Where is the evidence for Jesus?

[NoahideHiker]

The thing that I don’t get is the level of miraculous things that went unnoted. What happened when Jesus died? There was a great earthquake, the Temple curtain was ripped in two, and the tombs of the saints opened up and dead people started walking around. Very noteworthy stuff! Hell, even the Jews would have wrote that stuff down. But we have absolutely no contemporary accounts of this ever happening from historians at the time.

The “evidence “ found in Josephus is unlikely at best because it has been proven there was tampering with the text. And why would a historian, even though he wasn’t around when Jesus was, spend so little time on the Moshiach? He wrote more about Pilot than he did about the long awaited Moshiach. He spends all this time on other people and then drops a blurb, “Oh yeah, and Jesus was the Moshiach.”.

Likewise the Talmud has nothing there either. When the Talmud was written Christianity wasn’t even a blip on the radar yet, much less a threat.

We also have to keep in mind that when the Moshiach does come the whole world will know it and recognize it because the things he will accomplish will be self evident and world changing. Jesus fulfilled no prophecy that we can say was self evident to the whole world. No world peace. No universal knowledge of G-d. No ingathering of the Jews back to Israel. No rebuilding the temple. No prophesying.

[FONT=&quot]No Moshiach. [/FONT]

 

[pladecalvo]

You believe in plato,socretes, and many other ancient philosphers,their writings and teachings,well if your looking in the right places you will find the proof of Jesus walking the earth and doing what the bible says he did.

You mean that one has to become a Christian. The problem with your 'evidence' is that the 'evidence' that you have to support your theology consists of the claims that are written in the Bible. But without any reason to think that these claims written in the Bible are true, we have no reason to accept any argument that you make on a "purely theological basis". So no purely theological proof is worth anything unless the basis for the theology (i.e. the Bible) can be demonstrated to be accurate. If a prerequisite for accepting Christian evidence is believing in god, then it's not evidence at all.

Another problem is that using the Bible as a source wouldn’t work very well, because there’s no agreement on what the Bible says: translations abound, and so do different interpretations of each of those translations. Catholic Bibles aren’t the same as Protestant Bibles, not only because the former have more books, but because the translations are very different as well.

The writings themselves of this are found within the same century of his birth and death

.

:no: The Gospels, and their contents, where UNKNOWN even to Christians, until early-mid 2nd century and according to modern NT scholars, not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who met any jesus.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html

Google the life of Jesus,,his teachings etc
But when all that is done then ask him to reveal himself to you

If your god created the universe he can convince me he exists with the tiniest amount of effort. The fact that he hasn't means either he can't, he doesn't want to, or he doesn't exist.

 

[Quiddity]

Pladecalvo, why are you pushing this topic any further? You seem to have been open to the possibility in post #59, but yet insist the man Jesus Christ never existed. You are arguing into a vacuum.

You may want to chide Christians for placing faith in the Bible: that it is God's inspired and infallible revelation. You may argue that we can't possibly know or prove that it is. But just know that all of us (including atheists) extrapolate the truthfulness (at least in general terms) of a work based on things in it which we can easily verify or substantiate. Then we trust the writer for the rest. And, of course, for the Christian, we exercise faith, which is not unlike the sort of trust in other texts. It is not a blind faith, but one which extrapolates from, and is wholly consistent with, the evidences of reason.

If the elite educated men are more then open to the possibility why do you push against it unless you yourself have a bias?

 

[pladecalvo]

For anyone interested, here is a link to the Vatican Secret Archives (no, really!):

http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1_doc.htm

What you will see is a (presumably) partial list of what they refer to as "Documents belonging to history." One section is labelled "Famous personages."

Now I grant you that not all documents belonging to the archive are going to be on this list; however, if there was ANY scrap of documentary evidence relating to a historical Jesus, wouldn't you expect it to be right at the top?

Guess what's missing...

 

[pladecalvo]

Pladecalvo, why are you pushing this topic any further? You seem to have been open to the possibility in post #59, but yet insist the man Jesus Christ never existed. You are arguing into a vacuum.

