Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[Iasion]

Great to see you stopping by Iasion! As usual, your posts are a wealth of information. Its too bad you're not a more prolific poster/writer around these parts. I'm glad you posted this info - I was trying to decide whether to link to the post you made about a year ago (sitting in my bookmarks) or to simply copy/paste it here... you rescued me from the dilemma

Hiya

Thanks for your kind words,
I wish I had more time,
but pop in when I can...

Iasion

 

[Woody]

Iaison said,

Are you trying to argue Luke was an eye-witness?

Because that is certainly not what he says in that passage....

.....All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That is not what Luke says in the Gospel according to Luke.

The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."

Not so in my bible, which says he had perfect knowledge from the beginning that agrees with all the other eyewitness accounts from the others that were there.

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

Your bible is trashola.

Pardon?
There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus - just LATER evidence for Christians who BELIEVED in Jesus.

And current works that deny Jesus ever existed over there at revisionism.com.

NOTHING from Jesus, the alleged FOUNDER.

Except what counts the most -- His words.

We have many WRITTEN documents from e.g. Peter, Paul, etc. - WHY do we not have anything from Jesus?

Because his hands were kind of 'er occupied on the cross. He wasn't locked up in prison for the rest of his life like his disciples and apostles, with plenty of time one their hands to reflect on the events that happened.

Bollocks.
Skinwalker exists, we are discussing with him right now.
What sort of bizarre nonsense is this?

It's an alias (that means he assumed the name) as I already explained. Assumed names are imaginary. He doesn't sign a check with "Skin Walker" and it is not on his birth certificate . These are simple facts not nonsense.

Scientifically speaking, Jesus did not exist at all - there is no evidence for him

.

What garauntee do you have, that assures other people will know you existed scientifically or otherwise? I can be 100% certain that someday, nobody will ever know you scientifically existed since the universe has not always existed, neither will it always exist. Do you really think you will be remembered forever? LOL

Rubbish.
We have direct, contemporary, historical and archeological evidnce for MANY people from 2000 years ago - writings, statues, coins, external references, archeological remains etc. etc.
For Jesus - NOTHING, nada, none.

How about that? The sword could not conquer Rome, but Jesus did posthumously -- or better yet, "fictionally" as you say -- revisionism just keeps getting funnier -- quite humorous actually. LOL

Are you arguing that Peter, Paul etc. were also not real?

What? I never said that. Perhaps you believe they never existed. I believe they were real people.

What?
Is this meant to be an excuse for why we have no evidence for Jesus?
It does not make sense.

Do you demand .9999999% certainty that a person existed 2000 years ago before you can accept it? Perhaps the remains of some of the egyptian pharoes can be proven to that degree. One would have to assume King Tut existed with a mummified body in a hidden tomb along with heiroglyphics to explain his life. For the rest of humanity you'll probably never match a name with their personal effects.

For every person you can positively identify, there are millions of bones that go nameless. Does anybody know the name of any Neanderthals? Most agree they existed as hominids. Did they have names or not?

What?
Are you now trying to argue that NO-ONE existed 2000 years ago?
We HAVE many records of those times - NONE of it mentions Jesus until after the alleged events

Just tell me their names and prove it scientifically -- the same thing you demand for Jesus. Come on -- be fair. History is just the account of humans, and it can not be relied upon scientifically, therefore, you are not allowed to use history.

Great.
You admit there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus at all.

No you missed it altogether. There is little if any scientific evidence that links anyone 2000 years ago to their personal effects, whereby, they can be positively (that means with 100% certainty) identified by name. There is, however, plenty of historical evidence that Julius Caesar, etc. existed. Can you show me his bones? I'd call his bones scientific evidence. Wouldn't you? I can accept that he existed based on history. Coins and such have a lot of imaginary figures on them too, like dragons and birds, all-seeing eyes, etc. I wouldn't call a coin with his inscription on it as proof-positive scientifically speaking. Jesus however spoke of his picture and inscription -- therefore I assume there probably is a Roman coin that mathces the account from Jesus, though I've never seen the coin myself.

This argues strongly that Jesus never existed, but was a myth.

I don't think you meant what you said. Here's what the word "myth" means:

(myth)

noun: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

You don't accept it as history, so you need to come up with a better word.

Your "Jesus Denial" reasoning fits in with Holocast Denial reasoning. As they say, "If you don't like it -- just don't believe it." Some of the same fallacies you are using have been used to deny that the holocast ever happened, particularly in the areas of admissable evidence and hearsay evidence, which is acceptable under the appropriate conditions. For example, it is kind of hard for a creamated Jew to prove he was tortured, and the eventual fate of many might never be proven -- it can only be guessed.

 

[Iasion]

That is not what Luke says in the Gospel according to Luke.

