Is there an historical and living Jesus?

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: It's quite obvious that christians believe in the historical and living Jesus, and it is a known fact that Muslims believe in the existence of Jesus. My belief is that Jesus is a metaphor for the Sun (and this is confirmed by many religious scholars and authors). My question to the forum is, "does Islam reinforce the christian concept of a living Jesus?" And, "what impact does the Islamic concept have on the survival of christianity?" And, "does that make both christianity and Islam wrong?"

I appreciate your comments.

~ M*W

[John99]

- N*W? Guess you mean M*W.

Most likely there was a historical person whom the attributes of Jesus are attributed. To what degree you believe is subjective.

It's just common sense because a made up person would never stand up to scrutiny. Especially early on. I am referring to when the religion was created people would most likely say "where is this guy, how come he never shows up?"

It is a monumental error to overemphasize sun worship, if it existed at all because it always represented a human like entity it. Some of these entities where really, really supernatural from beginning to end and they were portrayed as such. Perhaps this is where your confusion stems from.

[BlueMoose]

All points out that not, at least not in the way he is presented, but more on that later.
Rome presented new Sun God to Jews to convert them to Romes state religion and when Jews didnt accept him Jerusalem were destroyed and history of Jews in exile began.
There were many sects around then, dead sea scrolls shows us example of one those,
there were strict rules and it was something like communism mixed with fundamentalism,
I guess word Jihad originates from there, I remember reading those rules and word jihad was used in some way when rules were broken. My bold guess is that it was root movements of Islam, same Abrahamic religions anyway.
Were there some prophet dangerous enough to make Rome destroy the movement and its leader and then twist that whole thing for political goals ? Just guessing on that one.
The time line of Romes history does match up with supposed gospel writing time line,
example Rome did have just finished the Pantheon, the "house of gods". It was time to unify the state by one state religion with one ultimate God which later turn to be a Vatican after the Emperors didnt claim to be Gods.
Just speculating but that is what history (He-Story) is.

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: It's quite obvious that christians believe in the historical and living Jesus, and it is a known fact that Muslims believe in the existence of Jesus. My belief is that Jesus is a metaphor for the Sun (and this is confirmed by many religious scholars and authors). My question to the forum is, "does Islam reinforce the christian concept of a living Jesus?" And, "what impact does the Islamic concept have on the survival of christianity?" And, "does that make both christianity and Islam wrong?"

I appreciate your comments.

~ N*W
My emphasis.
To translate that portion: some religious scholars and authors agree with me.


It would be very hard for them to confirm the non-existence of Jesus. A little science and logic never hurt a skeptic.

[Prince_James]

Medicine*Woman:

Which scholar affirms the Sun hypothesis? I've read it on the internet, but never in a scholarly resource.

If you have any journal articles off hand or high-quality books, post 'em here. I wanna read this.

Plus: Care to be the Mary Magdalene to my Jesus?

[Carcano]

If some party had simply decided to create a mythical Jesus literature, they would have written one gospel.

The fact that the different gospels contradict each other on many points lends credibility to the historical Jesus hypothesis.

[SnakeLord]

It's just common sense because a made up person would never stand up to scrutiny. Especially early on. I am referring to when the religion was created people would most likely say "where is this guy, how come he never shows up?"


Indeed, hence Gilgamesh was a real god! Yes, he predates jesus by a couple of millennia and so, being so "early on", would never have "stood up" if he were fictional. Praise Gilgamesh! May the 27 translations spanning millennia be a testament to your reality!

Unbelievers in Gilgamesh must be killed.

The fact that the different gospels contradict each other on many points lends credibility to the historical Jesus hypothesis.

Absolutely! The fact that the Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic contradicts the Sumerian version is just proof that it is even more true!! Praise Gilgamesh!

Twats, the lot of you...

[Carcano]

The fact that the Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic contradicts the Sumerian version is just proof that it is even more true!!
Ah, but they are separated by a thousand years and not included in the same book. The new testament was compiled using texts written within a sixty year range, with the intention of providing a singular vision.

[Prince_James]

SnakeLord:

It is notable that Gilgamesh is confirmed by the founding of the city of Uruk and other places in the myths. That and we know that other epic poems (The Illiad) refer to real places, as per the founding of Troy/Ilum in the 19th century...

[SnakeLord]

Ah, but they are separated by a thousand years and not included in the same book. The new testament was compiled using texts written within a sixty year range, with the intention of providing a singular vision.

Firstly let me say "the same book" is quite meaningless given that what you perceive as a "book" is merely a collection of texts welded together after much deliberation by a bunch of nitwits that 6 months beforehand believed there was a certain being with a fork that lived in the sea and caused boats to crash.

Secondly it is overly apparent that those "contradictory", (which proves its truth lol), sections were written in several cases by people that could not by any means have been 'witnesses' -

Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges. For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. As G. A. Wells, the author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus 10 puts it,

Such an utterance would have been meaningless in Palestine, where only men could obtain divorce. It is a ruling for the Gentile Christian readers... which the evangelist put into Jesus' mouth in order to give it authority. This tendency to anchor later customs and institutions to Jesus' supposed lifetime played a considerable role in the building up of his biography.
One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his debate point. Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something different from the Greek. Isaiah 29:13, in the Hebrew reads "their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote," whereas the Greek version - and the gospel of Mark - reads "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" [Revised Standard Version). Wells observes dryly [p. 13], "That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely." Indeed!
Another powerful argument against the idea that Mark could have been an eye-witness of the existence of Jesus is based upon the observation that the author of Mark displays a profound lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography. If he had actually lived in Palestine, he would not have made the blunders to be found in his gospel. If he never lived in Palestine, he could not have been an eye-witness of Jesus. You get the point.

The most absurd geographical error Mark commits is when he tells the tall tale about Jesus crossing over the Sea of Galilee and casting demons out of a man (two men in Matthew's revised version) and making them go into about 2,000 pigs which, as the King James version puts it, "ran violently down a steep place into the sea... and they were choked in the sea."