You may want to chide Christians for placing faith in the Bible: that it is God's inspired and infallible revelation. You may argue that we can't possibly know or prove that it is. But just know that all of us (including atheists) extrapolate the truthfulness (at least in general terms) of a work based on things in it which we can easily verify or substantiate. Then we trust the writer for the rest. And, of course, for the Christian, we exercise faith, which is not unlike the sort of trust in other texts. It is not a blind faith, but one which extrapolates from, and is wholly consistent with, the evidences of reason.

If the elite educated men are more then open to the possibility why do you push against it unless you yourself have a bias?

Because I am interested in the subject and enjoy learning thing from people who are more educated in the subject than I am. When a Christian says something that I disagree with, I research it and gain knowledge from it. If you don't want to contribute you can just ignore me.

 

[Quiddity]

Because I am interested in the subject and enjoy learning thing from people who are more educated in the subject than I am. When a Christian says something that I disagree with, I research it and gain knowledge from it. If you don't want to contribute you can just ignore me.

I already did contribute, and it is you that ignored it. I very much doubt you read all I gave you. So tell me the real reason why you are here?

 

[pladecalvo]

I already did contribute, and it is you that ignored it. I very much doubt you read all I gave you. So tell me the real reason why you are here?

Perhaps I didn't explain correctly. I didn't mean to imply that you ignored my post but that you could ignore the thread if you didn't want to contribute anymore. I have read everything you gave me but some of it was just to technical and complicated for me to understand in English. I did try to translate it but it didn't work.

I am really here to learn and for my love of debate.

 

[Quiddity]

Perhaps I didn't explain correctly. I didn't mean to imply that you ignored my post but that you could ignore the thread if you didn't want to contribute anymore. I have read everything you gave me but some of it was just to technical and complicated for me to understand in English. I did try to translate it but it didn't work.

I am really here to learn and for my love of debate.

I'll take your word on that. Apparently some people don't know how to disagree and be charitable at the same time.

 

[pladecalvo]

I'll take your word on that. Apparently some people don't know how to disagree and be charitable at the same time.

I con't understand your repy. Have I done something wrong?

 

[Quiddity]

I con't understand your repy. Have I done something wrong?

I wouldn't know. I don't know you. What I do know is that we have all sorts of people who come to this forum. One group happens to be a group that can care less what Christians think. Their view of Christians is ingrained into their head that it doesn't matter what he have to say, we are ignoramous and stupid. It's a psychological state really.

I'm really hoping you are not part of that group and are truly here to learn and not spew your doubts and attack Christianity. If you are not, continue on, you have my undivided attention. If you are, then consider yourself ignored by me and many others.

 

[pladecalvo]

I wouldn't know. I don't know you. What I do know is that we have all sorts of people who come to this forum. One group happens to be a group that can care less what Christians think. Their view of Christians is ingrained into their head that it doesn't matter what he have to say, we are ignoramous and stupid. It's a psychological state really.

I'm really hoping you are not part of that group and are truly here to learn and not spew your doubts and attack Christianity. If you are not, continue on, you have my undivided attention. If you are, then consider yourself ignored by me and many others.

One doesn't learn much from stupid people and I wouldn't waste my time with that.

 

[Quiddity]

One doesn't learn much from stupid people and I wouldn't waste my time with that.

I agree...

 

[s2a]

Howdy ya'll...

Victor said:
I'll take your word on that. Apparently some people don't know how to disagree and be charitable at the same time.

pladecalvo answered:
I con't[sic] understand your repy. Have I done something wrong?

Victor replied:
I'll take your word on that. Apparently some people don't know how to disagree and be charitable at the same time.

Then Victor later added:
I wouldn't know. I don't know you. What I do know is that we have all sorts of people who come to this forum. One group happens to be a group that can care less what Christians think.

I would suggest that you temper your evaluation, and perhaps distinguish between "caring" about what Christians "think" (or more aptly, "believe"), and an act of accepting (or lending deference) to what is claimed by Christians as estimable or relevant "fact".

It is fair to say that I have absolutely no "care" (some might choose to qualify it as "respect") for what Christians claim as a matter of faith, but I do care about how they [Christians] "think"...and how that thought process directly affects the choices and actions they subsequently pursue, or hold as "true".

