Existence of Jesus

[Ballistics]

I'd like to talk about the evidence of Jesus ever being a real person, since you all seem to just assume he existed. I'm calling you out on that.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
2. The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus—all that can be taken from the epistles, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
3. The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

As reasonable human beings, you should not believe something unless it can be proven. Believing something on faith like Jesus is not only irresponsible, but dangerous.

For this debate, I would like only secular sources to be used, the Bible is not a historical document and cannot be used as evidence.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Err.... Ballistics... There's already a thread for this. Furthermore, requesting specifically secular evidence in most cases is fine, but expecting secular evidence for things like the existence of a person who, as its assumed, would almost certainly convert you, is ridiculous-like asking for a secular recount of an event like God coming down from heaven and saying "christianity is the right religion".

 

[freeman123]

I posted this in one of the other topics, but I'll post it again here, since it's relevant. Here is a 3 part video, called 'The Jesus Timeline', that explains how Jesus couldn't have possibly existed if the accounts of the Bible are an accurate description of his life. The Biblical accounts are inconsistent with history.

The Jesus Timeline
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBufxLab5ns
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alfRadYFFhQ
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RF-q3FJks

 

[Deleted member]

I don't think there is already a thread on this. Before this he was posting in the new testament thread, and it just got messy with too many different view points being thrown around.

Good on you for making this thread as opposed to posting in the other thread.

 

[freeman123]

Err.... Ballistics... There's already a thread for this. Furthermore, requesting specifically secular evidence in most cases is fine, but expecting secular evidence for things like the existence of a person who, as its assumed, would almost certainly convert you, is ridiculous-like asking for a secular recount of an event like God coming down from heaven and saying "christianity is the right religion".

He isn't asking people to prove that Jesus was God. He's asking them to prove that Jesus existed at all. If Jesus was an actual person, then it's not unreasonable to expect there to be secular evidence of his existence. There is secular evidence for other religious figures, such as Muhammad and Joseph Smith. So why couldn't there be secular evidence for Jesus?

 

[Nicholas1024]

From my new testament thread...

As for non-biblical references to Jesus:

Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. Born in 37 AD, he wrote most of his four works towards the end of the first century.

Anyways, in his book The Antiquities he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the roman governor Festus in order to have James (the brother of Jesus) stoned.

The book itself says:

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

*snip*

Here's another passage from Tacitus.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. 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, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

So there you have a roman historian documenting that Pilate sentenced Jesus Christ to the death penalty.

I rest my case.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

I'd like to talk about the evidence of Jesus ever being a real person, since you all seem to just assume he existed. I'm calling you out on that.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.

You ask if he is a real person, why throw the Miracles in there, what he supposedly did wouldn't define his existance.


It's like saying, Bigfoot exists because Mammals exist.

 

[jaswa]

There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.

Nicholas has already covered this, but I think I'd like to add if you want to discredit Tacitus work, then there goes about 4 Roman emperors from memory

The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.

If you bother to open up a Bible, the first Pauline epistle you will find is the book of Romans. Verse 1a of Chapter 1 says "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus..." Don't know what they're getting at with "evidence of a recent historical Jesus" as Paul clearly affiliates himself with Jesus. If you don't care about what Paul wrote down then make your way back to the New Testament thread?

The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. He writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.

Just because Jesus was apparently like someone/something else doesn't prove that he isn't as the Bible presents him. It'll be one of these somewhere.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

While jesus being extremely similar to existing deities of that era doesn't discredit im as a person, it does make me very skeptic about his existence as described by the bible; that he was born and died at those times, etc.

 

[1048576]

With the way you throw out evidence Ballistics, I'm beginning to wonder if you think George Washington existed.

 

[asianaussie]

All history is arguably false, history is written by the winners, *insert generic argument discrediting human archiving and records*

Jesus may very well have existed, but you're not asking whether Jesus Christ existed, you're asking whether Jesus Christ existed as the bible states he did. It's just a matter of trust in human accounts.

 

[jaswa]

Jesus may very well have existed, but you're not asking whether Jesus Christ existed, you're asking whether Jesus Christ existed as the bible states he did. It's just a matter of trust in human accounts.

Again if you don't want to trust the Bible's accounts then there's a big chunk of history that you have to reject as well. I think you should make your way to this thread and also read this book.

To be honest I think this thread is a bit redundant...

 

[asianaussie]

I guess I didn't make myself clear.

I have no objections to the bible's version of events, so long as it is kept as just that: a plausible version of events, and not forcefully spoon-fed as truth beyond science.

And yes, this thread is redundant, but I don't have time to read through the new testament thread.

 

[jaswa]

So is there no truth beyond science?

 

[asianaussie]

It was a figure of speech...I can't expect Melbourne and Sydney to have similar speech conventions though lol

Anyway, at risk of derailing the debate: I'm not sure.

All science is theory and truth is a misnomer what what humans have (so far) unshaken confidence in. There is purism such as mathematics and definite physics, but judging purism is still a concept in itself, an indistinct science, for lack of a better term (ok there are far superior terms but I want my wordplay, okay?).

Don't get philosophical on me :3

 

[jaswa]

Don't worry about philosophical from me. Dre will storm in and do that anytime soon. But yes, derailing - maybe make a thread on 'truth beyond science'?

 

[Dre89]

It was a figure of speech...I can't expect Melbourne and Sydney to have similar speech conventions though lol

Anyway, at risk of derailing the debate: I'm not sure.

All science is theory and truth is a misnomer what what humans have (so far) unshaken confidence in. There is purism such as mathematics and definite physics, but judging purism is still a concept in itself, an indistinct science, for lack of a better term (ok there are far superior terms but I want my wordplay, okay?).

Don't get philosophical on me :3

If you're not in the DH you should be.

Edit- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn646psGNCo The relevant section starts at about 5:45.