Apart from the cruelty to animals displayed by the lovable, gentle Jesus, and his disregard for the property of others, what's wrong with this story? If your only source of information is the King James Bible, you might not ever know. The King James says this marvel occurred in the land of the Gadarenes, whereas the oldest Greek manuscripts say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes. Luke, who also knew no Palestinian geography, also passes on this bit of absurdity. But Matthew, who had some knowledge of Palestine, changed the name to Gadarene in his new, improved version; but this is further improved to Gergesenes in the King James version.

By now the reader must be dizzy with all the distinctions between Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes. What difference does it make? A lot of difference, as we shall see.

Gerasa, the place mentioned in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, is located about 31 miles from the shore of the Sea of Galilee! Those poor pigs had to run a course five miles longer than a marathon in order to find a place to drown! Not even lemmings have to go that far. Moreover, if one considers a "steep" slope to be at least 45 degrees, that would make the elevation of Gerasa at least six times higher than Mt. Everest!

When the author of Matthew read Mark's version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore - and in a different country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. So much for the trustworthiness of the biblical tradition.

Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30. Of course, one would never know all this from the King James version which - apparently completely ignoring a perfectly clear Greek text - says "Departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark!
- Frank Zindler

When actually studied, there is no "book", true because it's contradictory. No sir, what is the case is that one copied from the other to assert the reality of a story they were never witness to.

Indeed, from the argument presented, it should be vastly more impressive if you have a story that coincides with one written thousands of years ago as opposed to contradicting one written last week. If one "eyewitness" writes an account but can't figure out his left foot from his rectum then serious question must be raised - especially when talking about a supposed god.

Nobody confused gilgamesh from living in Uruk to living in Denmark - be it 1 minute or 1 thousand years later.

It is notable that Gilgamesh is confirmed by the founding of the city of Uruk and other places in the myths. That and we know that other epic poems (The Illiad) refer to real places

Absolutely! Praise Gilgamesh!

[Prince_James]

Snakelord:

Absolutely! Praise Gilgamesh!

No, hail Diomedes and Achilles and Hector.

I'm not Semite Sumerian, cur.

[SnakeLord]

No, hail Diomedes and Achilles and Hector.


Heathen! When you suffer the fate of Enkidu do not come running to me!

[Prince_James]

Snakelord:

Heathen! When you suffer the fate of Enkidu do not come running to me!

Degenerate desert rat. Apollo will scorch you as he scorches the barren waste which you call a home.

[Carcano]

Firstly let me say "the same book" is quite meaningless given that what you perceive as a "book" is merely a collection of texts welded together...
Welded together for the purpose of presenting a singular vision. Thats obviously the significance you dont understand. If the founders of Christianity deliberately wanted to create a fantasy and present it as truth they would not have included contradictory accounts.

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/25/jesus.box.ap/index.html

Scholars say Jesus box may be genuine

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A purported first-century inscription naming Jesus may or may not be the real thing, but Israel's labeling of the find as a fake is premature, scientists and scholars said at a panel discussion.
People who say the Bible and Jesus are mythological also think the pyramids of Giza and Pharaohs are mythological.

http://scienceguy288.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/4-pyramids-giza.jpg

[spidergoat]

As usual, a black or white outlook on the subject. Jesus was probably real, but much of what is said about him is a myth.

[SnakeLord]

Welded together for the purpose of presenting a singular vision.

Oh my friend you're talking bull poop. How much shit was welded together to present the "vision" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to serve a purpose?

And the beauty of such twattage is that you win either way... When it is something you do not desire to be true you would see contradiction and fart in its general direction, but when you see contradiction in your own garbage it is god inspired reality.

You have no just cause, given your arguments to time etc, to dismiss the claims of say Thomas - who states how a young jesus slaughtered several children for slight irritation of his lordlinesses particular fragilities. But it is dismissed instantly - not because of anything credible, but because it contradicts. When I say so, contradiction is bad.. in every other case contradiction is just fine. It is the absolute pinnacle of idiocy - all brought together by a bunch of men that thought it was just peachy to wear skirts and f*** boys. And all that time they were arguing whether perhaps mithraism was the better way to go. Hell, it took until the fourth century to stumble upon the idea that jesus was a god - all based upon the writings of people that didn't even know their left foot from their right butt cheek.

If the founders of Christianity deliberately wanted to create a fantasy and present it as truth they would not have included contradictory accounts.

The thing is that the supposed founders of "christianity", jesus included, were actually just expouding upon jewish ideas. Your typical christian would claim to believe in the same god as featured in the OT. Yahweh and Jesus are actually the same entity. One orders you to kill anyone that works on the sabbath, the other says it's quite alright and yet his followers complain when he is killed after doing just that.

Needless to say, there is no reason to assert that "they wanted to create a fantasy", merely that it was a fantasy, (much like the ideas of David Koresh that vastly contradict other teachings of the bible). Let's assert for a second that this jesus exists. A rabbi teaching the 'law' but adding his own version of it. He gets followers, (as many of these freaks do), and goes about contradicting many of the previous teachings.. These followers continue the trend and it is then established by a bunch of people that can't figure out which god they want to worship this week. There simply is no desire to "create a fantasy", merely a fantasy that has been created. Contradiction is bound to happen in such instance - it is frankly quite impossible to avoid.

[Simon Anders]

[QUOTE]Indeed, hence Gilgamesh was a real god! Yes, he predates jesus by a couple of millennia and so, being so "early on", would never have "stood up" if he were fictional. Praise Gilgamesh! May the 27 translations spanning millennia be a testament to your reality!

Unbelievers in Gilgamesh must be killed.

The issue is whether there was a historical Jesus. Medicine woman asserted that religous scholars had confirmed her belief that there was no such person. That is absurd.

It is not generally accepted by non-religious scholars that there was no historical Jesus. And for good reason.

You are pissed off at the religious and Christians and I can think of many reasons for you to be, but that is beside the point. Medicine Woman' hypothesis has little merit. She could, coincidentally, be correct, but her assertion is weakly supported. The idea that some religious scholars confirmed his non-existence is a joke.