Thats exactly what it says (allowing for slight differences in translations.)
You seem to have a bible that is different to everyone elses.

Not so in my bible, which says he had perfect knowledge from the beginning

Nonsense.
What version is "your bible"?
Please quote where Luke said that?

Luke actually said:
"I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."

See?
NO MENTION that he had perfect knowledge from the beginning at all.
Just a claim that he had INVESTIGATED OTHER accounts.
You have serious comprehension issues, Woody.

that agrees with all the other eyewitness accounts from the others that were there.

Agree?
No.
He COPIED the earlier versions.
That is not support for them, that is merely repeating stories that Luke had NO PERSONAL knowledge of.

Your bible is trashola.

So,
you cannot provide any evidence for your claims?

Except what counts the most -- His words.

In different conflicting versions.
If Jesus really taught the Lord's prayer,
why did no early Christian writing (e.g. Paul, Peter, John, James)
mention it?

Why do the Gospel MSS have DIFFERENT versions of the Lord's Prayer?
Because it was made up and grew over many decades.

Because his hands were kind of 'er occupied on the cross. He wasn't locked up in prison for the rest of his life like his disciples and apostles.

Riiight.
Jesus spent 33 years on the cross - and never had a MINUTE to write.
Do you BELIEVE that?

It's an alias (that means he assumed the name) as I already explained. Assumed names are imaginary. He doesn't sign a check with "Skin Walker" and it is not on his birth certificate . These are simple facts not nonsense.

Um.
What ON EARTH do modern alias have to do with Jesus non-existance?
Can you please explain?
This makes no sense at all.
We are not arguing about Jesus alias' (he has many - according to your argument that makes him not real.)

What garauntee do have that you will scientifically exist 2000 years from now?

What on earth are you on about?
In 2000 years I will be dead.
There MAY be evidence for my existence then.
SO WHAT?!

You don't seem to grasp the difference between EXISTING and being REMEMBERED.

I can be 100% certain that someday, nobody will ever know you scientifically existed since the universe has not always existed, neither will it always exist. Do you really think you will be remembered forever?

Yes,
we will be forgotten one day.

So,
is your argument that Jesus was FORGOTTEN?

How about that? The sword could not conquer Rome, but Jesus did posthumously -- or better yet, "fictionally" as you say -- revisionism just keeps getting funnier -- quite humorous actually. LOL

Actually,
The sword DID conquer Rome.

Rome originally believed in Romulus and Remus - after Constantine, they believed in Jesus.
Jesus is just as real as Romulus and Remus.

Also,
Odysseus "conquered" Greece.
Krishna "conquered" India.

So, according to your argument, Jesus is just as real as Odysseus and Krishna.


You claimed: "Hardly anybody from 2000 years ago could stand up to that requirement."

When I suggested this applies to Peter and Paul, you protest :
"What? I never said that. Perhaps you believe they never existed. I believe they were real people."

First you argue there is hardly any solid evidence for ANYBODY - but then you claim that YOUR precious religious figures are real.

In other words - you BELIEVE your legends, regardless of proof.

Do you demand .9999999% certainty that a person existed 2000 years ago before you can accept it? Perhaps the remains of some of the egyptian pharoes can be proven to that degree. One would have to assume King Tut existed with a mummified body in a hidden tomb along with heiroglyphics to explain his life. For the rest of humanity you'll probably never match a name with their personal effects.

Why do we accept that Julius Caesar existed?
Because there is so much evidence.
Hard evidence.

Why do we doubt that Jesus existed?
Because there is no contemporary evidence.
Just later legends based on the OT and pagan themes.

Your argument seems to be :
that we have almost no evidence for ANYONE,
so that explains the total lack of evidence for Jesus.

Nonsense.
We have MUCH evidence for many figures from history - of course it varies in quality, so some figures are less certain historically.

Jesus was allegedly a hugely important person,
yet he left LESS evidence than insignificant nobodies.

For every person you can positively identify, there are millions of bones that go nameless. Does anybody know the name of any Neanderthals? Most agree they existed as hominids. Did they have names or not?

What does that have to do with no evidence for Jesus?

Just tell me their names and prove it -- the same thing you demand for Jesus. Come on -- be fair.

Writers from Jesus time :

Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.


Writers from shortly after Jesus time:

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go ... "

Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.


NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED Jesus or the Gospel events.

Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention Jesus.

No you missed it altogether. There is no scientific evidence that anyone existed 2000 years ago that can be positively identified by name. There is, however, plenty of historical evidence that Julius Caesar, etc. existed.

Pardon?
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
We DO have evidence that Caesar existed - and you agree.
But then you also claim
"There is no scientific evidence that anyone existed 2000 years ago that can be positively identified by name. "

Which is it?
Can we identify that Caesar existed or not?
What on earth are you trying to prove?

