Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are actual artifacts that point to him existing as a human being besides the Bible. Learn2Research. Socrates is older than Jesus and we know he existed, why would is it so hard to believe that there are some tablets that allude to Jesus?

Norwulf wrote:I'm well aware of how Islam got it's start, what I'm saying is this: Muslims dont believe Jesus was the son of God, but they do believe he was a real person.

And I'm saying the error with that is that both come from the same source religion. It's a bit like saying the Stanley Cup is the most important trophy in world sports, and saying this must be true because despite their rivalry, the New York Rangers and the New York Islanders both think it is. Because of course they would, they're both hockey teams.

In the same way, the idea that two religions following the same tradition of Abraham are going to agree on many things, but none of it would count as independant verification.

Your right though, as far as I know there is no physical proof of Jesus's existance. IDK if they still have any roman census records from that period, (that's the best piece of evidence I imagine could be found). My point was that it is highly likely, a jewish guy from Nazereth named Jesus did infact exist, and most people whether they believe he was the messiah or not, agree that he probably existed.

The idea that there was a guy called Jesus who was a rabbi and who gave subversive sermons, is not an outrageous claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:And the mention of Christ in Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" doesn't count because?

... the only source for it is 300 years after the fact, written by a Christian, and it is of dubious authenticity.

I personally consider it to be a major issue. There is arguably no one who has had a greater impact on world history. Whether or not he existed would seem to be a major historical sticking point, and as Ahtman said, few historians would doubt the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

It's an historical non-issue because the idea that there was a preacher called Jesus can't be disproved, and even if it were proved one way or the other it wouldn't really impact on the importance of the bible.

I agree with you that Jesus has an incredibly powerful and influential personal story, and the effect that story has had on the world is right up there with anyone or anything as being one of the most significant things in world history. But what really matters in that story, his morales and his sacrifice, can't be made true or untrue by proving that there was a subversive rabbi alive 2,000 years ago.

Yes, there probably was a guy called Jesus. There were probably quite a few such people. There were certainly plenty of travelling rabbis. The non-mystical elements of his story fit closely with our understanding of the period. That's why establishing whether or not one guy at the time was called Jesus really is an historical non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:There are actual artifacts that point to him existing as a human being besides the Bible. Learn2Research. Socrates is older than Jesus and we know he existed, why would is it so hard to believe that there are some tablets that allude to Jesus?

It isn't hard to believe there might be direct source documents for a guy called Jesus... but there aren't any such things.

We know about lots of people older than Jesus, but there are billions of people who lived much more recently for whom there is simply no record. The size of your historical record is dependant, unsurprisingly, on how powerful you were in your life. Jesus, in his lifetime, was not a king, not a powerful religious figure, and he only led a few men. That such a man would leave no direct historical trace is unsurprising.

sebster wrote:It isn't hard to believe there might be direct source documents for a guy called Jesus... but there aren't any such things.

Yet we do. I suppose this hinges on what you are classifying as 'direct evidence', which you have now added to previously saying there is no proof. As I stated, there are some things that allude to him but there is no document he wrote himself or strangely even a photo. There are documents that tell of a guy causing trouble at the temple as well as some Roman records. Of course he isn't headline news and is on page F8 but they are there. Is it overwhelming like a great flood? No, but then hardly anything from that long ago is. Acting as if there is absolutely nothing, unless it is a video tape with a time stamp, is just not true. These kinds of 'direct documents' don't really exist for almost anything at that time unless, as you said, they were very powerful. Yet we do have records and stories and information on people who did nothing from a position of power. I can't definitively prove to you that yesterday actually took place, let alone 2000.

sebster wrote:The size of your historical record is dependent, unsurprisingly, on how powerful you were in your life.

It also doesn't mean we have no records of anyone else either. Just because 12 books haven't been written about someone doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge they existed.

Oh, and Socrates wasn't a very powerful guy either. He was a troublemaker and he was killed for it. The evidence for his existence isn't really any better. People talked about him and his students, or disciples, wrote about him. Sounds awfully familiar.

OP, your blurring Socialism with Communism.

Being a socialist means being dedicated to the principals of state funded health care, social care, education etc.

It is a sense of responsibility in your community and a willingness to aid the less fortunate to become productive and enable them to contribute. Socialism does not prohibit private business but certainly does not embrace monopoly (see UK private water companies).

Communism is the absolute rule of the state in all matters, Socialism calls for moral responsibility of the citizens within the state. Communism is against religion, Socialism is not. Communism is extremist, Socialism is moderate.

As a socialist I strongly support the Welfare, NHS, Social Services and Education my country provides and keep they will find greater funding, as a socialist I do not like one bit those who make sponging off the benefits created to support short term those off work and want to see them reintegrated to the workforce.

Christ taught us to support those in need, to aid those who required it. Argue all you want if Christ was a socialist, I believe He was, He was most certainly NOT a capitalist!

The argument about whether Jesus can be proved to have existed is as useless as the argument about whether Homer wrote the Iliad and Odyssey or they were in fact done by a different man with the same name.

The point is that the works were produced, they still exist and have inspired people through the ages.

Ahtman wrote:Yet we do. I suppose this hinges on what you are classifying as 'direct evidence', which you have now added to previously saying there is no proof.

When looking at history, the two are inter-changeable. I shifted terms to try and make my point more clearly. What would you consider proof in terms of history that wasn't direct evidence.

As I stated, there are some things that allude to him but there is no document he wrote himself or strangely even a photo. There are documents that tell of a guy causing trouble at the temple as well as some Roman records.

Do you have a source, because if there was such a document, and it had more to it than 'a guy caused trouble in a temple' then that would be something, but I've never heard of such a record.

I know there is a record of a guy with a name similar to Jesus who had five disciples, and was hung for witchcraft, that was traced to 70 AD. But that a single paragraph with more differences than similarities is a pretty big fail in my opinion.

Of course he isn't headline news and is on page F8 but they are there. Is it overwhelming like a great flood? No, but then hardly anything from that long ago is. Acting as if there is absolutely nothing, unless it is a video tape with a time stamp, is just not true.

I think saying 'there is no evidence' when there is no evidence is pretty reasonable. There is stuff appearing seventy or more years later, but that's not evidence that there was a guy called Jesus.

These kinds of 'direct documents' don't really exist for almost anything at that time unless, as you said, they were very powerful. Yet we do have records and stories and information on people who did nothing from a position of power. I can't definitively prove to you that yesterday actually took place, let alone 2000. It also doesn't mean we have no records of anyone else either. Just because 12 books haven't been written about someone doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge they existed.

No, but it does affect whether or not we can say we have any evidence of a person existing.

What I’m saying is that we don’t have any evidence for a guy named Jesus. His story is quite plausible given what we know of the time, and it’s entirely likely that a rabbi named Jesus led some disciples, gave some stirring speeches, then pissed off the rabbis enough that they had him killed. But it’s also quite likely that the story of Jesus was an amalgam of the stories of multiple figures from that time. We just don’t know.

Oh, and Socrates wasn't a very powerful guy either. He was a troublemaker and he was killed for it. The evidence for his existence isn't really any better. People talked about him and his students, or disciples, wrote about him. Sounds awfully familiar.

Socrates was a key figure in the political and cultural dialog of Athens. The importance of Jesus' teaching was only given proper place after his death. Unsurprisingly, given their relative places during their lives, we have more evidence for one than the other. Like you said, duh.

sebster wrote:
Socrates was a key figure in the political and cultural dialog of Athens.

Not really. He represented a key perspective in the dialogue of Athens, but he may have simply been a caricature invented by Plato.

dogma wrote:Not really. He represented a key perspective in the dialogue of Athens, but he may have simply been a caricature invented by Plato.

Fair enough, my knowledge of philosophy is not great.


So now that you've said Socrates may not have existed, do you think you'll get the same reaction as when I said there's no direct evidence for Jesus?

sebster wrote:
So now that you've said Socrates may not have existed, do you think you'll get the same reaction as when I said there's no direct evidence for Jesus?

Probably not. But that may be because my language was less deterministic than yours.

Honestly, I agree with you. There really isn't any direct evidence of Jesus. At least where direct evidence is akin to something like "Hello, my name is Jesus, I am the Christ, and your eternal Buddy. Remember, Kevin Smith is fat donkeycave." But, once you get 2000 years into the past, it 'proof' becomes a very hazy thing. Though there is some credence to the notion that, if something survived for X^n years, it must have some kernel of truth within.

I thought there were some records indicating Socrates trial and execution?

(He was charged with "Corrupting the Youth" and drank hemlock)

There aren't even any written eyewitness accounts from people born whilst Jesus was alive. And his name wasn't Jesus, it was Yeshua - a common Jewish name at that time. Also, there is evidence that 'Messiah' figures popped up sporadically around that area of the middle east, being as they are a large aspect of Jewish mythology. Think of it as a David Koresh kind of thing (absolutely NO offence intended!). Jesus the Annointed One is just the one that stuck - or maybe even just a composite. The truth is we'll probably never know. Doesn't take away from the importance of his teachings which were, for the time, revolutionary.
Meanwhile, back on topic - Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Jesus seemed to believe in social equality, and you can extrapolate from 'love thy neighbour' a belief in respect and tolerance for other members of your... erm... society.

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

*Jesus walks in from thread down the block*

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

Just to be clear... you are getting historical references from the bible right? I don't even understand what you mean by... *THERE IS THE WHOLE BIBLE RIGHT?*

Well... sure there is... what did you expect, half a bible? Or the koran? I mean really though, chicken pox and a banana cream pie for you my friend...

I'm just saying that there ARE eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testamen (half the bible lol). Simply because it has religeous aspects, no one seems to take it seriously?

And your last sentence made almost no sense.

Why would you cite historical information from the bible though? Highly regarded historical text is flexible enough as it is.

We can talk about how Jesus was a midget again though, that was interesting.

Oh. and my last sentence... did make sense. It also appears the banana cream pie has actually had impact.

We can continue to pontificate, or we can take Jesus as he was meant to be taken. Not as a historical figure such as Napoleon, but as a iconic figure that really has no place in history as many concede to view it. Jesus... the man that knew no time .

Let Jesus be the emoticon that lays waste and heals all other emoticons... totally kickin' ass with Jesus.

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

I happen to think that it's pretty dumb to believe in God - at least I know how to be polite. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible, the books that make up the new testament were written at least 200 years (approximately) after the the death of Jesus. There exists nowhere in the world any gospel documents directly authored by the characters in question (Matthew, Luke et al.).
So before you start slinging personal insults around, you might want to get your facts right. It'll make you sound like less of a petulant child.

Albatross wrote:There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible, the books that make up the new testament were written at least 200 years (approximately) after the the death of Jesus. There exists nowhere in the world any gospel documents directly authored by the characters in question (Matthew, Luke et al.)

Oh, so you must follow the "research" of Hermann Detering et al. He seems to be one of the few people who think the Gospel of Mark (earliest gospel written) was written in the second century. The large majority of scholars put the gospel of Mark conservatively before the year 70. Seeing as Jesus lived to 33 (popularly believed), the author of Mark was almost assuredly alive and well when Jesus was around. Even if the author didn't see Jesus, he clearly spoke to people who apparently did. The point has been made before though that 2,000 years is a lot of time for facts to get misconstrued.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say there aren't even any eyewitness account of Yeshua (translation = Jesus). There IS the whole bible. We shouldn't simply disregard it because of it's religeous aspects.

To albatross' point (kind of), there were very few "eyewitness" authors in the Bible. On top of that, only 5 books deal with Jesus' actual "living". (I say five because I include Acts because Jesus' life is still accounted in that). Most of the other books deal with how people should respond to Jesus and each other.

Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with (presumably) little to no research is....

youngblood wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with little to now research is....

I have a pet peeve with that branch of atheism that seems to think that they've figured out some sort of cunning secret in not believing in god, and that it makes them smarter and wiser than us fools that do. It's the flip side of how many religious folks assume that all non-religious folks are immoral and evil.

Polonius wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hey, you forget Youngblood. Once you decide not to believe in god, anything you think must be utterly true and logically correct! It doesn't matter what you say, because there's no way an atheist would ever say something that is a matter of opinion or belief as fact.

Bah, it has nothing to do with believing the account inside the document. I know atheists who think that the bible has historical purposes but no religious value. I don't care if he believes the Bible as a correct account or not, but the fact that he shot his mouth off with little to now research is....

I have a pet peeve with that branch of atheism that seems to think that they've figured out some sort of cunning secret in not believing in god, and that it makes them smarter and wiser than us fools that do. It's the flip side of how many religious folks assume that all non-religious folks are immoral and evil.

We're all so full of religious zeal aren't we? Purveyors of the light? Illuminatis of grand scale. We all just want people to know the truth. Whatever truth we adhere to.

Phew! Youngblood and Polonius handled all the problems with some of these posts.

@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

Hmm. Nevermind this post, I think I'm being too argumentative here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Phew! Youngblood and Polonius handled all the problems with some of these posts.

@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

Quite a few texts were preserved via Arabic channels (I don't know which.) It could be argued they had the same motive to modify them in favour of evidence for Jesus, due to him being held as a prophet by Islam.

Off course, a counter theory is that an organisation as large and diverse as the early and mediaeval Church would never have been able to track down and destroy every copy of all the books, and replace them with modified versions. I don't think it would have been possible.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yet we do.

Do you have a source, because if there was such a document, and it had more to it than 'a guy caused trouble in a temple' then that would be something, but I've never heard of such a record.

How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

Just tagging in to follow the thread.
Please continue.

Wow, I was staying away from this thread, and I check in on it, to see it has veered into denying the existance of Jesus.... AGAIN? Guys, we have allready done this here. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/257008.page

I'm just going to paste my posts from that thread...Bottom line Jesus is a historical figure no matter if you believe the gospel account's or if you deny he is the Son of God.
By the way Pauline epistles and the gospels, the entire new testement was/were written by contemporarys of Jesus, not 200 years after the fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention the four Gospels, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquilus, Mara Bar Sarapion. These were authors or authored by contempories or at least within a generation of Jesus. There is no "assuming" that Jesus existed. It is a historical fact.

GG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that excepting the gospel accounts, the other authors I pointed out weren't Christians? They were Roman and Syrian historians.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Roman citizen
Pliny the Younger was a Roman provencial Governor
Tacitus was a Roman historian
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus Roman historian
Mara bar Sarapion Syrian

All the above were hardly sympathetic to Christianity, indeed somewhat critical. So they were hardly coolaid drinking Christian fanatics. So regardless of whether you believe the New testament account, you would be in the extreme minority of historians that believe that Jesus of Nazereth was a myth, or didn't really exist.

GG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a clarification for JEB

Some of those historians did mention miracles

Flavius Josephus_from Testimonium Flavianum
"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"


Tacitus_from his Annals
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular"

There are others but I don't have the time to write a book here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GG

The translations I've read of Flavius didn't go that route with the "wise man" and "perhaps he was the Messiah" phrasing. It was more of a straight account. Either way it proves the point that there are non-biblical documents.

GG: there's a difference between evidence and proof.

I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

I think it's interesting that you consider this evidence iron clad to prove Jesus's existence, but that the standard for evolutionary theory is somehow completely different.

Polonius wrote:I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

That could be applied to about any historical figure. I think the question, on just about any historical question is whether it is reasonable to believe or not. In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it. Having done a little legal work you should know that almost nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. Reason has to play a part as well. We may be starting to skirt solipsism I think.