Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[Woody]

A detailed timeline of early Christianity from the source:

The Roman Period (BC)

63 General Pompey captures Jerusalem for Rome
63-37 Hasmonean rules continues but under the protection of Rome
40 Rome appoints Herod King of Judea
40-AD 4 Reign of Herod the Great
37 King Herod the Great captures Jerusalem
19 Preparation of stones for the rebuilding of the Temple
18 Herod starts actual rebuilding of the Temple
10 Although not complete until AD63, Temple is dedicated
About 5/4 John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth born (year approximate)
04 Herod the Great dies (in the autumn, before the
Passover of 3BCE)


New Testament Period under Roman rule —
First Century AD

26-36 Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator of Judea for 10 years

27-31 The ministry of Jesus
27 October John the Baptist baptizes Jesus in the first month of the
former's ministry
27 October - November
Jesus fasts 40 days in the wilderness — Confronts Satan
27 December Jesus goes to Galilee, calls first disciples, performs first
miracle at the wedding in Cana
28 Spring First Passover of Jesus' ministry. First major exposition of the
New Testament doctrine of being born again (John 2.13-25)
28 Spring-Summer Jesus calls additional disciples in Judea
28 Autumn Herod imprisons John the Baptist. Pharisees discover that Jesus
has more disciples than John (John 4.1-3)
28 December Jesus goes to Samaria, four months before next spring harvest
(John 4.35)
28 December Jesus returns to Galilee; preaches the gospel in the synagogues
after John's imprisonment – 14 months after John
had baptized him (Luke 4.16-21)
29 Spring Second Passover — Jesus, two weeks after the Passover, goes
through the grain fields (Luke 6.1-2)
29 Spring Jesus selects 12 disciples and designates them apostles
(Mark 3.13-19; Luke 6.12-13)
29 Jesus explains the terms of the New Covenant in the
Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.1ff; Luke 6.17-49)
29 Autumn After the fall Festivals, Jesus returns to Galilee from Jerusalem.
He expounds the kingdom of God with the first series of
parables (John 5.1; Luke 8.1ff)
29 Autumn Jesus sends out the 12 apostles to preach (Luke 9.1-6)
29 Autumn Herod has John the Baptist beheaded after about one year in
prison (Luke 9.7-9)
30 Winter - Spring Jesus feeds the 5000 (Mark 6.39-44)
30 Spring After the third Passover, Jesus goes tot he Jews that are settled
in Gentile areas (Phoenicia and the Decapolis) (John 6.4)
30 Autumn Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles
(John 7.37-39)
30 Autumn Jesus returns to Galilee and teaches disciples how to pray
(Luke 11.1-4)
30 December Jesus returns to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication
(Hanukkah) (John 10.22)
30 December Jesus withdraws to Perea, east of the Jordan river (John 10.40)
31 Winter Jesus journeys to the wilderness area of Ephraim (John 11.54)
31 Spring Jesus returns to Bethany and enters Jerusalem in triumphal
procession (John 12.1, 12-16)
31 April Jesus institutes the New Covenant on the night he was betrayed;
crucified on 14 Nisan (April 25): Fourth Passover of Jesus'
ministry. (John 13.1; Luke 27.7ff)
31 April 25 / Nisan 14 Crucifixion of Jesus
41-44 Agrippa, king of Judea, builds new city wall (The "Third Wall").
44 Death of Herod Agrippa
46/47 Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15.1ff)
47 Paul's first journey
57 Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, last visit—imprisoned in
Caesarea—writes Romans(Acts 21.15ff; Romans 15.25-28)
59 Paul's shipwreck and voyage to Rome (Acts 26.32; 27.1ff)
60 Porcius Festus succeeds Felix as governor.
Paul writes Prison Epistles
62 Paul released — begins journeys in East and West
62 James the Just dies
63 Temple completed
64 Death of Paul by beheading in Rome under Nero
66-73 The Great Revolt - The War of the Jews
against the Romans
70 Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second
Temple by Titus
73 Fall of Masada
95 Apostle John writes Revelation
98 Death of John

Unfortuntely this post may need to be deleted. I believe I am in copyright violation.