Can you show me his bones? I'd call his bones scientific evidence. Wouldn't you?

Are you trying to pretend there is some difference between "scientific evidence" and other "evidnce"?
You are not making any sense at all, sorry.

We have HUGE amounts of direct contemporary evidence for Caesar by NAME.

We have NOTHING contemporary for Jesus.

You don't accept it as history, so you need to come up with a better word.

Accepted as history - not ACTUALLY history.

But just for you, I will call the NT stories "legends" then.

Because that's all they are - later legends based on the OT and other themes of the day, such as the very popular empty tomb scene that the Christians borrowed from the pagan's novels.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Your "Jesus Denial" reasoning fits in with Holocast Denial reasoning. As they say, "If you don't like it -- just don't believe it." Some of the same fallacies you are using have been used to deny that the holocast ever happened, particularly in the areas of admissable evidence and hearsay evidence, which is acceptable under the appropriate conditions. For example, it is kind of hard for a creamated Jew to prove he was tortured, and the eventual fate of many might never be proven -- it can only be guessed.

Ah.
So, when you have no arguments to support your case,
you compare JMers with Holocaust deniers.

(Are you claiming there is no evidence for the Holocaust?
Because there is no evidence for Jesus,
and YOU compared the two.)

This often happens when an apologist's argument is thrashed,
and is a clear sign they have lost the argument.

Woody has given up even pretending there is evidence for Jesus, he just rants any old nonsense in the hope people won't notice he has no case.

Iasion

 

[General_Paul]

No you missed it altogether. There is little if any scientific evidence that links anyone 2000 years ago to their personal effects, whereby, they can be positively (that means with 100% certainty) identified by name. There is, however, plenty of historical evidence that Julius Caesar, etc. existed. Can you show me his bones? I'd call his bones scientific evidence. Wouldn't you? I can accept that he existed based on history. Coins and such have a lot of imaginary figures on them too, like dragons and birds, all-seeing eyes, etc. I wouldn't call a coin with his inscription on it as proof-positive scientifically speaking. Jesus however spoke of his picture and inscription -- therefore I assume there probably is a Roman coin that mathces the account from Jesus, though I've never seen the coin myself.

Woody, the difference between Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ is the ammount of historical texts written by actual theologians at the time.

Let's analyze Christianity in the First Century AD- A bunch of illiterate peasants following a belief that charged no admission who didn't know the difference between donkey shit and gold. Hmmmm...I wonder what was going through their minds? "My god is great! He doesn't charge me for going to mass, I don't have to sacrifice my last goat for the harvest to the local temple to appease the gods..."

Jesus may have spoken of his pictures and "inscription" but, let's also look at what the bible is: a book translated multiple times over the millenia. Written by scholars, translated by starving peasants and power hungry tyrants in the Roman Catholic, then Protestant Churches. I wonder, how much bias will this book curtail!?

I hold respect for other's belief structures, but Christianity just defies all logic in my mind. Your arguement comparing the "No Jesus" arguements with Holocaust Denial arguements is insulting and demeaning. Personally, I've read over some of your posts from the past, including ones that I made in response that you never bothered to post back on. So how's this, you bitched a while back about the persecution of early christians in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1044195#post1044195

Atheists like yourself always seem to brush off the early persecution of christians.

Here's my response: How's this, everybody's been persecuted at one point in time: Islam from the 18th Century onwards, Jews during the "biblical" era, Christians got fed to lions. How's this for a size up: In China and Japan, religious wars spanned MILLENIA and really didn't end until Euros came and basically forced their belief standards on them. And Woody, the persecution of Christians doesn't mean jack in this 21st Century. So what? Ohh...you were persecuted 1700 years ago. So? Who gives a shit? If anybody has a right to say WORD ONE about persecution, its Jews, Gypsies, and Catholics in Germany and Europe. They got fucked by Adolf Hitler, the Jewish religion almost ceased to exist in Europe and you tell me about "Christian persecution"?

 

[MarcAC]

Excellent presentation so far Woody.

Certainly at least thousands of "heroic characters" lived way back when for which there is not and never will be any scientific evidence.

The few writers that are known of from way back when - most probably by the rare event of survival of some "documents" and some serendipitous re-discovery, I doubt, would represent the full spectrum of the society back then. They wrote about what they or their electors deemed important events in history. As a sidenote, Egyptians themselves attempted the erasure of all records of some Pharoahs' rule from their whole history - not perfectly done, naturally, but well done none the less considering the dearth of information availabe.

Literacy, way back when, was reserved for the elite and fortunate few. The percentage of the literate world today surely should not be used as some analog for comparison of recording of history back then.

Now, the event of Jesus Crucifixion:

How important was that perceived to be at the time it happened?

Would it have been worth writing about at the time? How many people were crucified by the Romans?