[death]

What is existence ?

Jesus exists in our heart.

It is what he represent that is important !

[nietzschefan]

Well almost every second jew was named Jesus back then. Chances are one of them said some interesting things, saw some flaws in existing 2000 year old Hebrew doctrine and got rolled for it. Then the Romans pinned all their religions on this one intersting sect that seemed to take off from this splinter hebrew sect of -30 to 90AD.

That's my guess and I have no evidence to back it up...but that doesn't matter, we are talking about religion.

[Medicine*Woman]

[QUOTE=SnakeLord;1884011]

The issue is whether there was a historical Jesus. Medicine woman asserted that religous scholars had confirmed her belief that there was no such person. That is absurd.
*************
M*W: Religious scholars did NOT "confirm my belief." You've got that backwards. My "belief" arose from the work of religious scholars.

It is not generally accepted by non-religious scholars that there was no historical Jesus. And for good reason.
*************
M*W: Wrong. Biblical scholars and archeologists confirm that Jesus couldn't have possibly existed.
*************
You are pissed off at the religious and Christians and I can think of many reasons for you to be, but that is beside the point.
*************
M*W: I'm not "pissed off." You are making assumptions that are incorrect. This is the same old christian excuse -- that I'm "pissed off at christianity." That's lame.

Medicine Woman' hypothesis has little merit. She could, coincidentally, be correct, but her assertion is weakly supported. The idea that some religious scholars confirmed his non-existence is a joke.
*************
M*W: It's not my "assertion," dear. I don't make up or create these ideas, unfortunately, because I research the topic. I read many versions of the topic at hand, and I come to my own conclusions. I wish that I were the originator of such information, and I would therefore be rich. All I do is weed out the information and accept what I believe to be the truth.

I suppose yet another bibliography is in order. Whew!

[Medicine*Woman]

Medicine*Woman:

Which scholar affirms the Sun hypothesis? I've read it on the internet, but never in a scholarly resource.

If you have any journal articles off hand or high-quality books, post 'em here. I wanna read this.

Plus: Care to be the Mary Magdalene to my Jesus?*************
M*W: I've posted a bibliography as a new thread. You will find the "sun hypothesis" among the titles. There are some informative sites on the Web, for example, "Solar Mythology and the Jesus Story." Sorry, I don't have the URL of the Web site. Others are "Bible Truth Online," "Star of Bethlehem," "The Meaning of the Zodiac." However, I cannot guarantee these are credible sites. I had them in my Favorites. My bibliography addresses the "sun" myth.

"My MM to your Jesus?" Hmmm. Would you like to create some miracles?

[Medicine*Woman]

QUOTE]If some party had simply decided to create a mythical Jesus literature, they would have written one gospel.[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: How do you come up with that?

The fact that the different gospels contradict each other on many points lends credibility to the historical Jesus hypothesis.*************
M*W: Sorry, but I don't understand your logic. "Contradiction" does not equal "credibility."

[SnakeLord]

You are pissed off at the religious and Christians and I can think of many reasons for you to be

To be quite brutally honest with you, I have absolutely no care about the religious or christians, merely the subject matter. In either case personal feelings towards a group of people is not the argument at hand.

So far the two arguments on this thread are:

1) It's common sense that jesus existed because a "made up person would never stand up to scrutiny"

2) The fact that the gospels contradict each other shows that they're true.

Need I really point out the problems with these arguments?

[Michael]

Unbelievers in Gilgamesh must be killed.
hehe...

[Democles]

No matter what, there is plenty of evidentiary support of Jesus' existance. He was a man. What they're denying is that he was the prophet, that he was the messiah. They say he was just a man.

Hm, what a shame.

[Michael]

There is plenty of evidence but it is good evidence? I mean, there's evidence of Xenu's existence too. But is it good?

Also, I've yet to read of contemporary evidence of Jesus. It seems more likely that there were a lot of teachers wandering around at the time and a mix of people swirled and amalgamated into the myth that is Jesus.

[ronan]

existence of Jesus as a common man is not evidence of Jesus.

but I think there is evidence of a guy known as Jesus who were not really a common man because he upset the whole roman society.

I think there is at least evidence of a revolutionary guy named Jesus.

No?
What these scholars said about that?
Do they simply say: no there was no Jesus that get in some way famous by revolutionary thinking and sayings?

[SnakeLord]

existence of Jesus as a common man is not evidence of Jesus

I would actually be inclined to agree. Frankly as an argument it would be like using evidence of the existence of Vlad the impaler, (Vlad Dracula) as evidence of the existence of Count Dracula.

[Yorda]

Which scholar affirms the Sun hypothesis?

I do

Indeed, hence Gilgamesh was a real god!

He was a son of God like Noah.

[SnakeLord]

He was a son of God like Noah.

Incorrect, he was the son of a king and a goddess.

[John99]

Snakelord, We have a bitter woman (M*W) trying to convince people that a few modern authors, who know virtually nothing about that time except for what they read, know if someone was alive over 2,000 years ago.

You are smarter than all this. Like i have said before: I dont care if someone worships Satan and fellates a life size effigy every day at sundown. Why should I?

But isnt the arrogance and lying a little annoying? So you dont believe Jesus and the strory? Who CARES?

[Medicine*Woman]

No matter what, there is plenty of evidentiary support of Jesus' existance. He was a man. What they're denying is that he was the prophet, that he was the messiah. They say he was just a man.

Hm, what a shame.
*************
M*W: You're wrong. Your evidentiary support cannot be concluded. And, that is not at all what I'm saying. Clearly, I am saying that Jesus did not exist as a human being, therefore, he couldn't have been a prophet nor messiah. Jesus was not a man at all. He was nothing but myth.

[John99]

*************
M*W: You're wrong. Your evidentiary support cannot be concluded. And, that is not at all what I'm saying. Clearly, I am saying that Jesus did not exist as a human being, therefore, he couldn't have been a prophet nor messiah. Jesus was not a man at all. He was nothing but myth.