 

[Woody]

Chris said:

Dream on, so far you've only presented conjecture and fallacious and circular logic.

Sure dude, sure. You haven't presented anything but your own opinion and it has no logical basis or authority.

Go ahead and admit it: you don't like the bible because of what it says, you know, the part that says you are going to an eternal burning hell where maggots cover your body, and that's exactly what you deserve according to the bible. Come on and admit it -- be fair. :bugeye:

You and I have a dog in the fight. Two of the links I provided are from Jewish organizations that don't have a dog in this fight. One of the links came from a Jewish student organization. There's a job available for a researcher at the Jewish Encyclopedia website:

Job Description:

We are seeking an enthusiastic intern(s) to research and write articles for the Jewish Virtual Library, the world's most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture. The intern will also assist with data collection, interview professors and business executives, and write newsletters on U.S.-Israel relations. The intern will also work on Myths and Facts and other AICE publications. The position carries a great deal of responsibility as the intern will assist the director in all of his tasks. Good verbal and writing skills are essential. Knowledge of Israeli history is helpful. Computer literacy is important and knowledge of databases, Photoshop, and HTML would be a particular advantage. A stipend is available.

I was going to suggest an internship for SW over at the archaeology department, but he fails to meet the "enthusiastic" criteria.

 

[Woody]

Initially, I was going to rant about how stupid you were to believe such things actually happened. And claim that you were a gullible buffoon, who will simply believe anything written by men thousands of years ago..

However, I googled these events and actually found historical documents, pictures, news reports, video footage and an interview with God himself that confirmed all said events occurred precisely as you said.

Got any links?

 

[Cris]

Woody,

Looking back at your posts and ignoring all the irrelevant cynicisms, personal attacks, emotionalism, sarcasms, and misdirections, your argument appears to be that J existed because so many believe he did. Quoting historical sources, whether independent or not, where none of them have any different primary source, simply doesn’t help your case. And using conjecture to suppose what might or might not have happened in the political arena is very dubious given the many centuries that have passed.

What I don’t see is a way to distinguish between the popular J like story derived from older myths and a real J. In those first few decades given the upheaval of war and the massive absence of written texts and objective reporting, it seems more likely that older myths became entangled with the then modern needs and myth became seen as truth. That’s an oversimplification and whole books have been published that go into greater detail. But the absence of real evidence for J gives credible support for this position.

For many religions the existence of their primary hero is not too critical, whereas with Christianity it is an essential requirement to satisfy the claim of a physical resurrection – the main component of Christian belief. The critical nature of this need and the total absence of any real substantial evidence that he existed, is quite bizarre and incredulous. The continued assertion that he must have existed because so many people believe so is a classic logical fallacy in the same caliber as the popular belief that the world was flat.

Looked at objectively; did J physically exist? We cannot tell.

 

[Wilmet]

Does anyone have a comprehensive list or set of links to actual records, other than scriptures, that confirm or deny the existence of Jesus? I'm thinking tax records, census records, birth records, etc.

The birth of Jesus Christ is the dividing line in history.

 

[SnakeLord]

One of the geneologies is for Jesus's mother "Mary" in Luke 3, and the other is for Jesus' stepfather "Joseph" in Mark 1

Here we surely hit a bit of a problem. I was adopted when I was rather young, but if it came down to genealogy, then the tree concerning my adopted family is utterly worthless when it comes down to me. The point: Considering Mary was supposedly a virgin, Joseph becomes completely redundant as far as genealogy goes.

In Luke, Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli according to traditional jewish geneology conventions which only use males

It is irrelevant who Joseph's father was with concerns to jesus.

I know what comes next. You will argue that they contradict each other.

Well yes, they do.. but as mentioned earlier, joseph's family line is utterly worthless.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The birth of Jesus Christ is the dividing line in history.

*************
M*W: Since when did history have a "dividing line?" Since you think you know so much, prove that JC was born, lived and died. Then you can prove your "dividing line."