Should we really be looking for such historical writings?

Did that event just touch a small party of people, who were zealous enough to take it to the point where it spawned one of the greatest religions the world has seen to date?

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm still waiting for a response from Woody on that thread :\ Seems he ran out of debate.

 

[Woody]

Ah.
So, when you have no arguments to support your case,
you compare JMers with Holocaust deniers.

I can't help but notice a similarity.

(Are you claiming there is no evidence for the Holocaust?
Because there is no evidence for Jesus,
and YOU compared the two.)

Not at all. It's an issue of acceptable evidence even when you don't like what it says.

This often happens when an apologist's argument is thrashed,
and is a clear sign they have lost the argument.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain that one.

By the way, How do you propose to scientifically prove history, when history is all based on human accounts of what happened. Do you base it on the frequency of the accounts? If you don't like what the accounts say do you just call Jesus a conspiracy created by christians, just like the holocast deniers call the holocast a conspiracy created by jews with ulterior motives?
The parallels are obvious.

Woody has given up even pretending there is evidence for Jesus, he just rants any old nonsense in the hope people won't notice he has no case.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, just open a bible and read it. He was a carpenter in Nazareth that worked with his father, never got married, and had a lot of people that liked him. A nobody by anybody's standards. Not a king, not a priest -- just a plain joe that got the world's attention. That's what is so remarkable about it.

Kings and high priests have automatic attention, and an automatic place in a history book. Jesus came out of nowhere as the old testament prophets said he would, not to rule, but to be a servant. All the authorities hated him, did everything they could to snuff him out, but the people loved him even more after he died.

The bible says Jesus' words are more powerful than anyone that will ever live on this planet. Can you deny that? If you call it fiction you make yourself look even dumber. Armies could not defeat Rome, but the words of this plain-joe did, and I root for the underdog. If you call him non-existant I laugh even harder. In order to agree with you I must convince myself that the Roman Empire did not exist. I'm sorry, but I just can't help but laugh. I also must convince myself that humans are something less than nothing, since "nothing" defeated the world's only superpower in it's day when nothing else could.

Furthermore, here we are 2000 year safter his death, and Jesus continues to influence the lives of billions of people today, as he always has since he came here. Do you know of anyone that influences the lives of that many people on a daily basis?

You believe Jesus is a myth, but for everyone like you there are thousands like me. Maybe the numbers should tell you something. Is it because you are smarter or better educated? I don't think so, and we all have the same evidence to look at.

You don't believe Jesus lived because you don't want to believe it. You think it means you have to accept supernatural miracles, and that is a false conclusion on your part. Many atheists accept that a common joe like Jesus can make his mark on history, but they believe people embellished him beyond what really happend.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Certainly at least thousands of "heroic characters" lived way back when for which there is not and never will be any scientific evidence.

What is this "scientific evidence" you two keep going on about?
So what is "unscientific evidence" then?

History is not science.

The few writers that are known of from way back when - most probably by the rare event of survival of some "documents" and some serendipitous re-discovery, I doubt, would represent the full spectrum of the society back then. They wrote about what they or their electors deemed important events in history.

There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention Jesus.

But,
they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.

But NOTHING about Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.

As a sidenote, Egyptians themselves attempted the erasure of all records of some Pharoahs' rule from their whole history - not perfectly done, naturally, but well done none the less considering the dearth of information availabe.

So,
even when they TRY to erase somebody, they can't remove all evidence.

How do you think this explains the total lack of evidence for Jesus?

Literacy, way back when, was reserved for the elite and fortunate few.

So what?
What does that have to do with RECORDING somebody?
Did that stop Christians writing?

The percentage of the literate world today surely should not be used as some analog for comparison of recording of history back then.

No-one here did any such thing - why did you bring it up?

Now, the event of Jesus Crucifixion:
How important was that perceived to be at the time it happened?

If it happened ANYTHING like the Gospels, then it would have been the most important event in human history.

The fact that NO-ONE recorded ANY of the Gospel events show they are legends, not history.

Would it have been worth writing about at the time? How many people were crucified by the Romans?

It's not just the crucifiction - it's his whole life - totally missing from all the early writings.

Should we really be looking for such historical writings?

If you want to argue Jesus existed, you need some EVIDENCE.

Did that event just touch a small party of people, who were zealous enough to take it to the point where it spawned one of the greatest religions the world has seen to date?

The EVENT that touched the early Christians was a VISION of Jesus, or BELIEF in Jesus - nothing historical.