And we are simply trying to tell you that he could not have been made up. You just cannot create a person out of nowhere.

Better still, give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.

Perhaps, when you cannot you will see how stupid this is. That is all we are saying.

[John99]

For some reason this is not penetrating.

[John99]

Well, you cannot handle a little scrutiny.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: John99... Don't bother replying to any message that I post. You are terminally on IGNORE.

[Yorda]

Incorrect, he was the son of a king and a goddess.

Back then the kings were gods.

[Michael]

existence of Jesus as a common man is not evidence of Jesus.

but I think there is evidence of a guy known as Jesus who were not really a common man because he upset the whole roman society.

I think there is at least evidence of a revolutionary guy named Jesus.

No?
What these scholars said about that?
Do they simply say: no there was no Jesus that get in some way famous by revolutionary thinking and sayings?There is evidence for a lot of people that were just like Jesus. Jesus is probably a composite of the lot of them.

[Prince_James]

Medicine*Woman:

"My MM to your Jesus?" Hmmm. Would you like to create some miracles?

Anoint me with oil and I'm all ready, babe.

[Michael]

And we are simply trying to tell you that he could not have been made up. You just cannot create a person out of nowhere. Shakespeare? Socrates? Hercules? Mr Hide?

There is equal (actually maybe more) evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus.

If you have some contemporary evidence for Jesus, post it, if not then accept he is most likely a fictitious character based on many other people.

[John99]

Honestly Mike, with those examples you have to know that you are full of shit. Right?

[ronan]

There is evidence for a lot of people that were just like Jesus. Jesus is probably a composite of the lot of them.

fine, so Jesus existed, it is a group of revolutionary people. :)

it explains why he could come back to life,
one of the member get crucified and another came back :p

[audible]

And we are simply trying to tell you that he could not have been made up. You just cannot create a person out of nowhere.

Better still, give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.

Perhaps, when you cannot you will see how stupid this is. That is all we are saying.Thats rich, coming from a believer, lol
It's most definitely stupid that, you think fantasies are real.

Jason. (Greek myths), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology
Thor (Norse myth), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology
Hence why we say the Jesus myth
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology
All the places of the world, throughout history have had at one time, there heroes and gods, you could pick any one of them to answer your question, all were thought of as real at one time, some still are. lol
http://www.godchecker.com/

but, "You just cannot create a person out of nowhere."rotflmao.

[John99]

"Thats rich, coming from a believer, lol"

You dont know what you are talking about, do you?

I said: Better still, give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.

Michael failed and you have failed. "LOL"

[audible]

You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

I said: give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.

Michael failed and you have failed. "LOL"don't see how, or do you actually believe that the people I've mentioned, who are quite clearly fictional. Weren't ever thought of as real, people still believe in Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism
people still believe in Thor.
http://www.northvegr.org/northern/book/praiseworthy.php

[Fraggle Rocker]

Most likely there was a historical person whom the attributes of Jesus are attributed. It's just common sense because a made up person would never stand up to scrutiny.That's the point. Jesus does not stand up to scrutiny. The only reason he has been accepted as a historical figure for so long is that the Christians had veto power over Western culture. Now that that power is mercifully waning, so is the believability of Jesus. Especially early on. I am referring to when the religion was created people would most likely say "where is this guy, how come he never shows up?"Unless you have some startling new evidence, nothing was written about Jesus until after the alleged time of his death. We have no reason to believe that anyone spoke about him or believed in him during the time he is alleged to have been alive, so there was nothing to be skeptical about.Jesus was probably real. . . .You're begging the question that started this thread. Upon what evidence do you base that assertion? Please present it to us. That's the purpose of this thread, so please cooperate.It is not generally accepted by non-religious scholars that there was no historical Jesus.This is no longer true, although it was for the first half of my life. The last shred of evidence for Jesus as a real historical figure was the writings of the Roman historian Josephus. Modern forensic analysis has demolished the credibility of those portions of his writings. They are blatant forgeries.

So again, unless you have some new evidence that will stun the community of non-religious scholars, you are wrong about this.You are pissed off at the religious and Christians and I can think of many reasons for you to be, but that is beside the point. Medicine Woman' hypothesis has little merit. She could, coincidentally, be correct, but her assertion is weakly supported.There's no inherent negative correlation between being pissed off at somebody and that person actually being wrong. MW may be pissed off at Christianity (and I'm not sure she is, at least not one-tenth as much as I am), but that doesn't autmatically mean that it can't be pure bullshit.The idea that some religious scholars confirmed his non-existence is a joke.You are way behind the information curve on this. Besides, no scholar would use terminology like "confirming his non-existence." This sounds like something a religionist made up to cast aspersions on atheists.No matter what, there is plenty of evidentiary support of Jesus' existance.You're going to have to do better than that on a science website, even if this is the religion board and we relax some of the rules. Please cite some of this evidence for us. The assertion on the table is that there is NO such evidence. If you know of some, you're going to have to do more than say so.He was a man.Please provide evidence for this assertion.Snakelord, We have a bitter woman (M*W) trying to convince people that a few modern authors, who know virtually nothing about that time except for what they read, know if someone was alive over 2,000 years ago.It's rather a lot of modern writers. The consensus on this issue has completely turned around in the past fifteen or twenty years, since the debunking of the Josephus forgeries. Besides, what does anyone know about events 2000 years ago except what they have read? Scholarship under these circumstances becomes an exercise in forensics, and Jesus fails the test.And we are simply trying to tell you that he could not have been made up. You just cannot create a person out of nowhere.What is your reasoning for this remarkable statement? Con artists and politicians have been fooling people since the dawn of civilization.Better still, give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.As an American I'm somewhat familiar only with the legends of England, the country even those of us without a drop of British blood regard as our spiritual ancestral home. So I'll limit myself to that folklore and I immediately come up with two examples: King Arthur and Robin Hood.