What a load of crap!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Here we surely hit a bit of a problem. I was adopted when I was rather young, but if it came down to genealogy, then the tree concerning my adopted family is utterly worthless when it comes down to me. The point: Considering Mary was supposedly a virgin, Joseph becomes completely redundant as far as genealogy goes.

It is irrelevant who Joseph's father was with concerns to jesus.

Well yes, they do.. but as mentioned earlier, joseph's family line is utterly worthless.

*************
M*W: I agree. Joseph's father was called "Heli." "Heli" was the "Sun." So Joseph's father was literally the Sun. Joseph, then, was the Sun of God, and JC was the Son of the sun of god.

Like you stated, "Joseph's family line is utterly worthless."

Edited: I should also state that this is an example of the astro-theology in which the NT was written. These people didn't exist at all.

 

[Cris]

wilmet,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

The birth of Jesus Christ is the dividing line in history.

In the context of this thread I think you mean the aleged birth. No one can show yet that a birth actually occurred.

But as a dividing line we could say in many ways that that is literaly true. I'm thinking of the date system adopted by many countries where we now have BCE and CE. But apart from that history keeps rolling along.

 

[Woody]

Woody,

Looking back at your posts and ignoring all the irrelevant cynicisms, personal attacks, emotionalism, sarcasms, and misdirections, your argument appears to be that J existed because so many believe he did.

I apologize for coming across that way. I've received some of the same thing myself, and have felt censored at times, having my posts moved and edited. But, you feel that is appropriate, and perhaps it is.

Quoting historical sources, whether independent or not, where none of them have any different primary source, simply doesn’t help your case. And using conjecture to suppose what might or might not have happened in the political arena is very dubious given the many centuries that have passed.

Well here's where we have a major difference. There are many many independent sources. They were reviewed and canonized in the first century. Then they were codified together in the New Testament. The basis for the codification process:
1) Did the book come from an eyewitness or other close associate?
2) Does it agree with what Jesus taught in the other books that were verified as first hand accounts? (reference John and Matthew)
3) Is the account relevant to the time frame, events, and doctrine?

Through this process the account of Thomas was rejected because it wasn't written by Thomas, it was written much too long after the event (like more than 100 years later), and it was doctrinally corrupt.

What I don’t see is a way to distinguish between the popular J like story derived from older myths and a real J. In those first few decades given the upheaval of war and the massive absence of written texts and objective reporting, it seems more likely that older myths became entangled with the then modern needs and myth became seen as truth. That’s an oversimplification and whole books have been published that go into greater detail. But the absence of real evidence for J gives credible support for this position.

Again, we need to define what real evidence is in a historical context. Can you identify any of the OT prophets or Moses through "real evidence" as you call it?

For many religions the existence of their primary hero is not too critical, whereas with Christianity it is an essential requirement to satisfy the claim of a physical resurrection – the main component of Christian belief.

Though that is true, we are not debating the resurrection. I know it is in the bible, and hence becomes a credibility issue on the accounts given by the independent eyewitnesses. The authors reported what they thought to be true. However, if they reported independently from prison, as history indicates, then it indicates something extraordinary appeared to happen. It is difficult to lie in collaboration. Perhaps, from a rationalist's point of view, you could say Jesus never died. The Muslims take that approach. The days surrounding the crucifiction were quite confusing. One group wanted to make Jesus their king and another group wanted him dead. Some changed from one camp to the other.

The critical nature of this need and the total absence of any real substantial evidence that he existed, is quite bizarre and incredulous.

I suggest you read a bible starting with either Luke or John, based on the textus receptus (such as KJV or NKJV or NIV), not the vulgate, vaticanses, or sinaticus which are all catholic influenced including the RSV.

The continued assertion that he must have existed because so many people believe so is a classic logical fallacy in the same caliber as the popular belief that the world was flat.

They believed it was flat because it "looked flat" to them. Judging something on looks can be deceiving.

Looked at objectively; did J physically exist? We cannot tell.