Iasion

 

[Woody]

GP said,

Here's my response: How's this, everybody's been persecuted at one point in time: Islam from the 18th Century onwards, Jews during the "biblical" era, Christians got fed to lions. How's this for a size up: In China and Japan, religious wars spanned MILLENIA and really didn't end until Euros came and basically forced their belief standards on them. And Woody, the persecution of Christians doesn't mean jack in this 21st Century. So what? Ohh...you were persecuted 1700 years ago. So? Who gives a shit? If anybody has a right to say WORD ONE about persecution, its Jews, Gypsies, and Catholics in Germany and Europe. They got fucked by Adolf Hitler, the Jewish religion almost ceased to exist in Europe and you tell me about "Christian persecution"?

I don't have time for your whole post right now, but I'll answer this part.

The persecution of the early church is part of the historicity of christianity, and it builds a very strong case against the Jesus Myth. This is one of the obvious reasons the Mythers want to brush it off. They do everything to reduce it, with examples like:

- Nobody noticed christianity in the early days, and that's why it survived.
- Nobody thought it mattered, that's why they didn't disprove it 2000 years ago.
- Rome immediately adopted christianity and forced people to accept it or else.
- Being a christian didn't cost anything and that's why it's here today.
- Everybody was confused about who the "real" Jesus followers were so they didn't know who to go after.
- There were probably a hundred other Jesuses at the same time he was here.
- A couple of people got together and started the bible story about Jesus, and nobody thought to investigate the facts in Jerusalem.

and the list of excuses goes on.

Let's analyze Christianity in the First Century AD- A bunch of illiterate peasants following a belief that charged no admission who didn't know the difference between donkey shit and gold. Hmmmm...I wonder what was going through their minds? "My god is great! He doesn't charge me for going to mass, I don't have to sacrifice my last goat for the harvest to the local temple to appease the gods..."

Yeah, I've heard this one before -- a case of bible dope on the uneducated masses just brought out the dummy in them.

Why didn't those who were educated show the dummies they were wrong with a fact-finding trip to jerusalem? Sure would have been nice if they wrote down their results somewhere so we could read about it today now wouldn't it? Can you find it for us? If Jesus is a myth, then surely several such documents should exist along with the monetary payoffs the Roman government and Jewish leaders would be glad to contribute to rid themsleves of the nuisance.

Second, Does the New Testament read like something an illiterate peasant would write? I don't think so.

Third, becoming a christian meant family seperation and even criminal punishment. It is not the love-in freebee with bible dope that you assume.

Fourth, the Jews in that day were a literate society and so were the Romans.

Lastly, why didn't the "bible dope" strategy work for the numerous other false messiahs that were around in the day Jesus was there? There were many there making the same promises. Why did they fail?

 

[Woody]

If you want to argue Jesus existed, you need some EVIDENCE.

It's in the bible. Can you prove the bible is not true regarding the existence of Jesus? I'm all ears.

What will it be this time -- a conspiracy theory, or will it be the common people were overwhelmed with superstition because they couldn't think logically, though they lived in a literate society?

Can you deny that Jesus' words have a greater influence on humanity than any other person? The joke of it all is you say he didn't exist, yet he influences the lives of billions of people even today.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

By the way, How do you propose to scientifically prove history, when history is all based on human accounts of what happened.

History is not science.
History is never scientifically proven.
You don't seem to know much about how history is done.

History is determined by weight of evidence.

We know Caesar existed because the weight of evidence is huge.
We doubt Jesus existed because there is NO evidence for him.

If you don't like what the accounts say do you just call Jesus a conspiracy created by christians,

Accounts?
What accounts?
There are no historical accounts of Jesus - just late, anonymous, conflicting legends based mostly on the OT.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, just open a bible and read it

In other words, you agree there is no evidence for Jesus - just late, anonymous, conflicting legends.

Do you accept Krishna existed because of the Gita?
Do you accept Odysseus existed because of the Odyssey?
Do you accept Apollonius turned into an Ass?

No?

But you are happy to believe in YOUR religion and pretend it's backed up by "evidence" which is no more than religious fantasy.

In orther words - you are a true believer - you BELIEVE, regardless of the evidence.

Not a king, not a priest -- just a plain joe that got the world's attention

Pardon?
NO-ONE noticed him at all !
NOT ONE writer ever even MENTIONERD Jesus when he was alive.

Explain how someone who was COMPLETELY UN-NOTICED at the time "got the whole world's attention"?

Jesus came out of nowhere as the old testament prophets said he would, not to rule, but to be a servant.

Yup,
the NT stories were crafted from the OT.
Legends - made up from the scriptures.

All the authorities hated him, did everything they could to snuff him out, but the people loved him even more after he died.

There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY authorites even noticed him.

Armies could not defeat Rome,

Armies DID defeat Rome - have you EVER studied ANY history?
Alaric sacked Rome in 410CE.
Vandals also in 476CE.
Rome was also sacked in 1527.

So, Rome fell shortly after Christianity became the official state religion - Christianity FAILED to protect Rome from it's enemies.

