Is there any historic proof that Jesus existed?

Post Reply New Topic

[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.

A conspiracy to undermine Judaism? By whom? The only people with enough power and resources to pull off such a scam would be the Roman government. They even had a motive to do in the Jews. But the fact is, Christianity was illegal in the Roman world till the time of Constantine, and Christians faced torture and death. So much for that theory.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So you want me to lose 30 minutes of my time to listen to your video, and then do a background check? Sorry, but it's your job to convince me, not mine to come to your "truth".


I don't understand the sentence as a whole. Could you rephrase that?

However, two issues:
a) There are no corroborating sources on almost everything in the Ancient Era. Minor events "at the time" are generally not known at all.
b) All cults are similar to previous cults. Humans are humans. We always absorb influences. Christianity (and christology) did not materialize in a vacuum.


The Bible as a whole is full of fanciful stories. The Old Testament especially. That is not the issue. The Gospels were first written relatively close to the events they describe. They are not perfect, but they have to be analized as historical documents -- that is what they are. Their insight on the beginning of Christianity is not to be dismissed, especially since it's all there is.

I know how the Bible was made. The canon was established at Nicaea (or was it Chalcedon?) from various ealier texts. Important Greek scholars decided which were inspired by God, and which were not. As such, all books should be understood as a different document from the others. Don't patronize me. I know my stuff (kind of).

By the way, you will notice that you have not given any reason why your conspiracy theory of Christianity is more accurate than my simple hypothesis.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PICEKwnkhA&feature=related[/youtube]

This is mostly right. It was Nicaea. That particular council was more of a formality than anything else, though. The books that were approved as canon were ones that had already come into widespread use among the churches. There were probably a few variances, of course, but these books were the ones most held in common.

From what I understand, the criteria for acceptance was based on: 1. Divinely inspired; 2. Jewish origins; 3. Apostolic origins, i.e. personally knew Jesus and on mission for His cause. The Apocrypha have never been accepted as canon, for instance. The Gnostics can generally be shown to have a later date of writing and are horribly inconsistent with the canon gospels. The letter to the Hebrews, which is canon, seems a little iffy, but only because it seems to have 2nd generation origins. It COULD have been written by Paul, but we really don't know for certain. But it's not inconsistent with the other writings, either. So if it were in such wide use at the time the canon was drawn up, there are likely good reasons for that--it was already known to meet the criteria.

Surely a prophet as great as Jesus Christ would been aware his presence alone would bring about the suffering and death of millions of people.
He may have existed, but he was a useless prophet if he didn’t understand his existence would cause such mayhem.

He didn’t leave much of an impression with the hundreds of perverted priest who molest little boy’s through-out the world.

Don't blame Jesus. What people did out of what he said is not his fault.

He wasn't a "great prophet", he was a minor prophet. The cult grew after his death.

Exactly my point, such a being as Jesus Christ would have been aware that his message to the world would be misinterpreted and used to control others. It created a follower and leader society in the name of religion.

I live with a very different form of Aspergers that goes from mild to severe autism, my mind slows down. I have predicted the death of three people in my life before they died. They were not sick, I sensed and knew they were going to die.
My point is if I’m able to tap into a state of mind that allows me to predict the future, and I’m no super human, then just imagine how great the mind of Jesus Christ would have been.

Albert Einstein said that if we could use our mind to its full potential, we would be pure energy. Jesus Christ would have been a fully evolved human being. Maybe he did walk on water, but he wasn’t very good at seeing into the future.

What good came out of his presence anyway, lots of suffering as far as history is concerned, war and mayhem.

Marie Curie presence was well worth while, her work with radium still aids people today, she lived to help others, nobody ever died or suffered in the name of Marie Curie.

No no no, he was a very normal human being, as "fully evolved" as you and I, but possibly with some kind of psychotic disorder or a strong desire for attention.

He certainly did not walk on water, cure blind men or come back from the dead. At least, we have no way to know, since historical documents can't prove that something impossible happened.

Use your GPS transponder. That is one of the proofs that Albert Einstein existed.

ruveyn