It is the degree of certainty that is in question. I'd say looking at the question objectively, Jesus probably did exist, given the amount of human history that was influenced. The time to clear it up was back in the first century, and the people that needed to do the job lived back then. The New Testament came to us at a great cost in human lives, Jesus being the first, then his disciples, and many more. The christians did their part.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I apologize for coming across that way. I've received some of the same thing myself, and have felt censored at times, having my posts moved and edited. But, you feel that is appropriate, and perhaps it is.

Well here's where we have a major difference. There are many many independent sources. They were reviewed and canonized in the first century. Then they were codified together in the New Testament. The basis for the codification process:
1) Did the book come from an eyewitness or other close associate?
2) Does it agree with what Jesus taught in the other books that were verified as first hand accounts? (reference John and Matthew)
3) Is the account relevant to the time frame, events, and doctrine?

Through this process the account of Thomas was rejected because it wasn't written by Thomas, it was written much too long after the event (like more than 100 years later), and it was doctrinally corrupt.

Again, we need to define what real evidence is in a historical context. Can you identify any of the OT prophets or Moses through "real evidence" as you call it?

Though that is true, we are not debating the resurrection. I know it is in the bible, and hence becomes a credibility issue on the accounts given by the independent eyewitnesses. The authors reported what they thought to be true.However, if they reported independently from prison, as history indicates, then it indicates something extraordinary appeared to happen. It is difficult to lie in collaboration. Perhaps, from a rationalist's point of view, you could say Jesus never died. The Muslims take that approach. The days surrounding the crucifiction were quite confusing. One group wanted to make Jesus their king and another group wanted him dead. Some changed from one camp to the other.

I suggest you read a bible starting with either Luke or John, based on the textus receptus (such as KJV or NKJV or NIV), not the vulgate, vaticanses, or sinaticus which are all catholic influenced including the RSV.

They believed it was flat because it "looked flat" to them. Judging something on looks can be deceiving.

It is the degree of certainty that is in question. I'd say looking at the question objectively, Jesus probably did exist, given the amount of human history that was influenced. The time to clear it up was back in the first century, and the people that needed to do the job lived back then. The New Testament came to us at a great cost in human lives, Jesus being the first, then his disciples, and many more. The christians did their part.

*************
M*W: Can you prove without a doubt who wrote the Gospels? Can you prove without a doubt that someone named "Saul/Paul" wrote the rest of the NT? If a great many lives were lost because of the NT, why was it even written? When did anyone in Christianity do their "part" for the "cause?" Paul was Apollo, and certainly not a real person. He didn't know JC, because JC didn't exist! The whole religion of Christianity was created to control YOU! (And, it's done a very good job at that!).

 

[MarcAC]

... my name...

Hmmm.

Well, I'd swear there's a difference between the recognition of 1 "word" and the ability to read properly.

Efficiency is the key.

Once you realise it's your name, the communication is successful. You'd be surprised how humans actually read - i.e in context!

But anyway, the response illustrates a typical quality of A-apologists: thinking about and addressing a lot of junk while completely missing the main issue.

Indeed.
History is NOT science.
Glad we agree.

Well...

Don't be putting twists one my posts, you can read properly after all?

It is quite arguable that History does approach the realms of science, particularly when some idea reagarding a historical account may be tested by(?)... ... ...Archeology.

My post stated that History, as it stands alone, is not classed as a science.

It certainly doesn't stand alone. It must be supported by archeological evidence. Historical accounts are testable - each informs the other - they aren't completely separable.

Recognising and retyping a name is one thing... understanding a complex structure of words is something absolutely different it appears... that something is called reading.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

This is a pretty good thread, I would say, but all this business of "no evidence for Jesus" is bothering me. It's not there there is no evidence for Jesus, just questionable evidence. When someone is doing a serious historical study, they don't throw out evidence because it can be construed as questionable, they just treat it carefully and inform the reader of it's questionability. Other than that, I would say that all of the believers and atheists in here are becoming emotional about defending their beliefs.