But this is a fallacious question. If someone is believed as real, then how are we to discern that he is false and everyone who believes in him is wrong?

Here we have a perfect laboratory experiment. There is absolutely zero satisfactory scholarly evidence for the existence of Jesus as an actual person. Yet right here on SciForums, a website one would assume to attract scientists and other scholars, people who have nothing to add to that missing pile of evidence are insisting that he was real, and getting really angry and insulting when we ask for at least a modicum of respect for the scientific method in their argument.

We're asking for evidence. The apologists for religion keep tossing around statements to the effect that "there is lots of evidence." Yet no one has actually provided any.

Q.E.D.

[Carcano]

The last shred of evidence for Jesus as a real historical figure was the writings of the Roman historian Josephus. Modern forensic analysis has demolished the credibility of those portions of his writings. They are blatant forgeries.
Forensic analysis...indicating forgery???

Links?

[Noone special]

Yes there is evidence of interpolations to the Josephus' record of Jesus. However there are two references, one is a shorter reference to james
"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ"
to which most scholars afirm as accurate. This is the passage most debated as a later interpolation:

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"

However many scholars believe that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus although not in such an extravegant way. The major reason to believe this is an Arabic version of the text from the Historian Agapius which is much more conservative:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

I think this points that Josephus did mention a historic Jesus.

Also, I hope Im not redundant to most of you, but there are a few other extra-biblical references to Jesus dating after 100: Pliny the Younger (mentioned Christ and Christians 112 ad), Tacitus (mentioned christus and followers 116 ad), Suetonius (mentions Chrestus and jewish following somewhere between 70-140 ad)

And there is an interesting mention of Jesus in the Talmud "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." dating before 200

As to the authenticity of the Gospels, there is much to discuss on this subject which could end up taking a lengthy amount of time. Well I looked for a comprehensive text online concerning the authenticity of the gospels and came up short, forgive me. However I have read a couple books on the subject that make quite a case: Josh McDowells "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", and for the historicity of Christ Josh McDowell wrote "More than a Carpenter"

This is just some of the most interesting evidence that I scraped up, but theres really a lot more out there (controversial as it may be)

[SnakeLord]

Back then the kings were gods.

Gilgamesh' father was a human.

Better still, give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real.

There are countless - ironically enough generally being those characters regarded as gods or demi-gods. We could list all manner of characters, gods or not gods: Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Noah, Adam and Eve and so on and so forth. The list just goes on.

So again, unless you have some new evidence that will stun the community of non-religious scholars, you are wrong about this.

I would just like to point out and make it clear for the record that I am not the one that made the statement that has now twice incorrectly been attributed to me. It's all M*W's fault. :D It wasn't "originally posted by SnakeLord" at all. Thanks.

[Carcano]

However there are two references, one is a shorter reference to james
"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ"
to which most scholars afirm as accurate.
This short passage is also quoted by Origen who died circa 254 AD.

He does not mention the longer passage, nor does any other early Christian writer.

[Carcano]

As to the authenticity of the Gospels, there is much to discuss on this subject which could end up taking a lengthy amount of time. Well I looked for a comprehensive text online concerning the authenticity of the gospels and came up short, forgive me. However I have read a couple books on the subject that make quite a case: Josh McDowells "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", and for the historicity of Christ Josh McDowell wrote "More than a Carpenter"
Would you agree that the earliest and simplest gospel Mark is likely the most accurate...if indeed there was a historical Jesus?

[audible]

Would you agree that the earliest and simplest gospel Mark is likely the most accurate...if indeed there was a historical Jesus?The answer would be no.

The historicity of Jesus has been thoroughly refuted,
one of our members Iasion, has posted up numerous threads on the subject.

The Jesus Myth and apologists' claims (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410)

Alleged historical evidence for Jesus (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294)

Gospels by eye-witnesses? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654)

[John99]

Audible, no offence intended but for the vast majority of the population Iasion is not an authority, nor do his scribbles here hold the same kind of value that they may to you.

Your just trying too hard.

Give an example of one fictional character who has, in the course of history, been believed as real. Not real to children but thought to be an actual being yet never lived at all.

So far we have:

Thor
Shakespeare
Socrates
Hercules
Mr Hide (Hyde)

Obviously all feeble attempts at an answer. You should read the post by Noone special, there is a lot to learn out there.

[Noone special]

John 99 forgive me, but I think your line of reasoning is an unfruitful one. There have been religious figures in the past believed to be real by entire civilizations for years. The primitive aztecs believed the craziest things, like that the gods turned humans into birds to escape a worldwide volcano. It could be argued that we are being just as primitive as them.... Accept for the fact that the case of Jesus is more unique

You see, Jesus was believed to be real from an earlier time, and the gospels are accompanied by writings of early christians who believed in a historical Christ.

Secondly, the imperical evidence (which is so passionately debated) would set the Jesus account apart from Gilgamesh, Hercules, Thor ect.

I mean to say, we don't have letters from followers of Gilgamesh dating 30 years after his death. (although I admit, that I do think there is truth in the myth of Gilgamesh, there are acounts of enormous floods and a survivor in the mythology of many ancienct religions. The collective accounts point to a faint memory of a real event [coughnoah'sflood])

[John99]

There have been religious figures in the past believed to be real by entire civilizations for years.

That is true and some of them were real people and some were just up there in the heavens with chariots and lightening bolts. The divide between truth (actual people) and complete fiction, even if you do believe in the one riding the Chariot in the sky has always been clearly defined.

This amounts to revisionist history but i really see no reason to have history rewritten by a few shoe makers.

[John99]

I mean to say, we don't have letters from followers of Gilgamesh dating 30 years after his death. (although I admit, that I do think there is truth in the myth of Gilgamesh, there are acounts of enormous floods and a survivor in the mythology of many ancienct religions. The collective accounts point to a faint memory of a real event [coughnoah'sflood])

Some were based on actual people with mythology built around them and some were complete fantasy. Another aspect that does not get much, if any, consideration at all is that people are story tellers. And thousands of years ago people were writing stuff that popped into their heads on cave walls but if someone should find this image thousands of years later and what have they found? To them they found a GOD, worshipped by the masses. Meanwhile what they really found was someones fantasy, most likely bored and trying to entertain children.

