Where is the evidence for Jesus?

[pladecalvo]

Using rationality, we should weigh our beliefs so as to make them proportional to the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence that someone existed, than we have no reason that he or she did indeed exist. Thus, if we wish to be reasonable and rationable human beings, we should not believe that said person existed.

History also follows a certain level of rational standards when putting together accurate time lines. If we are told that there is an important figure who existed at a certain time, in most cases, we would expect that signs of this figure exist. These signs may come in many different forms, but they must be reliable and relevant. No signs can be found during the time of Jesus to support that such a man even existed.

 

[Comprehend]

ah. I was right. When I saw the title of the thread, I guessed it was a brand spankin' new member.

Welcome.

What sort of evidence would you find persuasive enough to warrant a belief that the person is real?

Would you deny the existence of all supposed people in history that do not meet your evidence requirement or just Jesus?

 

[Willamena]

It's behind you.

No, there... behind you.

 

[pladecalvo]

ah. I was right. When I saw the title of the thread, I guessed it was a brand spankin' new member.

Yes, I'm sure that this has been discussed before but I'm just too lazy to look! Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction for a previous discussion.

Welcome.

Muchissimo Gracias.

What sort of evidence would you find persuasive enough to warrant a belief that the person is real?

In the case of Jesus, authentic sources outside Christianity.

Would you deny the existence of all supposed people in history that do not meet your evidence requirement or just Jesus?[/

Only if such people had been said to have worked miracles but there was no evidence for it.

 

[Sunstone]

Welcome to the Forums!

Do you think it's possible that Jesus was a sort of "urban legend", much like the urban legends that have grown up around Elvis Presley since his death?

 

[s2a]

ah. I was right. When I saw the title of the thread, I guessed it was a brand spankin' new member.

Welcome.

What sort of evidence would you find persuasive enough to warrant a belief that the person is real?

Would you deny the existence of all supposed people in history that do not meet your evidence requirement or just Jesus?

I'll answer that that I would find unaffilated documented evidences and accountings recounted amongst the most prolific historians of a given age as "most compelling" in validating a "reality", or veritablity of a uniquely personified existence.

There are numerous first, second, and third-hand scribed/recorded accountings of say...Nero, as being a "real" person.

Beyond the Bible Itself, what evidenced sources directly account or document the "existence" (as a person) of Jesus, much less any testaments as to His claimed divinity, or claimed supernatural acts?

Please recall that faith is a retained/acceptant belief that does not require evidence to be considered plausible, or veritable, or "real".

Assertations of acceptable historical fact are subject to higher burdens of provided (and testable) evidences.

Any myth, superstition, or popular folklore is subject to equal standards of applicable merit, substantiation, or measurable factors of compellingly accounted evidences.

There is more "evidence" to support a belief in the Easter Bunny, than there is to establish the objectively accountable veritability of a person named Jesus.

 

[Comprehend]

Yes, I'm sure that this has been discussed before but I'm just too lazy to look! Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction for a previous discussion.

oh, I wasn't saying that, although I am sure the thread has been done a few times. I was just guessing by the nature of the question. I am sure lots of people will be happy to discuss it again.

In the case of Jesus, authentic sources outside Christianity.

I am trying to get an idea of what you would consider an authentic source. Maybe an example of what you would require as proper evidence?

Surely you would not deny that Jesus was not known or cared about by many outside of his followers. Why would you suspect that those who thought he was just another weirdo write anything about him in a time when the written word was very expensive and very limited?

Only if such people had been said to have worked miracles but there was no evidence for it.

so you only require evidence that people existed if they performed miracles but you will simply accept the existence of say, Matthew or John because they didn't perform miracles?

 

[pladecalvo]

Welcome to the Forums!

Gracias

Do you think it's possible that Jesus was a sort of "urban legend", much like the urban legends that have grown up around Elvis Presley since his death?

I think that it would be more likely than him being the Son of God.

