Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[outhouse]

I think you and I are thinking of the same thing, but just in different words, lets face it we will never really know the true story, well at least I admit that.

I want to know, so I have devoted years of study to learn as much as I can

 

[psychoslice]

But from our best educated guess.

The man died when the book said he did.
Died the way he said he did
taught some of what they said
sacrificed his life for the people, fighting corruption and oppression.
probably was form Nazareth
was from Galilee
Was baptized by John
did make a trip to the temple
crucified at the temple

And yet it wasn't the Jesus in the bible, the Jesus that supposedly was born of a virgin, who walked on water, who changed the water into wine, this Jesus never excited.

 

[psychoslice]

I want to know, so I have devoted years of study to learn as much as I can

Yes your not the only one.

 

[outhouse]

And yet it wasn't the Jesus in the bible, the Jesus that supposedly was born of a virgin, who walked on water, who changed the water into wine, this Jesus never excited.

Historical jesus is not biblical jesus

you have been explained this ad nauseam

 

[psychoslice]

Historical jesus is not biblical jesus

you have been explained this ad nauseam

Yes I know, but you would be surprised at how many think its the same man, ad laugh.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes I know, but you would be surprised at how many think its the same man, ad laugh.

Biblical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pilate.

 

[JoStories]

Yes and I agree that there was a man, or men who were prophets at that time, after all there were many, and when the story of a saviour was invented, they simple used one of the prophets as a sort of catalyst, and so the story over many years got more and more lost, as they were adding and subtracting from the so called bible, at all the council meetings starting from Nicaea in around 327 ad.

I am forced to agree that you could be right in your suppositions, but the fact remains that we do have enough historical evidence to conclude that someone like Jesus did exist, and outhouse has pointed that out.

 

[JoStories]

Yes I know, but you would be surprised at how many think its the same man, ad laugh.

Agreed. I think many of us are on the same page here. I don't believe in the hype and exaggerated myth surrounding the man Jesus; ie: born of a virgin, etc. it's just not plausible. But some of the story does have enough credilble evidence to believe someone like this existed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course th bible,has much to offer but the sticking point for me is the excluded gospels and/or books. I just love the gospel of Thomas, that of Mary Magdalene, and then the one written allegedly by Jesus himself is quite remarkable.

As opposed to Josephus, since "Josephus has been largely discredited as being apologetic."

 

[steeltoes]

Agreed. I think many of us are on the same page here. I don't believe in the hype and exaggerated myth surrounding the man Jesus; ie: born of a virgin, etc. it's just not plausible. But some of the story does have enough credilble evidence to believe someone like this existed.

The story has no credible evidence of anything other than the fact that a story is being told, and since when has there ever been a need for credible evidence for people to formulate a belief? People are expressing their beliefs here and we all know that people believe all manner of things and evidence has little to do with beliefs. We are told that the crucifixion is a fact in spite of the fact that every gospel line of the crucifixion scene is made up of lines drawn from what we now refer to as the OT. So how exactly was this crucifixion supposed to have happened? We are told scholars believe that the crucifixion is fact, well what is that supposed to mean? Are we to formulate our beliefs by drawing from the beliefs of believers?

 

[JoStories]

The story has no credible evidence of anything other than the fact that a story is being told, and since when has there ever been a need for credible evidence for people to formulate a belief? People are expressing their beliefs here and we all know that people believe all manner of things and evidence has little to do with beliefs. We are told that the crucifixion is a fact in spite of the fact that every gospel line of the crucifixion scene is made up of lines drawn from what we now refer to as the OT. So how exactly was this crucifixion supposed to have happened? We are told scholars believe that the crucifixion is fact, well what is that supposed to mean? Are we to formulate our beliefs by drawing from the beliefs of believers?

You are free to believe whatever you like steel. I am not a believer in Christianity and never have been. I view this from an unbiased POV. And yes, there is enough accepted evidence, from outside religion to believe crucifixation was used. Was it used on a man named Jesus? No credible scholar would say yes without a healthy dose of skepticism. We know a man like this existed. Now, I am one of those who don't believe in the hype and myth. It simply doesn't hold water. But I do agree a man like this did exist.

 

[steeltoes]

You are free to believe whatever you like steel. I am not a believer in Christianity and never have been. I view this from an unbiased POV. And yes, there is enough accepted evidence, from outside religion to believe crucifixation was used. Was it used on a man named Jesus? No credible scholar would say yes without a healthy dose of skepticism. We know a man like this existed. Now, I am one of those who don't believe in the hype and myth. It simply doesn't hold water. But I do agree a man like this did exist.

I was not questioning the use of crucifixion, I was questioning the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[psychoslice]

Biblical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pilate.

So it is said ?.

 

[psychoslice]

I am forced to agree that you could be right in your suppositions, but the fact remains that we do have enough historical evidence to conclude that someone like Jesus did exist, and outhouse has pointed that out.

Of course there were many men like the historical Jesus roaming around that time, but we don't know enough about this man, what we have in the bible is fiction based on one of these men.

 

[psychoslice]

Agreed. I think many of us are on the same page here. I don't believe in the hype and exaggerated myth surrounding the man Jesus; ie: born of a virgin, etc. it's just not plausible. But some of the story does have enough credilble evidence to believe someone like this existed.

Yes and this is why I say that we must form our own religion, for no one really knows about this Jesus, so who are we going to follow, well of course no one except our own selves.

 

[Cephus]

Biblical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pilate.

And where is your direct, objective evidence for either of those events?

 

[steeltoes]

And where is your direct, objective evidence for either of those events?

You can read about them in the gospels. Historical Jesus is another matter, what can we know about historical Jesus?

 

[Cephus]

You can read about them in the gospels. Historical Jesus is another matter, what can we know about historical Jesus?

Which no credible historian considers historically valid. Biblical Jesus is a complete myth. Trying to find similarities between historical Jesus (if there even is one) and Biblical Jesus is a waste of time.

 

[JoStories]

Yes and this is why I say that we must form our own religion, for no one really knows about this Jesus, so who are we going to follow, well of course no one except our own selves.

Some people like the comfort and comradarie of an organized faith. I am not one of those, however I would never tell someone their choice of how to have faith was wrong headed. It's not up to me.

 

[JoStories]

I was not questioning the use of crucifixion, I was questioning the crucifixion of Jesus.

How,can you know that a man named Jesus was, in fact, crucified? You can't. It may have been someone but that doesn't mean it was who you want to beleive it was.