[ronan]

Existence of these entity:
Thor, why not?
Shakespeare, why not?
Socrates, why not?
Hercules, why not?
Mr Hide (Hyde), why not?

I want to know if your answer to the question why not?
in other word : why do you think these entity did no exist?

would be applicable to Jesus.

If not then the argument is no more. You have to find people where it seems evident that they do not exist and that the argument for their non-existence should be applicable to Jesus

because it is not because someone believe that winnie the poh existed that it follows that Jesus did not existed ( I understand that it is not because many people believe in jesus that he existed)

In other word the argument of non existence should rely on similar case of mistaken belief.

and an argument for the existence should be some text of different origin talking about jesus

[John99]

Ronan, I am not a biblical scholar (nor have i even read the Bible) but there are sound, logical reasons for my conclusion, which i may elaborate on later.

Thor, why not? Probably not
Shakespeare, why not? YES
Socrates, why not? YES
Hercules, why not? Probably not
Mr Hide (Hyde), why not? Probably not


The difference is if we add 'based on'\ loosely based on or inspred by. IOW was Mr. Hyde based on an actual person with creative liscense added to create a story? It is very possible. Here we are talking about something a little different though.

If the question is? Was there an actual being over 2k years ago claiming to be JC then the answer is obviously yes. What else you believe in addition to that is up to you.

[Medicine*Woman]

Would you agree that the earliest and simplest gospel Mark is likely the most accurate...if indeed there was a historical Jesus?
*************
M*W: Of course, Mark didn't actually write the book of Mark. In fact, no historical person has identified a person named Mark who has been credited for writing the gospel of the same name. My personal belief is derived from scholars of recently published books regarding the Romans authoring not only the gospels but maybe even the entire NT (i.e. the Pauline Epistles, Revelations, etc.), who are Francesco Carlotta and Joseph Atwill. (See my previous bibliography on this subject).

M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

(Quoted for John99 who is still remains on IGNORE).

"Question: How do you know you're God?"

"Answer: When I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself." ~ Peter O'Toole

M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"Be not like him who sits by his fireside and watches the fire go out, then blows vainly upon the dead ashes. Do not give up hope or yield to despair because of that which is past, for to bewail the irretrievable is the worst of human frailties." ~ Kahlil Gibran, 1883-1931, Lebanese Poet, Artist and Mystic

[ronan]

Ronan, I am not a biblical scholar (nor have i even read the Bible) but there are sound, logical reasons for my conclusion, which i may elaborate on later.
Me neither I am not a biblical scholar, I just read genesis some time ago and some fragment of the new testament.
Regarding my personal opinion concerning the existence of Jesus:
I also believe he existed. (Maybe he did not heal a blind man but I believe that he at least shake the world of his time by his revolutionary idea)
I am open to any argument that would make his existence less clear.
Does someone have one of them?


Thor, why not? Probably not
Shakespeare, why not? YES
Socrates, why not? YES
Hercules, why not? Probably not
Mr Hide (Hyde), why not? Probably not


The difference is if we add 'based on'\ loosely based on or inspred by. IOW was Mr. Hyde based on an actual person with creative liscense added to create a story? It is very possible. Here we are talking about something a little different though.

Right, it is different her even if probably what we know of Jesus (that he heal a blind man and that he came back to life) is not describing him completely , it is in fact probable that the authors added extra events (probably like Mr Hide)
in fact in the case of Mr Hide, the author do not want us to believe that he existed. (I think so, I did not read that neither)


If the question is? Was there an actual being over 2k years ago claiming to be JC then the answer is obviously yes. What else you believe in addition to that is up to you.
I agree but if the jesus is just a common man it is not anymore jesus.
To say that Jesus existed, we have to attribute some characteristics common to what people think he is.
For example if jesus was finaly a woman born in South Africa taken as slave for the Roman emperor, then we cannot say that Jesus existed as Jesus (the one we believe now)

So maybe we have to first answer : what is the minimum characteristics of Jesus that would make us recognize him.?

Then we can look for the existence of a human with this characteristics.

Here is a list of characteristsics describing Jesus(to be completed and edited):
+ male
- jewish
+ revolutionary
- healer
+ leader
- crucifixed
- philosopher
+ called Jesus
+ existed 2000 years ago

The + represent the minimum characteristic

so the question of the existence of Jesus could be restated as:

Did a revolutionary man called Jesus who leads some people 2000 years ago existed?

I don't have enough knowledge about Jesus and I think the minimum characteristic can be refined.

[Noone special]

Did a revolutionary man named Jesus lead people in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

I could come up with no other reasonable explaination for the impact/movement that happened around the same time. However, I don't think this adds any credible evidence to Jesus being God, or doing miracles or ressurecting.

After all, around the time of Jesus there were many who rose up and claimed to be the messiah and had many people follow them. There was a general move towards revolt of their roman leaders amongst the Jews. In fact, it has been theorized that the followers of Jesus during His life thought that his goal was to overthrow the roman government.

My point is that showing that a man existed whom we can attribute these bare minimum traits to would not be a hard thing at all. If he is really Jesus, then he is really God, not merely a historical man. The real argument is over the supernatural. No matter how much "imperical evidence" points toward a supernatural event, whatever theory will explain the event in natural terms, however improbable, will seem more probable to those who rule out the option of the supernatural.
I'm saying that it's futile to discuss the probability of a man who was God, if you completely rule it out before the discussion.

[Medicine*Woman]

Did a revolutionary man named Jesus lead people in Palestine some 2000 years ago?
*************
M*W: There have been no Roman records of his crucifixion. The Romans had scribes who were adept at documenting everything. I bet you can't find the crucifixion records ot the two thieves either. There are only distant reports of Jesus sometime after 70 CE but no eye-witnesses. The literature, however, has distant stories told of a few eye-witnesses who, themselves, may not have existed. I could go on, but there are so many contradictions in the bible that you can find in books and on the web.

