Should we expect secular evidence of Jesus existence?

[angellous_evangellous]

Cheers for backing up my point and sorry for my spelling in the last post...

haha yep. I misread your post.

Finding the "Pilot" stone was very cool, but no, I don't think that we're ever going to find something like that for Jesus. Unlike Pilot, he has four Gospels.

 

[dogsgod]

I was thinking about the time that people used to say, hey there is no evidence that Pilot and then a stone was found in some sort of arena and with his name on it and hey presto, he was real! Could the same thing not happen in future with Jesus.

Philo was a contemporary and wrote about Pilate and described his position and expressed his opinion of him in no uncertain terms, so if people said there was no evidence of Pilate they were mistaken. Philo described a Pilate that would have executed a troublemaker like Jesus without so much as a thought so there still is no evidence that supports the Pilate as he is portrayed in the gospels, as one caring and considerate of a Jewish prisoner.

Could the same thing happen with Jesus in the future? Things that have happened always turn out to be a disappointment, such as the "discoveries" of his birthplace and execution, of Nazareth, the shroud, the James ossuary, Josephus references, and so on.

 

[linwood]

haha yep. I misread your post.

Finding the "Pilot" stone was very cool, but no, I don't think that we're ever going to find something like that for Jesus. Unlike Pilot, he has four Gospels.

Enkidu has his gospels as well.
Doesn`t evidence his realistic historicity though.

Although I`m just playing the Devil`s advocate here as I believe some "real" person or amalgamation of persons are at the root of the Christ myth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Enkidu has his gospels as well.
Doesn`t evidence his realistic historicity though.

Although I`m just playing the Devil`s advocate here as I believe some "real" person or amalgamation of persons are at the root of the Christ myth.

Enkidu is not Jesus.

 

[linwood]

Enkidu is not Jesus.

That`s debatable, and irrelevant to my point.

 

[Meow Mix]

Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)

It would make sense to me that if eternity is on the line, God would make very well sure that everyone on earth could make a completely informed choice about eternity.

Sending a prophet when there are thousands of false* prophets all saying contradictory things and then expecting people to believe exactly the right one -- and then punishing those who listen to their families and culture that listen to different prophets -- doesn't seem very God-like to me.

(* -- assuming Christianity is true for the sake of argument, then non-Christian prophets are false prophets)

It's like handing a kid a land mine with 50 buttons on it, where only one button actually disarms the bomb but 50 different people are saying which button is the "one true disarming button."

In the same sense, if Christianity is true and Jesus is the one true road to salvation, why is there not more evidence to convince the skeptics and the poor people who are holding their land mines (i.e., looking at all the various religions and methods that claim to lead to salvation) so that they might know for sure which "button to push" to disarm the bomb? (i.e., evidence so they can make an informed decision on which path actually leads to salvation)

I don't think a God that allows the road to salvation to be spread through such an inefficient means as prophets and cultural diffusion -- who furthermore allows those who failed to find the road to suffer eternally, regardless of how good and moral they are otherwise -- is a "good" God, nor do I think it's likely such a being exists that would use such petty methods.

 

[tigrers99]

I would say the Shroud of Turin is the physical evidence that Jesus existed and in fact was resurrected. The Russian version of the Josephus quote is also extremely powerful circumstantial secular evidence for His existence.


It is too bad that the general population of the people of that time and place were not all literate and all we would have to do would be to uncover all the millions of parchments, stones, and whatever else they would have wrote on, to find out about everyday life and happenings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say the Shroud of Turin is the physical evidence that Jesus existed and in fact was resurrected.

The Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery.

The Russian version of the Josephus quote is also extremely powerful circumstantial secular evidence for His existence.

The Russian version? What insight does it give that the original does not?

 

[Ilisrum]

I'm curious as to what kinds of now lost sources were available to early church historians such as Hegesippus and Julius Africanus. Could they have had access to genealogical records or such relating to members of Jesus' family who were still living at the time? Or now lost secular sources? It's intriguing to wonder.

The Russian version of the Josephus quote is also extremely powerful circumstantial secular evidence for His existence.

The Slavic Josephus is about as authentic as the Gospel of Barnabas.

 

[linwood]

I would say the Shroud of Turin is the physical evidence that Jesus existed and in fact was resurrected. The Russian version of the Josephus quote is also extremely powerful circumstantial secular evidence for His existence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bet you a nickel that statement was plagiarized from somewhere online.

 

[Autodidact]

Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)

1. What is secular evidence, and how is it different from evidence?
2. I think if Jesus had performed the miracles described in the gospels, it would be reasonable to expect someone to have mentioned it.

