Did Jesus really exist?
 

I always wondered this, as the only "proof" that I could find of Jesus ever existing came from the Bible, which has mistakes abound in it. I found a page with lots of proof that Jesus did not in fact exist (or rather shows the lack of proof that he ever existed), and I was wondering if anyone could make a counter argument (or link to one) so I have both sides of the story. This page is a very long read, but also very worth it when trying to shed light on the actual history of the Bible.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Most historians I've read agree that a person named Yeshua (Jesus) very likely existed about 2000 years ago and was crucified at a fairly young age by the Romans.

Pontius Pilate has been verified as being real (archeologists recently found inscriptions in Isreal bearing his name.)

The works of Josephus mention Jesus, but there are arguments as to whether the references are original or are post document insertions.

i think there is great proof in the fact that the apostles who claim to have known him ended up giving their lives and dying horrible deaths for preaching that he was the Son of God. No matter what you think of modern-day Christianity, it is hard to believe that a religion that spread like wildfire and endured massive persecution was based on a man of pure invention.

No. :thumbsup:

Thank Paul for what Jesus is known as today more than anything else.

Historically speaking, there is very little question as to whether Jesus of Nazareth existed or not. I've never heard of a reputable historian make the claim otherwise.

Well to point out that someone named (or not named as the case happens to be) Jesus existed about 2000 yeras ago is rather a trite point.

Did Sherlock Holmes exist?
Well yes he did, except his first name wasn't Sherlock, and he wasn't a detective, but he did live in 19th Century London.
This brings out the absurdity of the argument clearly.

Rather we must ask ourselves did this Jesus character (or rather the person who we, in modern times, refer to as Jesus ) actually do and say all of these things that are so commonly attributed to him?
There is indeed evidence that a man named "Jesus" (Yeshua) lived, caused a lot of bother with the established authority, who sam him as a threat to public order/control and had him executed.

But did he actually do and say all of those things that are attributed to him? What evidence is there of the fact that he was the son of god? Raised from the dead three days after good friday? Born of a virgin? Healed the sick?

Perhaps even more to the point, is what does this historical figure have to do with a modern worldview?
Is there reason to believe that the claims he apparently made we actually true? How is he any different from any of the modern-day lunatics who claim to have great insights into god/reality/spirituality/whatever?

In other words:
Jesus probably existed in some form or another...but so what?

while i agree with csflim that there was probably someone around during that time causing trouble, (and in my opinion got the religous stuff, virgin birth, resurection, added on after the fact mixing old familiar mythology with the new mythology being made), outside of the bible, i've never heard/seen any evidence that he existed. i have to assume he's based on a real person, kinda like king arthur, but who he's based on, i don't know. the earliest parts of the new testament were written somewhere between 40 and 60 years after J supposidely died. That's long enough, considering life span in that time, that most likely it wasn't written off of first hand info. i don't know, just seems fishy to me. That's why when that faked inscription on teh burial thing found a year or two ago saying "james brother of jesus" was found, it could have been a huge deal, some actual proof that he existed (albeit circumstantial). oh yeah, and the romans were pretty good about keeping records, so him not showing up in them seems odd too. if i'm wrong about any of this, point me to the links/info to correct me.

To deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is to deny the existence of all of Western culture right up until today. Our entire calendar is based upon his life and death. Today we call it BCE and CE, but it was always referred to as BC and AD, Before Christ and Anno Domani. Je sus of Nazareth is mentioned in numerous secular texts throughout history, not the least of which are the four gospel accounts which were written during the lifetimes of the people who actually lived during those days and saw what actually transpired. The Book of Luke alone contains many, numerous facts of history that have proven to be excellent clues to the times and events and has time and again demonstrated itself to be chief among scholarly historical works. The epistles of Paul, written before the Gospels also testify to the events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the numerous miracles He performed, including His crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection, and his testimonies went undisputed during his days. This is a significant point to remember- the Gospel accounts and the Eopistles were written during the contemporary periods following the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and they were undisputed by the people that witnessed these events.
Put into context, that would be similar to, if the Gospels were untrue, someone writing biographies about the first Gulf War and making incredibly fantastic claims- just unbelievably wild things, and nobody who was there during that time challenging those claims.
Remember that all the challenges to the Gospel accounts and the epistles came well after the authors were dead and gone. During the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, their claims went unchalenged, but were substantiated.
Jesus of Nazareth lived and presched and taught and performed miracles and walked on water and healed the sick and forgave sins and died on the cross to pay the penalty for all of our sins so that each one of us could be reconciled to God and go to Heaven. Then He was buried in a tomb provided by a man maned Joseph of Arimathea and on the third day rose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people- not as the beaten, bloodied man they saw on the cross, but as a resurrected man, with the crucifixion wounds, no less, and He spent time with them and finally ascended into Heaven. This is the testimony of several eyewitnesses who underwent extreme torture and punishment and finally death and did not change their testimony. Only fools would die for a joke.