I could come up with no other reasonable explaination for the impact/movement that happened around the same time.
*************
M*W: Absolutely nothing was written "around the same time" that Jesus was supposed to have lived.

However, I don't think this adds any credible evidence to Jesus being God, or doing miracles or ressurecting.
*************
M*W: No, that's exactly what makes any evidence incredible. John Dominic Crossan, a well-known, peer-reviewed christian biblical scholar has brought the point up about reviving christianity and what that will need to be successful. He says, and I'm quoting this from memory, that three things need to take place in the christian church to bring it to the modern age. They are:

1) To rethink the virgin birth,
2) To remove the resurrection,
3) and to forget the assension.

This topic has also been addressed by John Shelby Spong, another prominent christian author.

After all, around the time of Jesus there were many who rose up and claimed to be the messiah and had many people follow them.
*************
M*W: I'd like to know who these people were. Please name them.

There was a general move towards revolt of their roman leaders amongst the Jews. In fact, it has been theorized that the followers of Jesus during His life thought that his goal was to overthrow the roman government.
*************
M*W: This is exactly why the Romans invented christianity. They wrote it as propaganda against the Jews. Interestingly, the gospel of Mark turned up just about the time of the Jewish Revolt (70 AD). My guess is that Mark may have been written by Josephus who was a high-ranking soldier in that revolt.

You do know that the Pauline Epistles were written before the gospels. This laid the ground work for the gospels, and no "Paul" existed or wrote them. This fictional character was allegedly in Rome when he wrote the epistles, so they must have been written by a Roman who knew the goings on around Rome but who also was well-traveled knowledgeable.

My point is that showing that a man existed whom we can attribute these bare minimum traits to would not be a hard thing at all.
*************
M*W: Can you provide documented evidence from noted scholars? How hard could this be?

If he is really Jesus, then he is really God, not merely a historical man. The real argument is over the supernatural. No matter how much "imperical evidence" points toward a supernatural event, whatever theory will explain the event in natural terms, however improbable, will seem more probable to those who rule out the option of the supernatural. I'm saying that it's futile to discuss the probability of a man who was God, if you completely rule it out before the discussion.
*************
M*W: First, you're making an illogical assumption that Jesus existed therefore there has to be a god therefore Jesus existed and is god. Don't you see the circular logic?

Jesus was a metaphor for the sun. Just like in Revelations, I think, it refers to "a woman clothed in the sun." That would be about the month of September which is conveniently celebrated as Jesus's mother's "birthday."

This same "woman," the Constellation Virgo, also has arms that extend into the Constellation Libra and appears that she is holding scales.

In another post, her tits were mentioned. Looking skyward to the Constellation Virgo there are stars located where each of her "paps" would be.

Another interesting point is that the Constellation Virgo was the forerunner of the goddesses of many cultures.

How can any supernatural deity really exist? They are fictional characters that are often named so from the stars or bodies in the heavens.

Your statement on "empirical evidence" does not point to logic. In fact, your whole statement was gibberish. Rephrase it.

Some people really believe in Leprechans. Others believe in Ewoks. Some believe that mythological characters are real... as in "believing makes it so."

I don't believe any of us here would dispute the fact that Jesus was god. We're just waiting for someone like you to prove it.

[Noone special]

M*W: There have been no Roman records of his crucifixion.

Ann. of Tacitus 15.44: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

M*W: I'd like to know who these people were. Please name them.


First Jospehus says this general comment: "Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyed the peace of the city no less than did these murderers (the Sicarii). For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty"

Athronges (Josephus' Jewish Antiquities 17.278-284)
Theudas (though not explicitly claimed as messiah, claimed as great prophet and led an revolt against roman control) (Jospehus' Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)
Then an "egyptian" whom Felix killed his followers in 55-60
Menahem Ben Judah led the "Zealots" and fought Agripus II
Finally Josephus mentions a "prophet" led followers into the desert who were killed by the troops of Festus

M*W: This is exactly why the Romans invented christianity.

That's quite an assertive claim, may you provide some evidence as has been required of me? It's actually just a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the Flavians created a more passive messiah in order to make a following that would not create an uprising? Forgive me if I am mistaken.

To me this seems like quite a brilliant undertaking, seeing as there was already a militaristic messianic movement in play. There was a Jewish-Roman war going on. How exactly did the Flavians convince the jews that the gospels were authentic? Couldn't the people of the time easily have discerned if this were a hoax created by romans?

Besides that, why would the romans propagate a religion that would exclude the worship of caesar?

M*W: First, you're making an illogical assumption that Jesus existed therefore there has to be a god therefore Jesus existed and is god. Don't you see the circular logic?


Im sorry but you might not be understanding the groove of my jig. I didn't really say that at all. I was saying that proving that there was a man named Jesus who led an uprising would be proving nothing at all. I was saying that if the real Jesus were to be proven from a christian perspective, he would have to be proven to be God. If he is not proven to be God, then hes not really the Jesus we claim, in fact there would be no Jesus.

But in fact, my illogical assumption (and Im a firm believer that illogical assumptions are neccesary, just choose your flavor) that Jesus existed, and that the historical evidence is credible, is no less illogical than your extreme criticism of the historical evidence, and in fact I would say your preconcieved assumption that Jesus never existed.

As I was saying earlier, it is impossible to prove to someone anything which they rule out a priori. If there is a conspiricy theory, no matter how far fetched, it will appear far more tempting to someone than accepting that Jesus is God, because after all, Jesus can't be God right? (sarcasm, forgive me)

[John99]

M*W, what you said about the Romans makes no sense. It is not even consistent with what you said earlier.

[John99]

For example if jesus was finaly a woman born in South Africa taken as slave for the Roman emperor, then we cannot say that Jesus existed as Jesus (the one we believe now)

Do you mean by name?