In that vein, I remain perplexed as to why Christians (and others of predominant theistic beliefs) expect or demand "respect" in some idealistic equanimity of opinions and beliefs. Why would anyone ever think that "respect" (or automatic deference of opposing view) for a stated opinion is requisite to any sort of reasoned debate?

I'm very well entitled to think that your opinion is utter bunk, and you are owed no especial considerations as some ingrained golf handicap at tee time.

Better ideas and compelling arguments are the great equalizer in honest and earnest discussion/debate; not some expectantly imposed and feigned diplomacy and duplicity.

Their view of Christians is ingrained into their head that it doesn't matter what he have to say, we are ignoramous and stupid. It's a psychological state really.

Touché Brutus.

Indeed, why bother forwarding you best arguments of established position...when your foil is obviously a biased, chiding, disrespecting and stupid ignoramus? Obviously, such foils are just "mental", and their arguments are readily discredited because of evinced irreverence of your sincere piety.

I'm really hoping you are not part of that group and are truly here to learn and not spew your doubts and attack Christianity. If you are not, continue on, you have my undivided attention. If you are, then consider yourself ignored by me and many others.

Way to go.

Onward, Christian Soldier!

"Hear my testimony, and give me my due...or to Hell with you".

R-e-s-p-e-c-t.

Find out what it means to me...

 

[roli]

You mean that one has to become a Christian. The problem with your 'evidence' is that the 'evidence' that you have to support your theology consists of the claims that are written in the Bible. But without any reason to think that these claims written in the Bible are true, we have no reason to accept any argument that you make on a "purely theological basis". So no purely theological proof is worth anything unless the basis for the theology (i.e. the Bible) can be demonstrated to be accurate. If a prerequisite for accepting Christian evidence is believing in god, then it's not evidence at all.

Another problem is that using the Bible as a source wouldn’t work very well, because there’s no agreement on what the Bible says: translations abound, and so do different interpretations of each of those translations. Catholic Bibles aren’t the same as Protestant Bibles, not only because the former have more books, but because the translations are very different as well. :no: The Gospels, and their contents, where UNKNOWN even to Christians, until early-mid 2nd century and according to modern NT scholars, not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who met any jesus.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html


If your god created the universe he can convince me he exists with the tiniest amount of effort. The fact that he hasn't means either he can't, he doesn't want to, or he doesn't exist.

Do a history search yourself on the validity of the scriptures,the life of Jesus etc, The problem is your belief or disbelief will not allow you to do an in depth study of the historicity of the bible ,Jesus etc.
Read up ex-atheist Josh Mac Dowell who is a christian now after several years of setting out to disprove Jesus ,the bible etc.He is a best selling author and public speaker ,books such as a case for christ, evidence that demands a Verdict.
If you would do an honest serch of scripture you might very well join Josh and his new found faith .
Not from mere intellectual accent but research,study,open minded to hear what others say etc
You might be surprised what you find out

 

[pladecalvo]

Do a history search yourself on the validity of the scriptures,the life of Jesus etc, The problem is your belief or disbelief will not allow you to do an in depth study of the historicity of the bible ,Jesus etc.
Read up ex-atheist Josh Mac Dowell who is a christian now after several years of setting out to disprove Jesus ,the bible etc.He is a best selling author and public speaker ,books such as a case for christ, evidence that demands a Verdict.
If you would do an honest serch of scripture you might very well join Josh and his new found faith .
Not from mere intellectual accent but research,study,open minded to hear what others say etc
You might be surprised what you find out

I have done quite a bit of research roli, that's why I'm atheist. I have studied both sides of the fence(is that how you say it?) and I have drawn my conclusion from the evidence available.

I'm sure that there are many atheist who become believers but there are many believers who become atheist. If you tell me that Mr McDowell was atheist and is now Christian, it proves nothing because I would tell you about John Loftus, who was actually a Christian minister who became atheist. He write for a web site called 'Debunking Christianity'. This site is actually run by ex-church ministers who have become atheist.

 

[roli]

I have done quite a bit of research roli, that's why I'm atheist. I have studied both sides of the fence(is that how you say it?) and I have drawn my conclusion from the evidence available.