 

[pladecalvo]

I'll answer that that I would find unaffilated documented evidences and accountings recounted amongst the most prolific historians of a given age as "most compelling" in validating a "reality", or veritablity of a uniquely personified existence.

There are numerous first, second, and third-hand scribed/recorded accountings of say...Nero, as being a "real" person.

Beyond the Bible Itself, what evidenced sources directly account or document the "existence" (as a person) of Jesus, much less any testaments as to His claimed divinity, or claimed supernatural acts?

Please recall that faith is a retained/acceptant belief that does not require evidence to be considered plausible, or veritable,

Assertations of acceptable historical fact are subject to higher burdens of provided (and testable) evidences.

Any myth, superstition, or popular folklore is subejct to eqaual standards of applicalbe merit, substantiation, or measurable factors of compellinf accounted evidences.

There is more "evidence" to support a belief in the Easter Bunny, than there is to establish the objectively accountable veritability of a person named Jesus.

Thank You s2a. I'm afraid that my command of English is not good enough to give such an eloquent answer.

 

[Comprehend]

I'll answer that that I would find unaffilated documented evidences and accountings recounted amongst the most prolific historians of a given age as "most compelling" in validating a "reality", or veritablity of a uniquely personified existence.

There are numerous first, second, and third-hand scribed/recorded accountings of say...Nero, as being a "real" person.

imagine that. The emporer of Rome... how about all of the common criminals executed in the Rome. Jesus was considered a common criminal or simply delusional by those who were not his followers. Nobody but his followers would think him worthy of writing about.

Beyond the Bible Itself, what evidenced sources directly account or document the "existence" (as a person) of Jesus, much less any testaments as to His claimed divinity, or claimed supernatural acts?

I never claimed that I could prove Jesus existed, and I do not have any desire to try to "prove" his existance anymore than you desire to prove he did not exist. Beyond Plato's writings, could you provide compelling evidence that Socrates existed?

Please recall that faith is a retained/acceptant belief that does not require evidence to be considered plausible, or veritable,

Assertations of acceptable historical fact are subject to higher burdens of provided (and testable) evidences.

Any myth, superstition, or popular folklore is subejct to eqaual standards of applicalbe merit, substantiation, or measurable factors of compellinf accounted evidences.

There is more "evidence" to support a belief in the Easter Bunny, than there is to establish the objectively accountable veritability of a person named Jesus.

I have not made any assertion at all.

 

[pladecalvo]

oh, I wasn't saying that, although I am sure the thread has been done a few times. I was just guessing by the nature of the question. I am sure lots of people will be happy to discuss it again.

[/size][/font][/font]

I am trying to get an idea of what you would consider an authentic source. Maybe an example of what you would require as proper evidence?

Surely you would not deny that Jesus was not known or cared about by many outside of his followers. Why would you suspect that those who thought he was just another weirdo write anything about him in a time when the written word was very expensive and very limited?

If he did all the things that the bible says, I would thing that there would be very few people who would have considered him just another wierdo. People would have come from everywhere to see these things and I think they would have written about it.

so you only require evidence that people existed if they performed miracles but you will simply accept the existence of say, Matthew or John because they didn't perform miracles?

I'm not sure whether I even accept the existence of Matthew, Mark etc. From what I have read, the Gospels are anonymous and were not ascribed authors until the second century.

Sorry if my English is confusing.

 

[Comprehend]

If he did all the things that the bible says, I would thing that there would be very few people who would have considered him just another wierdo. People would have come from everywhere to see these things and I think they would have written about it.

The people that saw the miracles and believed became his followers. Those who didn't believe he did miracles thought he was crazy. It doesn't make sense to say that they would have taken his miracles seriously but didn't believe...

I am still wondering if you could tell me what you require as evidence to believe a person existed. What is an example of evidence you require?

I'm not sure whether I even accept the existence of Matthew, Mark etc. From what I have read, the Gospels are anonymous and were not ascribed authors until the second century.

Sorry if my English is confusing.

In that case do you deny the existence of all people who do not have adequate evidence of their existence?

BTW - Your english is great. Don't worry about it.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems unlikely to me that the story of Jesus is entirely made up. For one thing, why would any author have him crucified by the Romans if the story was entirely made up? That was an ignoble death.

On the other hand, I suspect that much of the Bible records the urban legends that grew up around Jesus. Such things as walking on water, the resurrection, and so forth seem to me the stuff of tales.

 

[Comprehend]

It seems unlikely to me that the story of Jesus is entirely made up. For one thing, why would any author have him crucified by the Romans if the story was entirely made up? That was an ignoble death.

On the other hand, I suspect that much of the Bible records the urban legends that grew up around Jesus. Such things as walking on water, the resurrection, and so forth seem to me the stuff of tales.

Sunstone,

I think that to discount the miracles of Jesus simply because they did not involve trampolines is a TAD petty, don't you think? :sarcastic

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone,

I think that to discount the miracles of Jesus simply because they did not involve trampolines is a TAD petty, don't you think? :sarcastic

But Comprehend! How would any sensible deity ascend to heaven if not with a trampoline? I simply cannot fanthom why the Bible doesn't record it.

 

[Comprehend]

But Comprehend! How would any sensible deity ascend to heaven if not with a trampoline? I simply cannot fanthom why the Bible doesn't record it.

Well, the bible also does not record anyone going potty but we can assume it occured.

I think that along with the Potty Doctrine, it must also be inferred that there is a Doctrine of Holy Trampoline Ascension (HTA) to be found in Acts chapter 1.

(at least, that is MY interpretation...)

 

[s2a]

Hello comprehend,

You said:

Imagine that. The emporer of Rome... how about all of the common criminals executed in the Rome. Jesus was considered a common criminal or simply delusional by those who were not his followers. Nobody but his followers would think him worthy of writing about.

Correct. No one but His "followers" would bother to claim that He (Jesus) was the divine progeny of God Himself. How compelling is that testimonial view in an historical perspective?


I inquired:
Beyond the Bible Itself, what evidenced sources directly account or document the "existence" (as a person) of Jesus, much less any testaments as to His claimed divinity, or claimed supernatural acts?

I never claimed that I could prove Jesus existed, and I do not have any desire to try to "prove" his existance anymore than you desire to prove he did not exist. Beyond Plato's writings, could you provide compelling evidence that Socrates existed?

I might provide such evidences, but then, neither Socrates nor his followers claimed any ascribed divinity on/of his behalf, or that his "teachings" were tantamount to unassailably universal "truths". I notice a distinct dearth of religious/faith-based sects predicated/founded upon the written ruminations of Plato...

I offered:
There is more "evidence" to support a belief in the Easter Bunny, than there is to establish the objectively accountable veritability of a person named Jesus.

I have not made any assertion at all.

Yet, you remain welcome (and invited) to assert whatever you please...

Is there more "proof" of an existent Jesus than the Easter Bunny, or not?

Which provided evidences are more compelling, or believable?

 

[Comprehend]

Correct. No one but His "followers" would bother to claim that He (Jesus) was the divine progeny of God Himself. How compelling is that testimonial view in an historical perspective?

As I personally believe that Jesus did exist, I obviously found the evidence to be compelling enough. But the evidence I have evaluated is not simply the bible, but also the "spiritual" evidence or Holy Ghost, if you will. That is the real evidence to me, and I will readily admit that it makes for terrible arguments because I cannot demonstrate or provide the Holy Ghost for your inspection. I understand that you are looking for evidence that can be examined.

If I were to evaluate simply the undeniably biased testimony of Jesus' own followers without anything else, I would have to conclude that it would not be compelling enough for me to believe. Particularly from a scholarly standpoint. I will readily concede that the tangible evidence of Jesus is lacking. However, I think that the spiritual evidence is overwhelming and undeniable IMO.