[audible]

Ann. of Tacitus 15.44: ------------------- it will appear far more tempting to someone than accepting that Jesus is God, because after all, Jesus can't be God right? (sarcasm, forgive me)JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
thanks Iasion.



The crucifixion

The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is probably the single most important event in the xian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with xians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.

The crucifixion continues here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45999)

[Noone special]

I thought it would be most benefitial to review the validity of the Tacitus evidence.

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.


This could easily be acounted for as a minor scribal error. The earliest manuscripts we have are from the 11th century.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)


According to the Tacitean scholars, whose opinion I reference, Tacitus was probably writing to a smaller group, of friends perhaps. There is only one scholar I saw who questioned that this quotation was an interpolation, compared to 9 Tacitean scholars who thought it was genuine. The passae appears in every copy of the Annals that we have. It's written in "Perfect Tacitean style."

* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

Actually Tacitus writes in a decisively negative tone toward christianity. First this shows that it is highly unlikely that a christian would write it. Second this gives a reason why no church father would have willingly quoted it. And since Tacitus probably wrote to a limited audience of his peers, his work could have not gotten into the church fathers hands at an early date.

And the link you gave for Tacitus, is just his works posted online.

This sure is a tedious discussion to say the least. Everything must be questioned!

[audible]

This could easily be acounted for as a minor scribal error. The earliest manuscripts we have are from the 11th century.Maybe so, but doubtful.
According to the Tacitean scholars, whose opinion I reference,where are the links. Tacitus was probably writing to a smaller group, of friends perhaps.Was he! Five or five thousand is quite irrelevant, the fact that it errs is paramount.There is only one scholar I saw who questioned that this quotation was an interpolation, compared to 9 Tacitean scholars who thought it was genuine.and they are? the links to them. Please. The passage appears in every copy of the Annals that we have. It's written in "Perfect Tacitean style."Is it, and what style is that care to explain.
"Even though the passage is authentic to Tacitus, it might be argued that Tacitus received his information about the origin of the Christian name from Christians themselves. This could be argued on six grounds: (1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly. (2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. (3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus. (4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). (5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty. (6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstition." From Here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html)Actually Tacitus writes in a decisively negative tone toward christianity. First this shows that it is highly unlikely that a christian would write it. Second this gives a reason why no church father would have willingly quoted it. And since Tacitus probably wrote to a limited audience of his peers, his work could have not gotten into the church fathers hands at an early date.how he write is irrelevant as to what he writes, or what is actually written by him.And the link you gave for Tacitus, is just his works posted online. try this one it has links within links etc etc... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.htmlThis sure is a tedious discussion to say the least. Everything must be questioned!agreed Especially if your a Christian, the truth is not something they really want to know, is it.

[Noone special]

First, the reason I said that he probably wrote to a small group is to explain the relaxed language he uses.

Secondly, I almost have enough posts to be able to post links :P

And here is an argument I have read on the authenticity:
"Furthermore, there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage: the anti-Christian tone of the passage, the scapegoat motif, the Latin style, and the integration of the passage with the story." --Jeffery Jay Lowder

Forgive me for not going into grave detail about each scholar, and listing every link. Perhaps I am not as intellegent, capable, or dedicated as you would wish.

[John99]

audible, some things you are asking can only be known at time of death. I would have just as soon avoided a theological discussion on divinity because we need to be able, for our own comfort, to accept all possibilities ATOD. We just dont know what is going to happen, none of them can be right and all of them can be right.

[John99]

You have to realize that what is nkown to us is considered possible, by the same token what is unknown may also be possible. We can ask the question: Is it impossible because it is unknown? The unknown is what appears to be the root of our struggles through life, collectively.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: To audible and Noone special: Wow! I am impressed with your knowledge! Both of you have posted information that I have not read here before. That is not to say that someone else (Iasion comes to mind) has posted similar studies, and I do hope you keep posting such information as you have herein.

I am going to do further reading on the subject both of you presented, and then I'll be back.

Thank you so much, and keep up the great work!

~ M*W

[John99]

What about my posts?

[Simon Anders]

I would just like to say that the thread is mistitled.
The verb should be 'was'.

[Medicine*Woman]

I would just like to say that the thread is mistitled.
The verb should be 'was'.
M*W: Thank you, you are correct.

[Noone special]

Indeed M*W conversing with you has provoked me to reevaluate sources and do much more research, so I think this has been benefitial. Not to mention entertaining.

[John99]

Ronin: Right, it is different her even if probably what we know of Jesus (that he heal a blind man and that he came back to life) is not describing him completely , it is in fact probable that the authors added extra events (probably like Mr Hide)
in fact in the case of Mr Hide, the author do not want us to believe that he existed. (I think so, I did not read that neither)

I dont tell Hindu's what to believe either.

[John99]

I think my point has been proven. There was never a human entity, in history, who was\is believed to be real BUT was proven to be fictional (fake).

This hurdle cannot be overcome.

[Noone special]

Honestly John, I think that's a ridiculous argument.

1. It's begging the question. Your assuming that Jesus has not been proven to be mythical, then your using this as proof that he is not mythical.
2. Your brushing off all evidence and conjecture that everyone has posed to you by simply saying "those are bad examples" and not explaining yourself better.
3. You haven't once citing any kind of sources or rellied on any kind of information outside of your own brain.

Don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to help you out.
Maybe you should explore different avenues of argument, its like excercising except its for your brain.

[John99]

Honestly John, I think that's a ridiculous argument.

I dont think it is. It is, however, a syllogistic approach and is quite rational. What i base my findings on is assuming the base criteria for investigation.

Life
Death
Real
Fake

[John99]

Has anyone else come up with examples we can examine? Because so far there have not been any.

[John99]

My belief is that Jesus is a metaphor for the Sun (and this is confirmed by many religious scholars and authors).

You are citing people who believe as you do, this is not confirmation to anyone but you (which is fine, for you).

The main thing is that i have never heard of this happening before and unless examples are given then i can say that this alone, without any corroboration necessary, has been proven by me.

It is called Precedent.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm