Did Jesus Exist?

Well, I certainly don't trust your word on the subject. What are the reports, and what do they report? Or if you've already provided this information, where did you do so?

Sure. His family was actually quite prominent, a small regional nobility family. His ministry lasted several orders of magnitude longer than that of Jesus. The documentation and evidences for the Buddha are far greater than for Jesus. And it's all Off Topic.But that's not the point.This thread is not about the Buddha, even though it is a religion I believe every Christian should study and embrace, but about a historic Jesus. It's about the search for a historic Jesus.First, it is impossible to prove that he never existed. Even if we found every census for every middle-eastern city and found not one Jesus mentioned, it would not prove he did not exist. All that would show is that he was not listed. Those who wished could continue their beliefs just as they do today.However, it is possible that some evidence might be found that shows a person named Jesus did live at the time, and in the area, and was crucified and who's body disappeared. For many that might appear to be confirmation of the story, and to some extent it would. It still says nothing about the divinity of Jesus or that he actually was resurected.The issue of finding a historic Jesus is one that seems to offer no problems to Christianity. The worst case scenario would be that nothing is found which leaves us exactly where we are today.There is the possiblity of actually finding some records of such an individual, but no matter how complete, they can never prove divinity. That will, and must, forever remain in the realm of Faith & Belief.So what is the problem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Crash, the GOSPELS THEMSELVES are written as historical accounts, also the book of Acts and much in the Epistles: this happened, that happened. They give names, dates, locations to place it all within actual history.

If the Bible were really the only written text we had from that time period, this view would have merit.But it's not, of course. Not by a long shot. We've got piles and piles of records from that area, and the abject failure of Jesus to appear in any of them does contradict your one single source. It is evidence that Jesus Christ was not a historical person, at least not in the sense of being the Christ. Not when they're simply plagarizing each other. For instance, if a journalist at the New York Times fabricates a story, it doesn't matter if Reuters and the AP pick up the story and duplicate it on their newswires; the stories don't corraborate each other because they're just duplicates of one single story.So too with the Bible. The Bible authors weren't working in a vacumn; they had access to each other's work, and copied from it. A later book of the Bible doesn't support an earlier one if the only source for the information in the later book was the earlier one.It's a basic and fundamental point, Faith. You don't corraborate a falsehood by simply repeating it. But there is evidence outside the Bible; stacks and stacks of contemporary or near-contemporary documents that don't provide any independant mention of Jesus Christ. That's the contradictory evidence that leads us to reject the Bible as an untrustworthy source.

No more so than Romeo and Juliet tells you it's set in Verona, Italy. The books of the Bible you refer to are not written as historical accounts, but as ecclesiastical fiction set in real-world locations.I've read the Bible, Faith. Did you forget? The only people who see it as indiciative of some kind of historical factual record and not what it is - letters from theologians to their churches, homilies and the like - are people with a prior committment to believe in the historicity of the Bible no matter what.

You cannot use an absence of mention as proof of anything. We've already discussed this. There was no reason for the pagans to recognize a religious leader in a small colony of the Roman Empire. Later they DO mention his followers, in a negative light, but the mentions are there and that IS evidence.And there is an abundance of writings on Jesus from the very earliest times that IS positive proof. What is absolutely unbelievable is the refusal to recognize this immense body of evidence and decide you won't accept anything but this or that kind of evidence that doesn't exist for good reason.There is plenty of original material in all the gospels to support what I've said. The overlapping and use of other sources proves nothing.

It has absolutely nothing in common with fiction. They are written as history.Sorry, you are wrong. The obvious historicity of the gospel accounts has MADE most believers.This always comes down to a war of sensibilities and interpretations as there is NO objective evidence for any of it.God decided to make it all a matter of belief, trusting in the credibility of the reports, having the ear to hear, and not in the kinds of evidence the world demands.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 12:29 PM

Sure I can. What else would the evidence look like if Jesus was made-up by the people who wrote the Bible?Wouldn't it look exactly like what we have - that is, no mention of Jesus in any relevant contemporary record except the Bible, and then, later, a tradition of denying the existence of Jesus Christ? Recognize, no. But to not even mention? Not even to say "hey, that Jesus dude, what an asshole?" C'mon, Faith. What else would the evidence look like if Jesus was made up, except the way it looks right now? We have exactly the situation we would have if the Bible writers largely invented the person of Jesus Christ. So explain to me why it's wrong to reach that conclusion? There's not an "abundance." There's just a collection of letters between believers, written by people decades after the events, by people who weren't even there.Why would you expect me to take that seriously?

The Silmarillion is written as history. The Iliad is written as history. The way it is written is evidence of nothing except the creativity of the authors.

While you probably didn't intend it that way, some people will see this as a personal insult.I am asking you to be a little more careful in your choice of wording, particularly in a topic where emotions are already running high.

---

They were preoccupied with the lives of the Caesars and the military campaigns all over the Empire, why should they bother about an itinerant preacher in Judea?See this is why I didn't want to argue this topic at all. It doesn't matter what anyone says. What convinces you I find absolutely ludicrous, and vice versa.There is simply no ground for having a discussion about these things. The "scholars" will just go on and on and on weaving their revisionist tales, and the traditionalists will continue to believe what we've always believed and use the arguments we always use.

The position that Jesus did not exist is a very traditional view. There's centuries of scholarship on the subject - by persons who were largely persecuted by the Christian majority for doing so.Isn't that evidence to you? That people would suffer so much to try to prove their position that there was no Jesus? You did offer the exact same situation as proof of your side, not 20 posts ago.

No, actually, you are incorrect.The 'fullfillment' was retrofitting phrases as prophecies, and writing to those phrases.The Jewish expectations of the Messiah have yet to be met.

I have to disagree with you, crashfrog. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of evidence for Jesus casts doubt on the biblical account, but it does not contradict that account.

My impression has always been and still is that it was his followers who wrote about him and otherwise there is no historical evidence for him.As for the historicity of Jesus, Christianity doesn't need the evidence, we have it; I don't need the information myself, I know he was historical and I consider the evidence abundant. Skeptics raise these doubts based on their own imaginations, but there is no new objective evidence for any of their doubts, it's all a matter of interpretation.