 

[Woody]

When I read your post I thought it was to you MW,

so might I ask you the same questions:

Can you prove without a doubt that nobody wrote the Gospels?

Can you prove without a doubt that someone named "Saul/Paul" didn't write any of the New Testament?

If a great many lives were lost because of the NT, why was it even written?

Because it's true.

When did anyone in Christianity do their "part" for the "cause?"

By dieing as already explained, would you like to see the timeline and the names?

Paul was Apollo, and certainly not a real person.

Yeah, so is the space craft that went to the moon:

He didn't know JC, because JC didn't exist!

You're right, Jesus was already crucified.

The whole religion of Christianity was created to control YOU! (And, it's done a very good job at that!).

For whose benefit I might ask?

 

[Wilmet]

wilmet,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

In the context of this thread I think you mean the aleged birth. No one can show yet that a birth actually occurred.

But as a dividing line we could say in many ways that that is literaly true. I'm thinking of the date system adopted by many countries where we now have BCE and CE. But apart from that history keeps rolling along.

Hi Cris,

Thanks...

superluminal asked if there were any records other than scriptures that confirm or deny the existence of Jesus...

Off-hand, I could not think of any records that denied the existence of Jesus but I did think of the modern calendar, which is both non-scriptural and which is a record which serves to confirm the existence of Jesus Christ.

At its inception, calendar years were numbered beginning with the year which recorded the birth of Christ. The original calendar used the system BC/AD which translates to Before Christ and Anno Domini (In the year of the Lord). More recently, the system BCE/CE... Before the Common Era and Common Era has been used in an attempt to be sensitive to non-Christians... Although, historically, I am not quite sure what is meant by the Common Era, BCE years coincide with BC years and CE years coincide with AD years. Both systems divide history based on the recorded year of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Another record outside the Bible which also serves to confirm the existence of Jesus is the Babylonian Talmud. Early rabbinical writers verified that there was an historic Jesus... Among other things, they wrote about his practice of sorcery during his lifetime.

This is a good exercise!

 

[SkinWalker]

I fail to see how a set of texts written around 550 CE can serve as confirmation for the anyone. Moreover, the Talmud Bavli only included mention of Yeshu, which has been variously defined as Jesus. But the mentions of Yeshu in the Talmud may have their origin in the writings of Celsus, who wrote in 178 CE that a Jew imparted a story to him of Jesus being born to a divorced Mary who had separated from Joseph after having an affair with a Roman soldier.

This story has about as little credence as the entire Jesus myth, but makes the point that Jewish writers as well as the anti-Christian writers of antiquity sought to counter Christian propaganda with propaganda of their own. This sort of thing undoubtedly leads to counter-counter propaganda -and so on.

 

[Wilmet]

I fail to see how a set of texts written around 550 CE can serve as confirmation for the anyone. Moreover, the Talmud Bavli only included mention of Yeshu, which has been variously defined as Jesus. But the mentions of Yeshu in the Talmud may have their origin in the writings of Celsus, who wrote in 178 CE that a Jew imparted a story to him of Jesus being born to a divorced Mary who had separated from Joseph after having an affair with a Roman soldier.

This story has about as little credence as the entire Jesus myth, but makes the point that Jewish writers as well as the anti-Christian writers of antiquity sought to counter Christian propaganda with propaganda of their own. This sort of thing undoubtedly leads to counter-counter propaganda -and so on.

Hi SkinWalker,

If Jewish writers of antiquity were seeking to counter Christian propaganda about a Jesus that did not exist... Then the Jewish writers would more than likely have pointed out that Jesus never existed. They denied his divinity but they never denied his existence. To the contrary, they served to verify the historic Jesus by writing about what they considered to be his blasphemous deeds.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Off-hand, I could not think of any records that denied the existence of Jesus but I did think of the modern calendar, which is both non-scriptural and which is a record which serves to confirm the existence of Jesus Christ.

Our calendar system was invented by Little Dennis in the 6th century or so, replacing the previous system of emperor years.