Most of your post is just ranting and preaching - but you never come up with any facts or evidence - just more preaching and ranting.

Iasion

 

[Woody]

Ias said,

Alaric sacked Rome in 410CE.

Attila the Hun got Rome as well, but you keep forgetting about the eastern half of the Roman empire.

The Roman Empire split before the events you keep talking about, and Jesus took both halves.

Do you accept Odysseus existed because of the Odyssey?

Show me a lineage that goes back fourteen generations and we have something to talk about. Do you know who your ancestors are from fourteen generations back?

Also, does the general population believe Odysseus was a real person? I doubt it. How many people ever said he was real? Can you come up with names?

 

[Cris]

W,

The Roman Empire split before the events you keep talking about, and Jesus took both halves.

So this would demonstrate that a popular meme can easily spread. It gives no indication that the aleged Jesus character ever existed. You still have only supposition and conjecture and no evidence.

 

[Cris]

W,

Christianity was not adopted by Constantine. This is a historical error on your part. According to the source:

You are arguing semantics and have missed the point. Without the personal support from Constantine it would seem more likely that Christianity would have died as just another of the numerous cults that existed at that time.

So the answer is yes, it would have survived without Constantine, and had survived against persecution up until the time Constantine reigned in western Rome.

Your assertion is not substantiated and is fallacious. Survival of something in a past duration gives no indication of survivability in the future. Consider if Constantine had endorsed a different concept which would have become the official religion supported by a super power, the survival of Christianity which was already being persecuted would have been in further doubt.

Also, the eastern orthodox church was not under his domain, because Constantine did not rule all of the Roman empire, the east was ruled by Lucinius. Therefore you have made two historical errors.

Entirely irrelevant. Constantine was the turning point.

Shouldn't you get your history right first? Your conclusion about scientific evidence really doesn't make sense: history majors get a liberal arts degree, not a science degree. Drama, music, and sociology also offer liberal arts degrees. Because history and the others don't have a foundation in the physical sciences, should all of it be ignored as irrelevant to human existence?

The topic title requested a scientific view not subjective opinions.

Also, some forms of hearsay are acceptible in court under the right conditions.

From the Wiki:

“ One major misconception by non-lawyers regarding the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible at trial. While the general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible, numerous exceptions to the rule exist, whereby hearsay would be admissible. ”

So your lawyering is a little weak too.

No Woody, these exceptions are very specific and exceptional and not arbitrary, in the context of this topic there is no eye witness evidence and nothing that comes close. Even if your point had value you would still only have some very low quality and ambiguous support.

 

[TheVisitor]

Rome is literally a nation within a nation, and she has ambassadors and receives ambassadors.
Rome took on a new lease of life when Constantine joined church and state and backed the union by force.
The spirit that motivated pagan Rome is the same spirit that now motivates false Christian Rome.

Once the Nicene Council had swung the power of political Rome to the church, it seemed that there were no limits to which this First Christian Church would go. The name, Christian, which originally brought persecution, now became the name of the persecutors.

Now along with what I have just said, recall the vision of Daniel.
The last part of the image, the last world power was in the feet.
That was iron and clay. See the iron is the Roman Empire. But now it is no longer solid iron. Clay is mixed in it.
Yet it is there and running world affairs in both the democratic nations and the more despotic ones.

Let me give you a little something on the iron and clay.
When Khrushchev beat his shoe on the desk at the U.N. in 1955, there were five eastern nations and five western.
Khrushchev spoke for the East and President Eisenhower for the West.
In Russian, Khrushchev is clay and Eisenhower means iron.
The two main leaders of the world, the two big toes of the feet of iron and clay, were side by side, representing the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire.
We are in the end of it all.
The bible also said that in the days of these kings, a kingdom shall be established in the hearts of men that shall never fall.

 

[Woody]

Chris said:

So this would demonstrate that a popular meme can easily spread. It gives no indication that the aleged Jesus character ever existed. You still have only supposition and conjecture and no evidence.

It suggests to you that a popular meme can spread easy in a literate society. But It suggests to historians that Jesus actually existed. Here is one of history's axioms:

The existence of a fact in history is weighted most by the change it causes on the people of its day and future generations.

That is the view that most history books take in explaining history, and you still have not answered my original question:

Who's had a greater influence on changing future generations than Jesus Christ? Do you have no answer except this idiocy: "well 'er he didn't exist." It really makes you look ignorant. If we accept your view then somebody needs to redefine history's paradigm because you are turning it upside down.

The original point being made is this: you assume Rome is the foundation for christianity and it is not. A protestant or an eastern orthodox christian will disagree with you vigorously. I'd have to say christianity survived in spite of Rome. Christianity spreads in the face of opposition, not because some government says they want it. If you know much about christian history you would know that.