CSflim...the question of what makes him different from any of the other lunatics today has another side. What made him different from any of the other dozens of people claiming to be the "messiah" during his time. This is not to say that this is proof he was in fact the messiah - that's not part of this issue - what it does clearly show though is that there was something special about this Jesus person that made him stand high aboce the rest of the potential "messiahs" of his time. In fact it's interesting to note that Jesus never once referred to himself as the son of God but, rather, as the son of man. Son of God is an interpretation of his existence that began with the apostles as they worked to finally understand exactly what he did and what he meant after his death. As for evidence of him being the son of god or resurrected, obviously there is no evidence in the way we know evidence. If there were, it wouldn't be a matter of faith. Ultimately, it comes to the same question now that it was then, that man cannot understand the perfection of God - that the perfection of God is beyond human understanding of tangible perfection. In terms of the past, people expected the messiah to come and become a great ruler and king, etc etc...obviously Jesus did not do that and was, thus, not the messiah. The point of Jesus though is that that form of thought - and its equivalent today - is not the perfection of God. Humans can't comprehend something that is not of this created universe basically.

You obviously didn't read the link I posted Thagrastay. There were no written accounts of Jesus by eyewitnesses, it was all second hand info. There are zero (thats right, count them zero) accounts by historians of his time of him being alive. He was supposed to be known "far and wide" yet not a single historian of his time mentioned him (especially someone who could walk on water and heal the sick)? Read the link, please. The authors of the Gospels aren't even known! As for BC and AD, that dating system was made about 600 years after the fact, so who cares. A few quotes:

"Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth."

"Nowhere do any of the New Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or his followers."

So the only proof you have of this miracle worker are stories in a book written from hearsay, and letters that never even mention a man Jesus? Sorry, doesn't cut it for me, find me real proof. Though CSFilm has a good point, I think this is an important question because so many people put so much faith into this man who may have never even existed (and they probably have never in fact questioned his existence, most likely indoctrinated from birth).

The human failing best referred to as "the cult of personality" has served up some strange "heroes" over the ages.

There's no shortage of emotional excess, wild-eyed zealotry, rapt devotion, or fawning celebrity worship in humankind. These are some of the behaviors we exhibit daily with varying degrees of intensity.

"Special" people are held up as figureheads for days, years, decades, millenia. The needs of the audience and the historical and social contexts of this phenomena provide all the explanation necessary to understand it.

TheKak, obvoiusly one comes to the conclusions that one chooses, but I can tell you right now that, unless Jesus were a hypocrite there would be no historical evidence of any "miracles" he performed. His teaching was centered around humility and a humble person wouldn't make a big deal out of the good that they do. And, historically speaking, he most likely wasn't known far and wide. In fact, his followers were probably a fairly small number at the time of his death - perhaps only in the hundreds. Of course, what must also then be realized is the equally valid question of why a person who did have so few followers when he died eventually gave birth to a new world religion. Many other people have had a couple hundred followers and the same did not occur. The point is that, while he may or may not have been the "son of God" and while he may or may not have performed "miracles," it's clear that he was special in some way or another in that, at the least, he was an unusually good person.

Trite?

How so?

The question was whether or not there was a historical Jesus.

The answer is most likely "yes".

The question was not who was he and did he do what the Bible says he did.

The Kak,

Paul's writings are some of the best proofs for an historical Jesus.

While it true that Paul never met Jesus physically (I'll set aside his experience on the road to Damascus for now), it is also true that Paul/Saul WAS going around the country side persecuting followers of Jesus before his conversion.

So we have the questions:

1) Why would there be followers of a man that didn't exist?
2) Why would a Jewish authority (which Saul was) go around persecuting them instead of saying, "Hey, this guy didn't exist!!"

It just doesn't sound right.

It is much more likely that Jesus was a real person.

What else He might be is up to you to figure out.

Yes there was a Jesus. I don't prescribe to this belief because I am religious. In fact, I am far from religious. I think that there was a man, named Jesus, who said and did wonderful things, was a great orator, was charismatic, and demanded respect from his followers. It is as simple as that. The Bible is a fable. It is a story that starts with one man, Jesus, then evolves over centuries to give people something to believe in. I don't believe in miracles. I think miracles are things conjured up over the centuries to make this well loved man seem more "god-like", hence coining him the son of God.