He got it wrong by a few years (we can't say for sure exactly how wrong, because we don't really know the exact year Jesus was allegedly born because the Gospels conflict.)

This proves nothing - other than that Christianity had become a dominant European influence in the 6th century.

According to Jewish dating system, it's 5766 years since the creation of the world - does that prove the world was created 5766 years ago?

Another record outside the Bible which also serves to confirm the existence of Jesus is the Babylonian Talmud. Early rabbinical writers verified that there was an historic Jesus... Among other things, they wrote about his practice of sorcery during his lifetime.

They did NOT write anything about Jesus in his lifetime.

The Talmud was collated over CENTURIES - references to Jesus are from CENTURIES after his alleged life. They are not evidence at all, merely later Jewish responses to Christian legends.

Also, the Talmud stories are extremely varied and negative - e.g. they say Jesus learnt sorcery in Egypt, that he was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, that was stoned to death in Lydda, that he was killed in the time of Alexander Janneus (about 100B.C.)

Do you think those claims are true evidence for Jesus ?


Iasion

 

[SkinWalker]

Counter-propaganda only proves that people had varied beliefs and felt threatened by the beliefs of others. Maybe those that wrote counter-propaganda were just stupid... certainly, as Iasion points out, the things they wrote cannot demonstrate his existence -if so, they must demonstrate something entirely different about the alleged Christ than modern believers accept.

Reviewing the thread, we're left with the same thing I said earlier: scientifically, Jesus doesn't exist. That doesn't mean this is evidence that a person named Jesus didn't exist, it simply means that there is no scientific method to say he did or didn't. Woody is kind to point out that the same is easily said about SkinWalker in his lame attempt at a strawman, but we're really talking about apples and oranges. Indeed, I made it clear in an earlier post (which Woody appears to only have read what he wanted rather than the actual content) that just because archaeology cannot say anything about Jesus doesn't, by itself, imply he didn't exist.

But we would expect that *if* there were a being on the planet, in a world with a population so drastically smaller and in which writing *was* available, someone would have scrawled what they observed on potsherds, walls, tombs, scrolls, vellum, etc. A man that had the supernatural attributes that were assigned to Jesus would be the talk of all cultures in the Near East and we would expect to see his feats documented.

Unless, the supernatural feats were invented after Jesus was alleged to have lived. In such a case, we would only expect to see written accounts that were documented long after his alleged death.

There is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed. There is none that he didn't exist. There *is*, however, scientific evidence that no one considered Jesus or wrote about him until after the period he was alleged to have lived.

 

[Wilmet]

Greetings,



Our calendar system was invented by Little Dennis in the 6th century or so, replacing the previous system of emperor years.

He got it wrong by a few years (we can't say for sure exactly how wrong, because we don't really know the exact year Jesus was allegedly born because the Gospels conflict.)

This proves nothing - other than that Christianity had become a dominant European influence in the 6th century.

According to Jewish dating system, it's 5766 years since the creation of the world - does that prove the world was created 5766 years ago?




They did NOT write anything about Jesus in his lifetime.

The Talmud was collated over CENTURIES - references to Jesus are from CENTURIES after his alleged life. They are not evidence at all, merely later Jewish responses to Christian legends.

Also, the Talmud stories are extremely varied and negative - e.g. they say Jesus learnt sorcery in Egypt, that he was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, that was stoned to death in Lydda, that he was killed in the time of Alexander Janneus (about 100B.C.)

Do you think those claims are true evidence for Jesus ?


Iasion

Hi Iasion,

Wow... In my short time here, I can hardly count the times I've read phrases along the lines of... "This proves nothing"... even though I have never claimed to have proof of anything...

A question was asked and I answered it... The year of the birth of Jesus Christ was recorded in a non-scriptural source... confirming rather than denying (not proving) the existence of an historical Jesus...

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...

The fact is... there are many ancient records relatively close to the time of Jesus Christ that reference his existence... some deny his divinity... I could be wrong but... none, that I know of, deny his existence.