I'm sure that there are many atheist who become believers but there are many believers who become atheist. If you tell me that Mr McDowell was atheist and is now Christian, it proves nothing because I would tell you about John Loftus, who was actually a Christian minister who became atheist. He write for a web site called 'Debunking Christianity'. This site is actually run by ex-church ministers who have become atheist.

Maybe they never actually where born again,but merely religious,the word that comes to mind is false prophet,liars,wolves in sheep clothing,I don't know,could there be some underlying reasons behind there .
But I can say one thing for certain ,it is not God's fault,or a lack of evidence .
Men have there carnal natures ,earthly pleasures ,sinful indulgences,pride,personal offense and a host of other factors that they contend with on a daily basis,causing men to depart from the faith left and right.
One only have to look into the life of that person,there lifestyle,practices ,habits,behaviors,attitudes.
Jesus says you will know them by the fruit they produce in their life
There is a radical difference between a born again experience and a religious experience.
The highest ranking religious officials in Jesus day where hypocrites,liars,false believers followers of Christ,adherents only to the religious protocol,self righteous and pious practices that made them appear holy.
Christianity is a title that many claim to catagorize themself
I hear what your saying,maybe an offense or a sinful lifestyle played a part in their recanting christianity,maybe they never where saved in the first place

 

[pladecalvo]

Maybe they never actually where born again,but merely religious,the word that comes to mind is false prophet,liars,wolves in sheep clothing,I don't know,could there be some underlying reasons behind there .
But I can say one thing for certain ,it is not God's fault,or a lack of evidence .
Men have there carnal natures ,earthly pleasures ,sinful indulgences,pride,personal offense and a host of other factors that they contend with on a daily basis,causing men to depart from the faith left and right.
One only have to look into the life of that person,there lifestyle,practices ,habits,behaviors,attitudes.
Jesus says you will know them by the fruit they produce in their life
There is a radical difference between a born again experience and a religious experience.
The highest ranking religious officials in Jesus day where hypocrites,liars,false believers followers of Christ,adherents only to the religious protocol,self righteous and pious practices that made them appear holy.
Christianity is a title that many claim to catagorize themself
I hear what your saying,maybe an offense or a sinful lifestyle played a part in their recanting christianity,maybe they never where saved in the first place

Or maybe they just.........'saw the light'.

 

[s2a]

Maybe they never actually where born again,but merely religious,the word that comes to mind is false prophet,liars,wolves in sheep clothing,I don't know,could there be some underlying reasons behind there .
But I can say one thing for certain ,it is not God's fault,or a lack of evidence .
Men have there carnal natures ,earthly pleasures ,sinful indulgences,pride,personal offense and a host of other factors that they contend with on a daily basis,causing men to depart from the faith left and right.
One only have to look into the life of that person,there lifestyle,practices ,habits,behaviors,attitudes.
Jesus says you will know them by the fruit they produce in their life
There is a radical difference between a born again experience and a religious experience.
The highest ranking religious officials in Jesus day where hypocrites,liars,false believers followers of Christ,adherents only to the religious protocol,self righteous and pious practices that made them appear holy.
Christianity is a title that many claim to catagorize themself
I hear what your saying,maybe an offense or a sinful lifestyle played a part in their recanting christianity,maybe they never where saved in the first place

*sigh*

If only there were a definitive and purely objective "piety test" available, that could determine with absolute certainty just who was a "real/true" Christian, from all those other poseurs and self-deluded wanna-be "false/fake" Chrsitians.

I guess we'll all just have to rely upon those that "know" they are redeemed as being "truly saved"--to reliably question/doubt/impugn the claimed understanding of revelation and faith that others may deem/assert as "true".

Certainly no "true Chrisitian" would ever question their own faith, or allow reason undue influence upon that faith in circumspect reflection of other possibilities...

...that's why it's impossible to drive in the opposite direction down a one-way street. To do so would automatically invalidate your otherwise unblemished driver's license forever!

 

[Quiddity]

I would suggest that you temper your evaluation, and perhaps distinguish between "caring" about what Christians "think" (or more aptly, "believe"), and an act of accepting (or lending deference) to what is claimed by Christians as estimable or relevant "fact".