 

[Autodidact]

There is one fragment of Josephus that mentions Jesus,

and which is considered by most experts to be a forgery or interpolation.

 

[Autodidact]

What is acceptable to you as proof?
Is early second century history and belief? Remember, all but one of Christ's disciples were executed for their belief.

No, they weren't, at least, not that we know of. There is church tradition (i.e. propaganda) to this effect, but less evidence of this than that there ever was a Jesus.

The next generation, the same thing.

Balderdash.

I HOPE I could endure a horrible,burning death at the stake (ala Tyndale,Cranmer,Latimer et al) but you never know until the actual time of martyrdom occurs. But THEY certainly believed.

If they existed.

How about the Church Fathers during late antiquity and the early dark ages? Augustine of Hippo, Origen,Jerome, Antipas,and others were totally dedicated to Christ and His Church (even though the church known as the Catholic church quite early departed from the Bible,by venerating relics,saints, sacraments,etc) Still,the leaders of Christendom believed.

Yes but that's not the question, is it? I mean, the leaders of the LDS church believe, does that persuade you that Joseph Smith is a prophet?

How about Jewish sources? I mean, it may be negative evidence in the Jewish reaction to Christianity, but it seems THEY were convinced of the reality that SOMEONE had lived and died and stirred up a lot of trouble.

Which sources are you referring to?

And the Bible,of course,speaks for itself.

As religious propaganda written decades after the events described?

Do you give the same credence to everyone else's holy books? Why not?

Anyway,as Martin Luther learned in 1517 ,the Bible says "The just shall live by faith..." And if you have faith, "For he that cometh to God,must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him".
it's about faith.

That' right, and faith means believing without evidence. So please don't try to persuade us that you have evidence. If you did, you wouldn't need faith, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

I was thinking about the time that people used to say, hey there is no evidence that Pilot and then a stone was found in some sort of arena and with his name on it and hey presto, he was real! Could the same thing not happen in future with Jesus.

And if some such evidence of Jesus ever turns up, we'll change our minds about Him, too. But surely you're not arguing that we should believe things without evidence, on the chance that some evidence may eventually turn up?

 

[Autodidact]

Enkidu is not Jesus.

And? Therefore we apply different standards?

 

[Autodidact]

I would say the Shroud of Turin is the physical evidence that Jesus existed and in fact was resurrected.

Except for being a fake, yeah.

The Russian version of the Josephus quote is also extremely powerful circumstantial secular evidence for His existence.

What?

It is too bad that the general population of the people of that time and place were not all literate and all we would have to do would be to uncover all the millions of parchments, stones, and whatever else they would have wrote on, to find out about everyday life and happenings.

No, but some people were.

 

[outhouse]

It sure looks like some of the jesus story is almost a direct copy from the OT.

Not what scholars would use as evidence for a historical jesus but I wonder if this is taken into account for validity of the gospels.

Is it true scholars cant go against the grain when it comes to belief without loosing there cedibility?

 

[Quagmire]

What is acceptable to you as proof?
Is early second century history and belief? Remember, all but one of Christ's disciples were executed for their belief.

There's no proof for this. The stories surrounding the supposed martyrdom of the apostles are traditional (not even mentioned in the Bible except for James) and in many cases contradictory.

The next generation, the same thing.
I HOPE I could endure a horrible,burning death at the stake (ala Tyndale,Cranmer,Latimer et al) but you never know until the actual time of martyrdom occurs. But THEY certainly believed.

Dieing for what you believe doesn't validate that belief. Do you think that the terrorists that flew the jets into the WTC validated their beliefs?

How about the Church Fathers during late antiquity and the early dark ages? Augustine of Hippo, Origen,Jerome, Antipas,and others were totally dedicated to Christ and His Church

What about them?

(even though the church known as the Catholic church quite early departed from the Bible,by venerating relics,saints, sacraments,etc) Still,the leaders of Christendom believed.
How about Jewish sources? I mean, it may be negative evidence in the Jewish reaction to Christianity, but it seems THEY were convinced of the reality that SOMEONE had lived and died and stirred up a lot of trouble.

What Jewish sources would those be?

And the Bible,of course,speaks for itself.

But people who understand history usually don't.

Anyway,as Martin Luther learned in 1517 ,the Bible says "The just shall live by faith..." And if you have faith, "For he that cometh to God,must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him".
it's about faith.

Then why are you looking for proof?

 

[Emerald]

In my opinion this is exactly what faith means!Believe in the existence of God or Jesus without any proof...