I inquired:
Beyond the Bible Itself, what evidenced sources directly account or document the "existence" (as a person) of Jesus, much less any testaments as to His claimed divinity, or claimed supernatural acts?

The Book of Mormon, and The Doctrine & Covenants. Have you read either? There is only the bible and Book of Mormon that claim to be first hand records of Jesus on the Earth. I am constantly surprised that with only two books, so many choose not to look at the little evidence available.

I might provide such evidences, but then, neither Socrates nor his followers claimed any ascribed divinity on/of his behalf, or that his "teachings" were tantamount to unassailably universal "truths". I notice a distinct dearth of religious/faith-based sects predicated/founded upon the written ruminations of Plato...

I was merely demonstrating that there are a many many people who we all accept as having existed for which there is not much written about them or their existence.

I offered:
There is more "evidence" to support a belief in the Easter Bunny, than there is to establish the objectively accountable veritability of a person named Jesus.

That may be true, but I don't think so. What do you attribute such passionate belief in the existance of Jesus Christ by 1.3 billion people on the earth to? Are there that many suckers? How many people over 10 believe in the Easter Bunny?

Yet, you remain welcome (and invited) to assert whatever you please...

Is there more "proof" of an existent Jesus than the Easter Bunny, or not?

Which provided evidences are more compelling, or believable?

And I thank you for it, but I do not think I will be trying to prove Jesus exists. Personally, I would be more apt to believe in Jesus. 1.3 billion or so fellow earthlings agree with me. Not a whole lot believe that the easter bunny is real.

 

[pladecalvo]

The people that saw the miracles and believed became his followers. Those who didn't believe he did miracles thought he was crazy. It doesn't make sense to say that they would have taken his miracles seriously but didn't believe...

I'm sure there must be some historians who didn't agree or 'follow' people who they wrote about, but they still wrote about it...events, speeches etc.

I am still wondering if you could tell me what you require as evidence to believe a person existed. What is an example of evidence you require?

I would like to quote s2a as he says it much better than I can:
"unaffilated documented evidences and accountings recounted amongst the most prolific historians of a given age as "most compelling" in validating a "reality", or veritablity of a uniquely personified existence". (Sorry if I offend s2a).

If Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate and was crucified, why is there no record of it in the Roman archives? The Romans kept detailed records of their legal proceedings. Had that happened, there would've been a record of it. There isn't.

In that case do you deny the existence of all people who do not have adequate evidence of their existence?

Such as who?

BTW - Your english is great. Don't worry about it.

Thank you, but I think some times my writing makes no sense because I don't know the correct words to use.

 

[Comprehend]

I'm sure there must be some historians who didn't agree or 'follow' people who they wrote about, but they still wrote about it...events, speeches etc.

why are you so sure about it?

I would like to quote s2a as he says it much better than I can:
"unaffilated documented evidences and accountings recounted amongst the most prolific historians of a given age as "most compelling" in validating a "reality", or veritablity of a uniquely personified existence". (Sorry if I offend s2a).

And you would deny the existance of any historical figure who cannot satisfy these requirements?

If Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate and was crucified, why is there no record of it in the Roman archives? The Romans kept detailed records of their legal proceedings. Had that happened, there would've been a record of it. There isn't.

Could you provide a verifiably authentic roman record of any common criminal proceding from around 33AD in Jerusalem? Do you have access to all of them? There were literally thousands of people crucified by the romans as I understand it. Where are the records for those legal proceedings?

Such as who?

Plato, Moses, Anaxamander, Xerxes... I guess I could make an almost never endind list of people who cannot satisfy your requirements. Do you deny all of their existances? If not, why do you single out Jesus?

Thank you, but I think some times my writing makes no sense because I don't know the correct words to use.

Trust me, your english is much better than many others...