either.

I am also not trolling I feel I have contributed to this thread.

The greatest mistake western mankind ever made perhaps was to allow a Middle eastern racist elitist dogmatic collection of writings, to be their central guide on God.
The "Goyom" ..."the unclean"..."the untouchables" they are us the Gentiles.
We were subjugated by the Romans who forced the Jewish spiritual teachings onto the western conquered lands.
We have forgotten , no do not even know our fore fathers knowledge of God?
Who are men to order men in relation to God?
God is God.
If the Jews are his chosen people to guide us the ignorant to him, then just ask the Palestinians how God has treat them.
Jesus Christ is reported to have said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and Love your neighbour as yourself" we do not need Jews to Guide us , as they plot for THEIR messiah to come to earth, all we need is to look inside our hearts and seek HIM.
How? by Faith.