It is fair to say that I have absolutely no "care" (some might choose to qualify it as "respect") for what Christians claim as a matter of faith, but I do care about how they [Christians] "think"...and how that thought process directly affects the choices and actions they subsequently pursue, or hold as "true".

Pray tell, where is this division you speak of? What I believe (think) is interconnected to my faith. How you manage to care dearly for one while disrespecting the other is quite a task. Sounds like a lot of work.

In that vein, I remain perplexed as to why Christians (and others of predominant theistic beliefs) expect or demand "respect" in some idealistic equanimity of opinions and beliefs. Why would anyone ever think that "respect" (or automatic deference of opposing view) for a stated opinion is requisite to any sort of reasoned debate?

Because dialogues should all be started on the same platform and with a clean slate everytime. One cannot "disrespect" until one has a good grasp of what it is your disrespecting. It is because you haven't had a discussion with a particular person that precisely should respect should be extended.

I'm very well entitled to think that your opinion is utter bunk, and you are owed no especial considerations as some ingrained golf handicap at tee time.

Nope, just don't expect to use this in the real world. Anything other then respect is clouded by all sorts of emotions in the real world. If you have great success calling other's claims "bunk" and by being disrespectful toward their claims then I can only say that isn't the world I live in. But don't let me stop your inquisition for the evolution of the human race. I'm sure it can be rather fulfilling.

Better ideas and compelling arguments are the great equalizer in honest and earnest discussion/debate; not some expectantly imposed and feigned diplomacy and duplicity.

Yeah and some where in there is disrespect, bunk, and whatever other buzz words you use.

Touché Brutus.

Indeed, why bother forwarding you best arguments of established position...when your foil is obviously a biased, chiding, disrespecting and stupid ignoramus?

Cause I'm a swell guy. I don't like to lose hope that he/she can come out of that psychological state.

Obviously, such foils are just "mental", and their arguments are readily discredited because of evinced irreverence of your sincere piety.

So how you plan we fix this dilema?

Way to go.

Onward, Christian Soldier!

"Hear my testimony, and give me my due...or to Hell with you".

R-e-s-p-e-c-t.

Find out what it means to me...

Mockery is fun for you eh?

I know what you mean, but if you're as smart as I think you are, I hope you see that your disrespect, mockery, and choice of words is only slowing your inquisition.

So, you wanna help me get rid of my tail? Change the tone.

 

[pladecalvo]

Hey! No fighting on my thread.

To return to the search for evidence.

There is much to the Gospel story that doesn't add up.

Jesus is said to have performed many supernatural feats, such as healing the sick, feeding thousands with magically created food and even bringing back the dead. These miracles were performed in front of witnesses, sometimes crowds, all of whom were amazed. If these stories are true, we should expect his reputation to spread like wildfire.

The Gospels and other posters on this forum claim Jesus wasn't very well known in his time. Pilate, by all four accounts, had absolutely no idea who he was. The Pharisee guards also apparently didn't know him, as they needed Judas to point out who to arrest. Shouldn't such a miracle worker be identified on sight?

....and the disciples themselves? With each miracle Jesus performed, they were amazed, only to forget by the beginning of the next miracle so they might be amazed anew. An example would be in Matthew 14, where Jesus feeds 5000 families with five loaves and two fish. Then in chapter 15, Jesus feeds 4000 families with seven loaves and some fish. Before the chapter 15 feeding, the disciples asked "Where are we to get the food?" They'd already witnessed Jesus feed more people with less food only a chapter previously. Why did they ask such a question?

Why did the disciple Thomas doubts the resurrection of Jesus after all that he'd witnessed, including the resurrection of Lazarus and the dead saints coming to life at the death of Jesus. After travelling with a clearly divine being who performs one miracle after another, why would have any doubts that this is not a normal human being?

In Jesus' hometown, people were reluctant to accept claims about his divinity. Didn't they remember the star, the wise men, the angels singing at his birth and guiding shepherds to the scene in the manger?

This kind of scepticism that Thomas and others had is irrational in the face of such evidence to the contrary. I guarantee you, even though I don't know the sceptics on this board personally, every one would be convinced if Jesus came to earth and demonstrated his magic for all to see. It's because there is no such evidence that we doubt.