So, in summation class, I believe there was a Jesus and I do believe he was a great man in his time. Son of God? No, just a regular guy who is hyped up over the centuries to give people an excuse to sit on their arse's on Sunday mornings and listen to a bunch of made up stories by a preacher.

Yes, Jesus did exist. He managed to get many personal followers. These people believed in this man so much that they died horrible deaths in His name. Either all of these men were high on Hebrew mushrooms or they actually, positively believed in Him.

There were also many enemies of Jesus who wrote about Him. I, unfortunately forget this particular person's name, but he was a political ruler some 20 years(?) after Jesus' death. He talked of Christianity being laughable but admitted that Jesus was an extraordinary being.

The arguement about Jesus existing can also be asked in other ways: Did George Washington really exist? He's written down in History books but I haven't seen him, you haven't seen him, no one today has seen him. I little trust is involved. I can easily say that everything written in history about George Washington is false just as another person could say that everything written about Jesus is false. It's just accepted that they both existed and we trust that most of what is universally written about them is true.

to expand on what art was saying, remember david koresh in waco? i would have to call him a joke, and he had lots of followers, and oh, yeah, they died for him. all it takes is a charismatic leader and people will follow and do things you wouldn't expect.

i've heard the far and wide thing before, but i'm not sure where it's from. if someone could find it, that would be super. either way though, a few hundred followers is all it takes. they themselves didn't really make christianity what it is today, rome did. it's very likely that christianity would have died a backwater religion if constantine didn't pick it up. and how do we know that what david koresh taught his followers wouldn't have become a new powerful religion? his failure in doing so is because they all pretty much died with him. also, look at scientology. we don't take it seriously, but others do. it's not that hard to create a religion, especially in superstitiuos times.

for all you know, it was only the crazies that did follow jesus. i bet malaria was probably a problem back then...

there are currently no documents within 40-60 years of his supposed death. if i'm wrong, prove it, please. could you be more specific of this political ruler? find the source?

and there's a big difference between believing george washington and jesus existed. for jesus we have stories by people who did not live during his lifetime, or were no more than kids when he died telling stories. there is no other proof. anytime you hear about J after the bible, it's not about a historical J, but the religous icon. and that doesnt' make proof... i can write aobut the easter bunny, based on a book i read about him, doesn't make it historically accurate. for Washington, we have lots of historians mentioning him, we have treaties, we have other signed documents, we have portraits from while he was alive, we have transcripts of speeches, etc. There's more than compelling evidence he lived, not so much for J.

Yes, but Washington lived in a far more literate age, and was the leader of an important nation. How many sources do we have that other ancient figures actually existed, who weren't rulers of a country? If I recall correctly, and it's been awhile since I've looked into it, we have more evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus than for most figures of that age. In any case, writings attesting to his existence only 20 or so years after his death is very, very good by ancient standards.

As far as craziness goes, it's one thing to die for someone who isn't who you thought he was, and another to do so for someone who never existed. And regardless of whether or not any of the NT was written by eyewitnesses, its clear both from the NT itself and other extra-canonical sources, that there were eyewitnesses to his life and death.

It's one thing to argue about Christ's divinity. But to argue about his historical existence, when, as has already been pointed out, nearly all reputable historians agree that he did, just seems utterly pointless.

Once more into the fray- To argue the existence of Jesus is ridiculous. Here it is 2000 years later and you people are rewriting history. It isn't surprising, really.
Here are things to ponder- the Romans never denied crucifying Jesus. The Jews never denied the tomb was empty. Their argument was the manner in which it became empty. Despite the srguments, Jesus did declare Himself to be G*d and it was for this very reason He was killed. Consider the times and the place in which Jesus decide to enact His ministry. This was Israel at a time when there was a Temple and a High Priest. During this period there were ongoing sacrifices and oblations. The Laws and traditions were being strictly adhered to! During this time, a man could go to India, or Rome or Spain or Britain or China or any number of places on the globe and claim to be G*d, but the one place on the entire planet that you could not go and claim to be the Almight Ancient of Days, was Israel! They stoned you for that there! But it was in that time and place that Jesus appeared claiming to be the Son of Man- a title the Hebrew peoiple well understood. He used that title when refering to Himself in His human aspect, and only used the I AM statement when speaking of His Divinity. But when He was brought before the High Priest of Israel, and asked who He was, Jesus told the Sanhedrin that Abraham had longed to see this day at which they responded that he was barely over thirty- what did he know of Abraham. Jesus replied: "I tell you the truth- before Abraham was, I AM" at which Caiphas tore his priestly robes and declared Jesus to be a blasphemer! The High Priest of Israel recognized immediately that Jesus had claimed in his presence to be G*d, and the only response he could give was to tear his priestly garments! Harry! am I wrong? Yeshua declared Himself before the High Priest of Israel and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Sanhedrin for claiming to be The Most High.