This is the reason most governments don't like christianity: because it teaches that the bible is a higher authority than they are, and they don't want to give up the power, especially when they are doing things that are wrong.

I know christian missionaries in the world today in places like China, Russia, and Africa that aren't getting the red carpet, not by a long shot. Some fear for their lives, and that's the way it's always been for a real christian. During the Roman Catholic inquisition real christians were killed for reading a bible. It was illegal for the laity, at least that's what my modern european history professor taught us in my secular academic education. The popes were monsters. I can pull out the history if you'd like to read it.

The bible was limited only to the priests so the Catholic Church could have control: They wanted it out of the hands of laity so the popes could revise it all they wanted to as self-proclaimed vicars for christ. They did plenty of revision too such as:

- Virgin Mary worship (an updated version of Isis and Horus)
- priests can't marry
- confessional boothes
- penance
- purgatory
- halloween
- Peter is the Church foundation

One of these two images is a famous mediaeval icon of Mary and Jesus, the other is a bronze statue of Isis nursing Horus dating from the Ptolomeic era of Egypt.

==========================================================

Visitor said:

Let me give you a little something on the iron and clay.
When Khrushchev beat his shoe on the desk at the U.N. in 1955, there were five eastern nations and five western. Khrushchev spoke for the East and President Eisenhower for the West. In Russian, Khrushchev is clay and Eisenhower means iron. The two main leaders of the world, the two big toes of the feet of iron and clay, were side by side, representing the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire.
We are in the end of it all.

Very interesting points. I never realized it before. By the way, Issaic Newton predicted somewhere around 2020 to 2050 for the apocalypse. Also, China is large enough now to put together an army of 200 million as specified in the bible, and Russia is still a big player. The arabs are chomping at the bits for a fight with Israel, and they will be the first to go to war according to the OT. Libya and Ethiopia are specifically mentioned as part of that alliance.

========================================================

Iason said:

In other words, you agree there is no evidence for Jesus - just late, anonymous, conflicting legends.

Not in my words, but in your words. Most reasonable people don't have a problem with the minutia differences that would be expected from two or more real eyewitness accounts. A reasonable person would expect some minor differences from independent sources of information because they are at different vantage points. If you've ever heard eyewitness accounts of a car accident from several different people you'll know what I'm talking about. If you've ever seen an instant replay on a questionable call in a sporting event then you know what I'm talking about.

What do you expect, word-for-word carbon copy gospel accounts? And if you had carbon copy accounts, then would say they all came from the same person?

There really is no way a reasonable person can expect to have an intelligent discussion with a bonehead. You reject the bible as a historical document because you do not like what it says, and I am rapidly losing interest in what you have to say.

 

[Cris]

Wody,

It suggests to you that a popular meme can spread easy in a literate society.

No the opposite. In times where illiteracy and ignorance were rife, myths, legends, superstitions, and folklore, were the norm. The borderline between what was entertainment and truth was significantly blurred. An attractive story of a superhero come to save them from their miserable lives would easily spread verbally and become entirely misinterpreted as fact.

But It suggests to historians that Jesus actually existed.

That’s clearly an error. The widespread purge in the early decades of anything questioning Christianity and the state enforcement of the Christian religion would certainly make historians of today only able to see what those early politicians wanted or in this case an entire absence of facts.

The existence of a fact in history is weighted most by the change it causes on the people of its day and future generations.

But that isn’t true. It is the perception of a fact that has the effect. Truth is not necessary.

Who's had a greater influence on changing future generations than Jesus Christ? Do you have no answer except this idiocy: "well 'er he didn't exist." It really makes you look ignorant. If we accept your view then somebody needs to redefine history's paradigm because you are turning it upside down.

There is no doubt that the concept of JC has had a significant impact on historical events, but there remains no hard evidence that shows he ever existed. Your argument is that because the idea had so much effect that he must have existed, but that is logically fallacious, argumentum ad populum.

The original point being made is this: you assume Rome is the foundation for christianity and it is not. A protestant or an eastern orthodox christian will disagree with you vigorously.

It doesn’t matter. The Constantine event was a trigger point that switched a large number of people in a new direction. World population growth then swelled those beliefs by generational cultural conditioning into the mess we have today.

 

[MarcAC]

Greetings,

Iason is it? Pleased to meet you Iaison, MarcAC's the name.

What is this "scientific evidence" you two keep going on about?
So what is "unscientific evidence" then?

History is not science.

Archeology is a science - definitely not completely separable from History, but yes, History, as it stands alone, is not classed as a science. History informs Archeology and Archeology informs History.

Unscientific evidence? Evidence that is unscientific. What about it?

There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention Jesus.

Wow, and?

But,
they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.

But NOTHING about Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.

Thanks for the info. Millions of people existed back then, and certainly you don't mean that only thousands of characters existed - you appear to be a well informed and intelligent individual.

