Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

Won't go down that road again. I'll disagree and leave it at that.

Quite so, the quality of the evidence is what is to be assessed - but by whom? Belief in God is clearly of a subjective nature. I don't think one can form any belief without some form of "evidence". Pointless to go down that road again. I'll leave it at that.

You missed the point of my post... it's the value that is recognised in the way that must convince you to adapt it through faith.

It is attractive to you, yet you won't take the step of faith to live it, because there is no scientific evidence. It isn't that attractive then.

Thing is - in any event - according to the myth, faith is all you need.

But I am of the opinion that faith is always informed by "evidence" - scientific evidence isn't the only... I do not shun the subjective experience because when all else fails, that's what I have.

Better yet, all believers love what they believe to be the true nature of God - a subjective endeavour, yes, but it still doesn't a/effect it's truth or non-truth in reality. Same statement, but a more general quality. If God exists as they see, all the better for them. If he doesn't, they're none the worse than any average person on the planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Iasion,

You stated that... "Many CENTURIES after the alleged Jesus, we see Jewish responses to the Christian story -"

I disagreed with your estimate because we see Jewish writings which are dated much earlier...

I did not forget and I stand by my statement. Again, there are writings which are dated much earlier.

Actually, that's not what I said.

To be continued...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Belief is a cognitive opinion, ideally based on some form of evidence or verifiable condition. Belief that my lamp will illuminate the room based upon the knowledge that the lamp is plugged in; the bulb screwed in; and the electric bill paid.

But belief can be a cognitive condition that exists in spite of evidence! Sylvia Browne told listeners on the "Coast to Coast" radio show that the miners trapped in a West Virginia mine would be found alive. That was just after the news broke they had been found alive but just before the revised news they were actually dead. And people still believe her claims in spite of evidence like this and many other instances that prove she is a scam artist. But if you can't accept a fake psychic, I'm sure you'll agree that there are those that believe in many, many things that evidence simply says isn't so: witches, talking trees, living volcanos, coral calcium, magnetic insoles, etc.

Faith, therefore, is blind trust; belief without (and in many cases, in spite of) evidence to the contrary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Simply disagreeing isn't a sufficient rebuttal. You also said, "According to the research of skeptic Randall Niles, at least 40 authors explicitly mention Jesus and the resulting spiritual movement within the first 150 years of his life..." I'm not saying this is incorrect, but you did not cite the specific source to Niles -I looked and there is a mention of "40 distinct authors" in one of his works, but this is in the context of the entire bible.

Could you cite the source of your information, even if it isn't a web page (preferably not actually).

What are they?

 

Greetings ,

Talmud

On page 4 you claimed, and I quote :

Here we see you claim the Talmud is a "RECORD" of Jesus,
and you go on to claim they wrote about him "DURING HIS LIFETIME".

I pointed out the Talmud stories were dated centuries after his alleged life, (and that they tell a very DIFFERENT story about Jesus - something you conspicuously ignore.)

You continue with your false claim,
but you STILL have not produced any evidence.

Come on then !
Do it !
PRODUCE the Jewish writings from the time of Jesus which mention him.
Or, at least TELL us when the Talmud references to Jesus were written (my guess is, you have NO IDEA, which is why you never produce any facts.)

Rubbish !
That's EXACTLY what you said, and I QUOTE :

YOU claimed the Talmud recorded Jesus (his sorcery) "DURING HIS LIFETIME".

Now you pretend that you did not say that.
Do you expect ANYONE to believe ANYTHING you say after this ?


Dating system

Twice you used the word "RECORDED", and you used the word "inception", implying the birth of Jesus was recorded at the time, and that this dating system was used from the early days.

You were wrong.
Our dating system was invented many CENTURIES after the alleged time of Jesus, and was not commonly used until AFTER Bede.

Of course,
now you twist and bluster and attempt to pretend your never made that claim.

Do you stand by your claim that the birth of Jesus was "RECORDED" ?
Where is it recorded exactly?

Are you still denying that our dating system was invented many centuries afterwards?
Have you even bothered to read up on Dennis the Small yet?

We see you don't even understand what BCE means! A clear sign you haven't studied this subject AT ALL.
You can find many references to this, here is one :
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-definitions.html


Early Writings

Yup.
None of which are contemporary.

I see you missed my analysis of such early writers,
so,
here they are again :


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews 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 remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were 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.


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.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

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


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...er/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


Iasion

 

Hi Iasion,

I would agree with you 100% if I had said, "During his lifetime, they wrote about his practice of sorcery."

That is not what I said.

My statement concerned what they wrote about... which was... his practice of sorcery during his lifetime.

 

Fair enough.

Faith is based on experience. Assuming you have faith that your wife won't cheat on you, it comes from developing a relationship of trust, personal sacrifice, and love. Likewise, when a christian applies Jesus' teachings, and the bible in geneneral to their life it works to achieves the desired result. It doesn't work for nonbelievers. I've tried it both ways.

I am married and I am a christian. I'd have to say faith is most like a marriage. Also, the church is called the bride of christ in the bible, and christ is likened to the groom. The marriage supper of the lamb is mentioned as well.

I think it's time to take a poll about the reality of historical figures. Please join me there.

 

Akhem...

Heh heh...

Veritable entertainment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The statement by Wilmet was ambiguous by itself, but in the context he wrote it, it was clearly meant to be a supporting statement for the assertion that Jewish authors "wrote about jesus during his lifetime."

Now, Wilmet is using the ambiguous nature of the statement to backtrack after being called on the fallacious nature of his claim.

 

Backtrack..."after being called on?"...
You act like its a debate about some abstract historical timepiece.
How pitiful....really.

Jesus wasn't just some person or prophet or myth about a god that lived 2000 years ago.
He promised to return and He has, even though in some ways He never fully left us alone.
He promised to raise up on the third day - after two thousand years and raise up all those who stood for him.
They would all be taught of God.
His Government is upon His shoulders....the body of Christ, His people He raised up.
He has not forgotten His word or been in any way lacking in the fulfilling of it.
It has come to pass exactly as foretold, and right in front of your eyes, while those He would not have see......have been withheld from the seeing of it.
A table has been spread in the presence of our enemies, for a feast on the things of God and the world is unaware.

 

Hi SkinWalker,

Conclusions are being reached without all the facts. In the context of my entire discussion, I believe it was made clear when I wrote:

"Again... early rabbinical writings about Jesus confirm rather than deny (not prove) the existence of an historical Jesus. If Christians were creating a legend about a Jesus that never existed, then more than likely Jewish writers would have pointed out that he never existed rather than writing about a non-entity learning and practicing sorcery, etc..."

In full context, I have found no ancient records (regardless of when they were written) which actually deny the existence of an historic Jesus.

 

Please show some proof?

 

Hi Iasion,

The calendar memorializes an event. The birth of Jesus Christ. The calendar is a record of the event.

I've been aware for quite some time that the calendar might be off a few years from the actual birth. The accuracy of the date is inconsequential when considering the questions, "Was he actually born?" or "Did Jesus exist?"

Please show me where I denied anything about the date of the inception of the calendar or dating system(s). Your interpretations are not reliable sources.

The website you provided supports my statements about and my understanding of the calendar and the dating system(s).

 

So you don't believe there are two groups the Lord is dealing with as I have told you?
That He could have come long ago like His Word said, and be here now as He said He would, and the world not see it?
He called them the wheat and the tares.
The children of the world and the children of God.
Who is this then the scriptures speak of?

Matthew 13:13-16
But we have the mind of Christ.....
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not; neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says;
'By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive"
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

This is the way He has always done it.
The supernatural separates the world from God.
And the people who belong to each.
So you think I'm required to prove anything to you?
The truth is just the opposite.
If God hasn't ordained before the foundation of the world for you to see, no one can show it to you though it exists right before your eyes in plain sight.

All the "scientific evidence" in the world will just be dismissed as coincidence or myth or some magicians trick...as it has always been with the world.
So if you seek to have God proved to the masses, you will not have it.

But... "If thou knewest Who it is that saith to thee, thou wouldest have asked of Him, with a humble spirit in the right manner, He would have given thee living water.

 

Thats a god way to get over reason isnt it? Say you wont get evidence you just have to believe? If god wanted people to be saved he would have given some proof instead of giving us a flawed book and saying believe. Unless God isnt a god at all but instead a made up fairy tale built to warp the masses into submission?

 

Did I ever say "you just have to believe"...?
No, you did.
A "flawed book"...? Not one contradiction in it. Its sealed from the "eyes of the wise and prudent", and what they interpret as contradictions are not.
They were worded that way just for this reason.
So you think giving proof would have done it?
Many things in life are scientifically proven and still people don't believe it.
If you witnessed a supernatural miracle, you could still say it was done by the devil.....Thats what the Jews did when faced with the dilemma.

If you read my last post again, I said there are two groups.....and for one group, no amount of proof will change their hearts or minds.
In dealing with the other God does provided ample "proof" in an individual supernatural way specific to that person, revealing to them things that no one but God could know, doing things that no one but God could do so that they will have "vindication" of whats true proven beyond the shadow of any doubt.
But that will be from God to them personally.
Don't ask me for proof.
Ask God.

 

Here is how i veiw your two group idea. One group is ran by logic & reason and evidence. the other group is ran by delusions & flawed ideas.
oh, and also...Go read your bible again. If you think it is flawless you need reading lessons.

 

The Jewish calendar memorializes an event. The creation of the world. The Jewish calendar is a record of the creation of the world 5766 years ago.

According to YOUR theory that is.

The fact is,
an idea INVENTED 6 centuries after Jesus is no evidence for anything.


Iasion

 

A book that is written by Fugitives, Kings, clergymen, Prophets, Fishermen turn desciples, desciples turn fishers-of-men, priests, and story tellers...That to me is why its such a bestseller.

 

And how do you know it was six centuries later......?
Were you there?

You see, you are taking someones word for everything you believe to be true.
What you accept as true will mark you for eternity.
That reveals where you came from in the beginning, and marks you with a mark for all to see.
On the forehead where your revelation lies.
Thats the "real" meaning of the 666 symbology that everyone is talking about today.

John chapter 6, verse 66 reads....
"From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

To hear the truth and walk away, is the mark that reveals who your father is and where you came from.
Thats what we are all really doing here, manifesting who we are and where we came from.
There was a war in heaven, and it came to the Earth.....and we have been given authority to take dominion over this Earth and all the powers that be therein and bring it under subjection to the powers that are in heaven.

Our Father who art in heaven.....thy kingdom come, thy will be done....on Earth as it is in heaven.