Does anyone know anything about the Shroud of Torin? I remember hearing about it, was wondering if it got proven either way.

it was a dark ages forgery-proven.

Yup.

I apologize in advance for this sounding rude, though it isn't meant that way.

This quote reveals that you know little to nothing about the structure of the Bible. The Bible starts with Genesis, Jesus doesn't come in (except within the confines of prophecy) till the last 3rd. While the argument can be made that the entire Old Testament is in fact a "gearing up" for Jesus, that interpretation is not present in my perception of your post. After Jesus, the narrative of the Bible only continues for less than a hundred years. As a complaint directed towards people in a more general sense: many assume that because they were raised in what is thought of as a Christian society, that they have a good idea of what the Christianity or the Bible is all about. This notion is, I feel, damaging to both Christians and those who choose other paths because it creates such a depth of unrealized misunderstanding.

I thought this quote applicable to this thread:

...that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), from _Mere_Christianity

Even as an atheist I believe Jesus was a real person. I love archeology and based on the evidence either Jesus did exist OR it was the most clever hoax of all time, aimed at people living in the future for whatever reason.

Occam's razor works well here.

I doubt that Jesus existed. So much of the three gospels is fabrication, I mean think about it. A star that travels and then rests over a particular spot? This could only happen if one had no clue about what stars really were. The darkening of the sun upon the day of crucifixion? Passover is held during the full moon, so this would be astronomically impossible. The slaughter of the innocents? Some historian would have reported it if it really happened. That the old testament contains passages that predict and describe the coming of Jesus? Come on. You read the passages and they have nothing to do with what the writers of the gospels would have you believe they do. Christianity is a complete fraud, evolving out of the some weird goofy middle east that produced the other mystery cults, mithrainism, dionysisism, etc. etc. etc.

Also to those who call the bible a "fable" you have no idea what you are taking about. "Mythology" aside the majority of the Old testament can be historically proven. So do be hatin'.

First, there are 4 Gospels, not 3.

Second, if you want a really good liberal discussion on the Gospels, what probably and probably didn't happen, head over to the Jesus Seminar website.

Theologians of all ilks (including an atheist or two) debate on what is in the Gospels.

The points you've made are discussed thoroughly.

This is the easiest way that I know of to understand the Bible:
The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.
With that in mind, reconsider the texts, if you are of a mind to.

This is actually one of the most plausible aspects of the nativity narratives, if you read it as giving astrological, rather than astronomical, data.

Also, there has been speculation that it refers to something that occurred around 4 BC (it's long been understood that Jesus was likely not actually born in the year we consider 0). If I remember correctly, something about a couple planets being in line which would cause what seemed like a very bright star.

Not hatin'

But I guess I dont know what I am talking about......when it comes to the bible. Having only read three versions of it , and one of them three times.
I dont consider them as fables, but as interesting works of historcally based fiction. Unfortunately there are far to many areas of obvious fabrication to accept the texts as factual documents. I think the biggest problems arise when those individuals of an analitical nature attempt to explain these illogical situations to one of extreme faith.
Or when a fundamentalist attempts to "prove" what is essentially, an unprovable piece of the texts. The Noahs ark example is the most commonly used, as it is a completely impossible act of physical accomplishment, given the time and resources availible to the characters.

Care to list a few of the many areas and the sources you used to come to that conclusion?

Don't forget, we're looking for obvious fabrications. Blatant fabrications that somehow slipped past the millions of learned men who have studied the texts for thousands of years, but have recently been discovered in our enlightened age.

Not differences in interpretation, obvious fabrications.

Actually....no I don't care to, but thanks for the offer.
I have unfortunately had this type of discussion far to many times to have any incling to do it again.
I usually just get somewhat frustrated after the um-teenth time that the science is placed in doubt due to a lack of understanding the scientific method.

I would however, find it of great interest to hear some form of "logical" statement explaining how Jesus was unavailible for documentation for most of his life?

The problem here lies in the assumption by most people that the technology of the time of the flood was equal to that of about the time of the Roman Civilization. But this is far from the case. It is more credible to assume that the level of technological advancement at the time of the flood was at least equal to our own. It is also likely that most of the great mysteries of antiquity were antediluvian as well. The Sphynx was most likely built before the flood as it certainly bears signs of being covered by great flood waters. The landing strips on the Nazca Plains in Peru, the Monoliths at Easter Island, the various Stonehenge creations as well as the various other structures of questionable origin that dot our planet.
The french countryside, in some spots, is speckled with petrified stumps of equi-distant size and depth across the landscape, all snapped off at a similar level. Like modern day telephone poles would be in a similar situation.
The stories of Atlantis, or Lemuria could be about Sodom and Gommorah, or they could be about the pre-flood world. But it is silly to think that Adam and Eve's offspring who were the firstfruits, created directly by the hand of God, were anything less than Genius. Look at their accomplishments according to their generations, while also bearing in mind that these people lived centuries, rather than decades, and didn't face the modern problems of sickness and stupidity.
The legends of old- the Stories of Zeus and Odin and Hercules and such probably were based upon real exploits of the Nephilim- that race of Giants that existed as well. The Hindu sanskrits describe aerial dogfights between aircraft, and ancient artifacts have been found that look awfully close to our modern-day fighter jets.
The incredulity that Noah was faced with every day and the ridicule he endured may not have been because he was building an Ark, but because he was building an Ark in such and old-fashioned way.
To top that all off, there is no mention of rain in the Bible until the flood. That could be because they began polluting and it caused a manner of cloud-seeding. But that is pure speculation on my part. The Bible mentions that not only did the water come from above, but the wellsprings of the deep opened up and water exploded from beneath as well. This is what seperated the continents, and it was no gradual thing, either. In the end, most of the traces of pre-flood civilization were destroyed and Noah and his children were thrown into the stone age, left with their generations following, to communicate with cave paintings and animal skins and such.

um...wow...I'm all for a historical Jesus, but that's some pretty shady science there Thagrastay.

Anyways, regarding documentation, it has to be kept in mind that the large majority of any documentation that there even was no longer exists for Roman and most other ancient civilizations. A great example is music. We have less than a dozen songs from ancient Greek civilization and not one of them is complete. Now, one could, I suppose, use this to try and claim that since we have no proof that there were any other songs besides these few we have, that there were no other songs in Greek civilization. Obviously that's not true. Likewise, most records of Roman civilization are no doubt long lost, not to mention that it stands to obvious reason that they were not concerned with the same things in their records as we are 2000 years later. Furthermore is the fact that, most likely, Jesus was illiterate and, thus, did not write anything himself.

Jesus, after returning from Egypt with His mother and step father, grew up in Nazareth. He lived the life of the son of a carpenter and was of no repute until His ministry began in earnest. This is not surprising for Hebrew men of His day and age. Most Rabbis didn't begin their ministries until about thirty years of age, since that was at that age that custom recognized them as real adult men and worthy of wisdom through study.

The scriptures tell us that Jesus spent His time studying the scriptures and learning and growing knowledge and wisdom. He was an unknown until His public ministry started at His baptism and declaration in the Temple with the words of Isaiah where Jesus announced that the year of Jubilee had come and that scripture had been fulfilled in their hearing.

Very solid. Not to mention that one could compare and contrast all of the stories of the ancient people's that are similar. Most noteable about the flood is the comparison between the bible version and then the story of Gilgamesh, and I even think there is an Aztec version.

your bluff was called.

Tecoyah (and anyone else who is interested in a different perspective),

If you are truly that familiar with the Bible, I think you might find this book interesting:

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes by John Spong.

From one of the reviews on Amazon.com:

Re: Gilgamesh, read the book I linked to above.

The rest: Poppycock and double poppycock.

My first college incarnation was as a geology student. I also have studying a fair bit about the Bible.

The interesting thing about the "flood" is that there IS evidence that costal areas DID suffer wide spread flooding over a large area in the Mediteranian area several thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no evidence that there was a cataclysmic world wide flood.

That was, quite possibly, the most entertaining piece of desperate rationalization I have ever seen. I almost became disoriented reading your"theories".

This is why I declined the invitation for debate, in the first place.

i think a much more logical reason would be because all ancient civilizations started out on river valley's that would flood each year. so they have a "shared" memory of what was really just a common occurance of where they lived.

also, if civilization were at current technology levels, don't you think that more than just noah's ark would have survived? what about other massive boats, like aircraft carriers? don't you think they would have made it through? with some technology so that those who were on it could have restarted their civ's at or near their previous techonological levels?

Well first off civilization at the time of the BC's was no where near what it is at now. One thing where they had us Astronomy. Also said cultures were extremely advanced mathematically(sp) speaking, at least more then we have given them credit. But the reason why the ark is not around is because Noah's story takes place nearly 7000 years ago, and if you want to bring Gilgamesh into it I think that dates back almost 22,000 years (correct me if I'm wrong). That having been said, metal rusts and wood rots.

the epic of gilgamesh is from 5,000-3,000 BC, not sure exactly where in it. it's an epic of ancient mesopotamia. a "post" flood civ.

to say they had us on astronomy would also be inaccurate. we have all the knowledge they had and more. about the only things we don't know as well as ancient culture would be "magic."

/cue spooky music

People don't give enough credit to ancient civilizations. If they did you wouldn't have morons thinking the pyramids were built by aliens and the like.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean they had technology unknown to us.

I think any intelligent Christian will focus on the New Testament and not feel the need to explain away inconsistencies in the old testament.

Returning the thread to the original question, one of the best proofs that Jesus did indeed exist is the gospels themselves (and here I refer to not just the four canonical gospels but also "heretical" gospels like the gospel of thomas). Lets remember that they all appeared in different places, each one using different sources and quoting different material (except that mathew and luke both used mark as a source) and all coming up with a very simmilar portrait of Jesus. Either there is some truth underlying this, or there was an unbelivably effieient conspriracy allowing the early christians to get their stories straight.

The fact that we no little about Jesus' early life is of little concern. The Gospel writers was only concerned with those parts of Jesus' life that affected people's faith.

Finally, there are the non-christian sources about Jesus. The best is Josephus, and while some people think that he was edited by later christians most agree that he does, at least, mention Jesus since he uses words and phrases about him that appear nowhere in christian texts. Also, in early Jewish criticizems of Jesus, there is never the claim the Jesus didn't exist, only that he was not who he claimed to be.

This may or may not come off as odd, but I'm revisiting this thread. In light of what I've been reading this seems to be a question being posed more often than not is the question of Jesus's existance. I've been reading about how nothing was written by him and nothing was written during his lifetime about him, and this and that. So, I'm going to ask that the existance of George Washington be proven. You'll hopefully catch my drift fairly quickly.

your drift is caught, and it's a bad analogy.

we have washingtons writings. we have paintings of him that were done during his lifetime (so we know he was a whiteman that wore an english style wig) and i do believe we have his fake teeth in a museum, although i could be wrong about that part. we have his signiture on documents, we have thousands of contemporary eye-witness accounts describing events that had happened hours and days before.

with jesus we have a book compiled 300 years after he died consisting of smaller books that were written at the closest 30 years after he died. and those individual chapters are very possibly written each by multiple authors who may or may not have known jesus and been who they say they are.

if jesus was so important, why didn't his buddies have him sit for a painting? why didn't they write down and chrnonicle his life while following him around? why'd they wait 30-60 years (at minimum) before finally writing it down? why is he not mentioned anywhere else by anyone? what makes you think that the bible is inerrant when it was written so long after he died? and then with all the contradictions?

you may not be able to see or hear washington because he lived before the age of video. but we know what he looked like and what he thought and wrote about, we know what others that lived during his time thought of him. with jesus we only a white man on a cross (who wasn't white) with stories written by a few people long after he died.

Not only were they similar to each other, they were similar to earlier stories about mythical godmen. Those stories were purely allegorical, like the stories of Zeus etc, and were recounted in societies grom Greece through to Mesopotamia. It's no great stretch of the imagination to suppose that some of the myths spread to Judea as well. Anyway, a son of god, born to a virgin after a 7 month pregnancy, who performs miracles such as turning water into wine at a wedding, gets himself a following and is then falsely accused and executed is a story which predates even the supposed birth of Jesus.

I could just as easily have made up this person years and year and years ago when storytelling was the major medium. I could have fabricated to my audience when they were sitting around me the whole story. I could have made three false paintings of what he looked like and people could have continued from what they saw and fabricated his picture also. I'm not for one second saying that George Washington didn't exist, I'm just telling you that after no one is alive that lived during the times that these things happened, they could just as easily become fictional stories that someone made up for personal gain. Eventually these stories become real. Another theory is similar to The Village. If you have seen that movie, you know that there was a small village seperated from the "outside" world in which they created their own realities.


with jesus we have a book compiled 300 years after he died consisting of smaller books that were written at the closest 30 years after he died. and those individual chapters are very possibly written each by multiple authors who may or may not have known jesus and been who they say they are.
My belief is that Christ was too humble for a painting. Or perhaps they just sucked at drawing. I can't draw worth a lick. I could be asked to draw my mother, and I promise you couldn't tell who she was supposed to be. The bible is the most accurate book that I have ever read. Contradictions don't exist, unless you want them too.
We know that Jesus was of Arab decent with black hair. According to you we don't even know that he was on a cross, these things weren't written before he'd been risen for 30 years. Why do we not think that perhaps these things were written down during his lifetime, and perhaps, revised or edited later? We write rough drafts, then second drafts, then third drafts, then fourth drafts, before finally getting to something that is worth publishing. Why would something as important as Christ not go under the same scruitny?