So,
even when they TRY to erase somebody, they can't remove all evidence.

How do you think this explains the total lack of evidence for Jesus?

It was a sidenote - i.e. a point in passing. A complete account of History is not easy to come by. Maybe if time machines become mainstream some time down the line...

So what?
What does that have to do with RECORDING somebody?
Did that stop Christians writing?

Certainly didn't, once the event came to be of sufficient importance. Didn't stop Josephus either. Your point?

No-one here did any such thing - why did you bring it up?

Well, on these forums, the full spectrum of intellectual ability is represented - can't be too sure someone isn't thinking about it. Moving on.

If it happened ANYTHING like the Gospels, then it would have been the most important event in human history.

The fact that NO-ONE recorded ANY of the Gospel events show they are legends, not history.

No one recorded them, yet we're able to discuss them. Genius.

But, to humour: creative spins on the nature of a characters life don't entirely indicate that the character never existed. Clearly the creative spins would be a kind of "overstatement" of the individuals achievements.

It's not just the crucifiction - it's his whole life - totally missing from all the early writings. If you want to argue Jesus existed, you need some EVIDENCE.

I wonder how important a carpenter would be in those days. For now the New Testament and related accounts are the only evidence I know of. Some things such as the Ossuary purported to contain an inscription referring to "James brother of Jesus" are other such forms of evidence which have supportors and detracters.

The EVENT that touched the early Christians was a VISION of Jesus, or BELIEF in Jesus - nothing historical.

That is one view on the origins of Christianity, the merit of which it is up to the individual to assess. There are many. The venture is of such a subjective nature that making any definitive statement regarding any theory can be largely regarded as personal opinion and of equal merit as any such statement. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[Woody]

about my statement:

The existence of a fact in history is weighted most by the change it causes on the people of its day and future generations.

Iasion said,

But that isn’t true. It is the perception of a fact that has the effect. Truth is not necessary.

Ok, this is how history works: The winners get to write it, and the losers get to talk about it with their grandchildren. Look at post WWI Germany and the holocast, the american civil war and slavery, etc. etc. There remain two sides, and the winning side writes the history books, but the losing side passes theirs through folklore.

After Jesus was crucified (and by the way he has a better genealogy than most of us), his followers were the losers. The Roman government and the Jewish Synagogoue were the winners.

300 years later (longer than america has even been a republic), Constantine allowed christianity to be tolerated -- that's all. Read the Milan documentation. He didn't put christianity on a pedastle like you say. He didn't "save" christianity hundreds of years after it started, and he had nothing to do with the eastern orthodox church which was doing quite well on its own. That denomination was developing along the eastern side of the continent and what is now called russia. So don't give him credit for anything but a civil approach to the diversity in Rome's religions which included christianity.

Next point: Since Rome and The Jewish synagogue "won the war" with Jesus (the guy that his followers called "the King of the Jews"), why didn't they set the record straight and clear their names?

Did the Jewish leaders just not care about the "messiah killer" PR coming from christians?

Did they just not care that their synagogue was losing people, and the money they brought there?

Did they just not care that their own religion was being usurped by christianity?

The winners get to write the history. If Jesus didn't even exist, then why didn't they write it and stop the exodus?

The most rational answer is that everyone in Jerusalem knew about Jesus and the crucifiction. It would really be stupid for the Jewish leaders to deny an obvious fact to anyone that lived there. Even today, most jews admit that Jesus was a man and even a prophet of some sort. The jews come from Jerusalem where Jesus lived. Your ancestors and my ancestors do not come from Jerusalem. That should tell you something. Jesus's ancestors were mostly jewish. The blood-line geneologies are given from two sources --why isn't that good enough? They kept records for the roman census in jerusalem -- where are they now? Does it mean those people never existed?

Also, being that the romans ruled, why didn't they end the christian religion with the truth instead of persecution?

Did they need an excuse for entertaining themselves at the Roman colliseum?

By the way, here's a historic timeline. Christianity was alive and well after Jesus died.

1st century history

I see Jesus listed as one of the significant figures in the first century along with some other bible figures and christian followers:

Apollonius of Tyana
Arminius
Boudica
Augustus
Caligula
Claudius
Clement I of Rome, 4th Bishop of Rome
Domitian
Galba
Hero of Alexandria
Hillel the Elder
Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd Bishop of Antioch
James the Just, 1st Bishop of Jerusalem
Jesus Christ
John the Baptist
Josephus
Livy
Nero
Nerva
Otho
Paul of Tarsus
Philo
Pliny the Elder
Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea who executed Jesus Christ
Seneca the Younger
Strabo, wrote book of Geography
Tacitus
Tiberius
Titus
Trajan
Vespasian
Vitellius
Wang Chong