• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Vishvavajra said:
As for Paul's being a proto-gnostic, various gnostic groups seem to have thought so, and I'm inclined to agree. However, the idea that the name of Jesus was added into his writings at a later date has no support behind it. Paul thought Jesus of Nazareth was the enlightened one, a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy (albeit not the fulfillment most Jews were expecting). He encourages others to be like Jesus and frequently uses him as an example that it can be done. It's true that Paul predates the Gospels and thus the virgin birth and all the outward miracles that got attached to the story of Jesus, but you still go too far in claiming that Paul is writing about some hypothetical person and that all references to Jesus are forgeries. If that much of Paul were corrupt, then we would have no way of determining what he was saying to any degree.

In fact Paul's writings provide what is by far the earliest mention of Jesus of Nazareth that we know of. The stuff that Paul doesn't seem to know about is relevant because it helps to date when that stuff entered the tradition.
Click to expand...
Yes I can agree with most of that, but I still se Paul using the word Christ as a higher Consciousness that is within all of us, its nothing to do with a particular person such as Jesus, its all to do with us, you and me. When we are one with this inner Christ, we are as Paul said, "I live yet not I, but Christ liveth within me" or something like that.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Vishvavajra said:
Well, he's right about the Gospel Jesus (i.e. the mythic Jesus) being largely a midrashic construction. That's not to say it's not being hung on a guy who actually existed. His chronology is a bit off when he suggests the author of Mark invented him, since Mark is the product of an existing tradition, and Paul predates Mark by a generation or more. I don't think anyone with an understanding of the Gospels will deny that the figure they present is a mythic one and that subsequent traditions took that figure in a number of different directions, but that doesn't begin to address the question of where the idea of this guy came from in the first place. The problem is that he's actually not very iconic or archetypal until they spin him that way, and they spend a great deal of energy doing so and trying to warp Biblical prophecies and kingship theory around him to fit. What you see in the Gospels is not at all what you'd see if he had been fabricated specifically for that purpose; it's more that they're trying to take what's already there and morph it into something that suits their purpose.

As for the rest, he makes a number of fine points, but they're points that were made in critical Biblical scholarship more than a century ago. It's really only evangelical apologists who make the outlandish claims he's refuting, and in doing so they're already isolating themselves from mainstream Biblical scholarship.
Click to expand...
Yes what he say's may not be perfectly true but it makes a lot more senses than most of those who try to prove the Jesus of the bible being a real person, Pauls Christ is not made from a person, its made from a Consciousness that we all can obtain. To me the Christ story came from many other stories , such as the Buddha, Krishna and on and on.
 
Last edited:
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
psychoslice said:
but it makes a lot more senses than most of those who try to prove the Jesus of the bible being a real person,
Click to expand...

Then provide a replacement hypothesis that explains why Paul wrote what he did, and why the gospel authors wrote what they did.

The brightest minds have tried and failed. These are the most educated people. You have no chance at all, your just making noise like a poodle, all bark and no bite.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
Then provide a replacement hypothesis that explains why Paul wrote what he did, and why the gospel authors wrote what they did.

The brightest minds have tried and failed. These are the most educated people. You have no chance at all, your just making noise like a poodle, all bark and no bite.
Click to expand...
The thing is your completely wrong but you just cannot handle the truth, you want your Jesus to be real, no matter what, now tell me is that true ?.
 
F

faroukfarouk

Active Member
Your confirmation for the existence of Jesus(peace and blessings be upon him).
From the Noble Quraan.
Yusuf Ali
"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste! But she pointed to the babe. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute"

The above is clear confirmation of his birth so any disputes on his existence are just vain nonsense.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
faroukfarouk said:
Your confirmation for the existence of Jesus(peace and blessings be upon him).
From the Noble Quraan.
Yusuf Ali
"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste! But she pointed to the babe. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute"

The above is clear confirmation of his birth so any disputes on his existence are just vain nonsense.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't have anything to do with the Koran, the bible is bad enough, its all over the place, just as the Koran is, so to me it means nothing.
 
F

faroukfarouk

Active Member
psychoslice said:
Sorry I don't have anything to do with the Koran, the bible is bad enough, its all over the place, just as the Koran is, so to me it means nothing.
Click to expand...
Well it pretty obvious that any historical book will be meaningless to you because you already made up your mind that he did not exist.
So its just meaningless debating the subject.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
faroukfarouk said:
You confirm total ignorance of whats inside our religious books.
Click to expand...

Please provide credible sources that show one single credible historian IN THE WHOLE WORLD that uses your book for study on historical Jesus.

There is not one. You know why? it has no historical value outside religious faith.

This is not up for debate, this is your fanaticism and fundamentalism where you are trying to change the whole world to YOUR specific belief, while the rest of the world is using evidence and study and academia to make the best decisions on what is, and is not historical.


This is your one chance, go out and bring back credible sources and links to prove your point is valid. Make sure they are recognized by academia.
 
F

faroukfarouk

Active Member
outhouse said:
Please provide credible sources that show one single credible historian IN THE WHOLE WORLD that uses your book for study on historical Jesus.
There is not one. You know why? it has no historical value outside religious faith.
This is not up for debate, this is your fanaticism and fundamentalism where you are trying to change the whole world to YOUR specific belief, while the rest of the world is using evidence and study and academia to make the best decisions on what is, and is not historical.
This is your one chance, go out and bring back credible sources and links to prove your point is valid. Make sure they are recognized by academia.
Click to expand...

You are way off topic.
The OP is as follows.
"What historical evidence is there for the existence of Jesus?"
The Noble Quraan came into existence more than 1400 years ago and that makes it an historical book.Now if you are having difficulty swallowing the truth then you do have a serious problem.
There is an old saying.
Whatever one dislikes in someone is probably an issue one has with ones shadow-self.
I rest my case.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
faroukfarouk said:
You are way off topic.
The OP is as follows.
"What historical evidence is there for the existence of Jesus?"
The Noble Quraan came into existence more than 1400 years ago and that makes it an historical book.Now if you are having difficulty swallowing the truth then you do have a serious problem.
There is an old saying.
Whatever one dislikes in someone is probably an issue one has with ones shadow-self.
I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Please provide credible sources that show one single credible historian IN THE WHOLE WORLD that uses your book for study on historical Jesus.

There is not one. You know why? it has no historical value outside religious faith.

This is not up for debate, this is your fanaticism and fundamentalism where you are trying to change the whole world to YOUR specific belief, while the rest of the world is using evidence and study and academia to make the best decisions on what is, and is not historical.


This is your one chance, go out and bring back credible sources and links to prove your point is valid. Make sure they are recognized by academia.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Cephus said:
No, your total ignorance of what constitutes evidence. Claims made with ZERO evidence by people who NEVER lived at the same time or had any direct experience is not evidence.
Click to expand...
And folks who, with a strait face, loudly assert that "[c]laims made with ZERO evidence ... is (sic) not evidence" strike me as more turgidly tautological than 'relentlessly rational.' :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top