It would seem the difference here is compelling evidence. While indeed you could have fabricated George Washington, there is evidence available that would be very difficult to forge and the timeframe is significantly shorter since his death (thus less time for embelishment). We are also dealing with historians with a much smaller agenda as the translators of documentation. The likelyhood of accurate information surviving to this day, after the incredible amount of translation and manipulation of these texts, considering the existing evidence of changes made by those in control of the church (pick one) are slim at best.

Likely Jesus DID exist....but we will never know who he really was. Primarily due to those who made him what he is seen as today.

tecoyah put it about as well as it possibly could be... we have plenty of direct evidence that george washington lived. but we have teh same amount of evidence for the boogey man as we do for a historical jesus. i think it's possible that there was a man that was the mythical jesus was partially based on, but who he was, what his name was, are things we're likely to never know or be able to find out.

you could have fabricated all of the stuff you mention about telling, paintings, etc, but can you fake a 300 year old painting that will pass the scrutiny of experts? probably not. you use of the the movie 'the village' is kinda amusing... they maintain their reality by keeping those not in the know ignorant. seems a good analogy for christianity if you ask me.


too humble for a painting? i doubt sitting for a portrait was something that required vast amounts of pride or egotism. and your thoughts on the apostle's drawing ability... well, you're really pulling outta thin air there...

again, going back to 'fabricated realities,' if you think that the bible is the most accurate book ever, then you're in your own reality. read the link i posted, it discusses just a few of the discrepancies. i guess you can say it's the most accurate since one of the many things it says on the same topic must be right, eh?

well, there's no contemporary account of him being on the cross, no evidence of it, so no, we don't know that he was on it. based on the actual evidence we have for him, if that's enough for you, then we could just as well convict someone of killing someone even though no one saw it, we don't have the murder weapon. nothing but a story.

if the bible is the inerrant word of god given to us through humans, then there's no need for rewrites. maybe translations, but thats it. you can't edit or rewrite the word of god, eh?

How many paintings do we have of Jesus' contemporaries? It doesn't seem to me like portraiture was very common back in 1st century Palestine.

And your website is quite a bit off, Harry. The majority of biblical scholars, secular as well as Christian, think that the gospels were all written in the first century, with John being the latest at around 90 CE, and Mark the first, written around 60 CE. Some Christian scholars, with the theory that Matthew was written first, date them even earlier.

i agree we don't have many paintings from that time especially of the non-important poeple. but there was a thriving culture of art, so that someone as important as jesus was supposed to be, don't you think someone would have taken the time to sculpt or paint him from memory?

and i agree that the page isn't great about the dates. i've always heard the dates you mentioned as well. there are a couple other things he mentions if you read the whole page that i think are logical conclusions, but by no means the only conclusions possible nor the most valid ones he could make. but some of the other things he mentions are pretty valid concerns, especially when it comes to inaccuracies in what is written and said within the bible that isn't accurate. the page has good food for thought, even if some of it seems a bit spoiled.

Well, I looked over the web page you mentioned, Harry, and I thought I'd point out a few flaws in his arguments:

...

This is debatable. There are biblical scholars who think that it was originally written in Aramaic -- a minority, to be sure, but it is a disputed point.

This was really a fairly common practice in ancient literature, and doesn't necessarily indicate the same level of culpability as if someone did the same thing today. They had different views about authorship and plagiarism than what we have.

Ah, the good old-fashioned argument from silence. Just because there's no extra-biblical evidence of Nazareth doesn't mean that there's evidence that there's no evidence.

There's a lot of fabulous stuff in the gospels; why pick on this point, which is hardly as unlikely as, say, a guy walking on water.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the gospels say a word about how long his ministry lasted.

Symbolism and tastefulness. Crucifixion was a grisly death, and especially during the time they were still being used, it might well have seemed in poor taste to portray it in art.

Only one explanation! Hardly -- perhaps Paul mentioned it to people in person, perhaps he thought all Christians had heard already, or perhaps he didn't think it was important.

Don't forget two things: that Jesus wasn't terribly important during his life, and that alot of art from antiquity has been lost or damaged. Maybe no one thought it important what he looked like, maybe there were pictures that have been lost, or maybe there are pictures, and we just don't know that they are pictures of Christ.

Lets just cut to the chase here.......

Conjecture seems to be the favored choice used to defend scripture, which is all good and fine for faith.However, there are those who require a bit more Data to accept something as fact. I would ask those who follow the Christ to attempt to truly convince me that these writtings are actual documentation of the life of the Son of God.Just a quick heads up for anyone willing to attempt this:

I have three versions of the bible in my home
I will require Hard data to be swayed
I have a relatively complete memory of the bulk of Old and New Testament, as well as the King James version
I have a copy of the apocrypha....somewhere
I will tear apart the text as needed, please do not be offended

I want to be clear that I have no issue with Christianity, and am willing to do this only to try to prove a point.

Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax.

Jew 1 'Hey lets make up a new religion!'

Jew 2 'Cool!'

Jew 1 'Yea we will go all over the place and make up stories anyone could verify if they tried but we will assume they won't and then we can be put to death for it by the roman empire!'

Jew 2 'Totally awesome, I've always wanted to die for a hoax!'

Jew 1 'Yea it will be great.'

The point being you don’t need to believe in Jesus’s divinity to believe in Jesus. Someone started this in motion, someone effected people in such a way they were willing to die for it, someone managed to make his name as close to immortal as any. This doesn’t make him the son of god, but its going to take some real splaining to make him into a hoax.

Tecoyah -- I'm just disproving an argument for Jesus's non-existence, not arguing for his existence. The quote I was responding to specifically said there was only one possible explanation for Paul's failure to mention the virgin birth, so conjecture is a perfectly valid response.

I agree....it was a valid response, and I actually believe Jesus existed. I am asking for actual proof that the scriptures portray the life of "The Son of God", as this is the basis for Christianity.

As for this:"Until someone comes up with a good theory on why his entire life would be a hoax, this conjecture is silly. As an atheist I have no doubt that Jesus did exist (as I've stated before), and its very hard to imagine that a new religion with such power would be started on a hoax."

Perhaps a bit of research into the history of Christianity, and the people who made it what it is would help clarify this for your imagination, as it was formed over the last 1000 yrs into the church we have today. The current incarnation bears little resemblance to what it was in infancy. The same can be said of the Bibles.

Including such ommisions as these:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ity/apocrypha/

But this has no bearing on Jesus's exsistance/non-exsistance. The evolution of christian faiths is quite interesting to me, but a totally different topic.

I will again refer to this....and have no intention of further pointless replys to your failure to understand the question.

I missed you going on a tangent, my applogies, I thought we were still speaking of Jesus's exsistance.

Nevermind....My apologies for thread hijack. I will not attempt to do so again.

Other than his followers, he wasn't important, he was either unknown or a fraud to the rest of the world. If I knew that I was following the Messiah, I doubt I'd take the time to write about it or draw a picture of him, after all, I was in the presence of the Son of God, I would just absorb as much as he would allow. Maybe I'm wrong. Even if you did take "notes" (What sort of medium did they use as a writing utencil? I am not sure.) What are the odds of them being found? As often as Christ traveled? Just isn't logical to be following him, writing down everything he does as he does it. It just doesn't happen.

The proof for Jesus's exsistence isn't in the Bible, its in the documents used (and not used) in its compilation. As with anything one doesn't have a direct experience of, it's whether you trust the sources and/or the "experts" that analyze these sources.

if he was the son of god and making all these miracles, healing the sick, feeding thousands off of a few loaves of bread and fish, don't you think he'd get pretty well known pretty quickly? if you were following around the son of god, you'd porbalby at the end of the day record anything important that happened so you wouldn't ever forget. it seems odd that his followers decided to wait 30-60 years to write it down, and two fo them had to go off of a thirds.

Jesus could have existed. I believe He existed. I have no proof. I doubt anyone has scientific proof. Does that make the answer to the question a 'maybe'?

here's one:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

All that really matters is that people believed he existed and if you don't then so be it. I guess we will al find out in the end. I hope everybody is happy with their eternity whatever it may be. People believe he existed. Not only that but enough people believe he existed to create a whole culture around it. That is amazing. Everybody always awnts facts and proof well there are so many things out there that we simply do not know and accept as fact way does this have to be such a hot topic.
I think some people start these conversations simply to get people heated. If you don't believe Jesus or God exists than great. You better hope your right cus if were right then sucks to be you. No harm in anybody believing their right. just leave well enough alone.