Where is the evidence for Jesus?

[pladecalvo]

Yes, but the question at hand is whether or not he even existed. Not his life style or his miracles.

I'd say that there's ample proof that such a man existed in our history.

Then produce contemporary, non-christian evidence for this.

 

[Quiddity]

I think I responded regarding Josephus. All other references to jesus come either from Chistian sources and are therefore biased or from documents 100-200 years after his death. Heresay! Nobody had even heard of Jesus until the second century. I still say that if he existed, if he was a worker of miracles, if he was tried and execute by Pilate, someone would have recorded it at the time it happened, not 100 years later.

If you examine the events of the crucifixtion, the sky turned black but (outside of the bible)nobody considered this worthy of note. The graves opened up and zombies walked the streets, again no non-christian writer noticed or considered it important enough to record the event.

Why must have they written it down at the time? Christianity wasn't/isn't a religion of things put to writing. Like the Jews, they functioned through oral tradition. So it's not odd at all that it took some time to put things into writing unless you are ignorant of oral tradition.

Your beef may be more directed as to why others didn't write it down. The silence may be compelling to those who are skeptics, but not to those who are open to belief. Why discredit bias sources? What source isn't bias?

 

[Quiddity]

The concensus says he more then likely did:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

 

[pladecalvo]

To ask for proofs outside of the largest religion in the world today is kind of counter productive isn't it?

A church founded on not just theology but a great amount of history that grew from persecution and almost total annihalation to the most dominant and well known faith of today I would say results as great proof of the existence of a man!

You really believe that any criticism makes someone real.

What about the attacks on Krishna by other sects?
Does that make Krishna real?

What about the attacks on the Gnostics by the Christians?
Does that make Barbelo real?

What about the attacks on Osiris by Aknaten?
Does that make Osiris real?

What about the attacks on Harry Potter by fundamentalist Christians?
Does that make Harry Potter real?


Of course not.

So why do you think attacks on Jesus make him real?

 

[Mister_T]

Then produce contemporary, non-christian evidence for this.

Produce contemporary, non-Roman evidence for Julius Caesar. Or how about contemporary, non-English evidence for Shakespeare.

 

[pladecalvo]

Why must have they written it down at the time? Christianity wasn't/isn't a religion of things put to writing. Like the Jews, they functioned through oral tradition. So it's not odd at all that it took some time to put things into writing unless you are ignorant of oral tradition.

Oral tradition is a very unreliable way of arriving at 'The Truth' Victor. Ever hear of 'Chinese Whispers'?

Your beef may be more directed as to why others didn't write it down. The silence may be compelling to those who are skeptics, but not to those who are open to belief.

You may take it on faith that the Bible is true and accurate - but I accept this no more than you accept that the Koran or the Rig Veda or the Elder Edda or the Epic of Gilgamesh or any other religious work is true and accurate, all of which are (or have been in the past) considered so on faith by large numbers of people.

Christians have said to me "There’s lots of evidence, you just don't accept what evidence we have because you are a non-believer". Well, the thing about evidence is, its evidence if you agree with it or not, a knife sticking out of some ones body is evidence, even if you don't believe in knives. It is there for ALL to see not just those people who believe in knives.

If the requirement for accepting Christian evidence is believing in god, then it's not evidence at all is it!

Why discredit bias sources?

Because it is unreliable. If I told you that I believed that I had been once kidnapped by alien spacemen, would you believe it? Probably not, because you would know that if I believed it to be so, my account of it would be biased.

What source isn't bias?

Non-Christian

 

[love]

If it is your sincere desire to believe that Jesus never existed then believe it and move on. Does it bother you that many do believe it? Your arguments will no more sway a believer anymore than theirs will sway you.

 

[Mister_T]

[

quote]

What source isn't bias?

Non-Christian

[/quote]Rigghhht.....not biased at all. You going to try to sell me a money tree next?

 

[pladecalvo]

Rigghhht.....not biased at all. You going to try to sell me a money tree next?

I am sorry, I don't understand your reply.

 

[love]

I have been blind from birth. Please describe for me the color red.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

Those may be helpful sources, but the next link is especially good. It is a link the article I am quoting below.:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus?

By Jeordan Legon
CNN
Tuesday, October 22, 2002 Posted: 9:46 AM EDT (1346 GMT)

Scientists say that this box dates from A.D. 63.

Story Tools​

​

An ossuary reportedly from the first century bears the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." CNN's Garrick Utley reports (October 21)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A limestone burial box, almost 2,000 years old, may provide the oldest archeological record of Jesus of Nazareth, experts announced Monday.
The ossuary, as the bone boxes are known, dates to A.D. 63 and has an inscription in Aramaic which translates to: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," said Andre Lemaire, an expert in ancient writing who identified the box in Jerusalem last spring.
Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language, was the lingua franca of the Middle East for many centuries. At the time of Jesus' life, Aramaic was the common language of the Jews.
Writing about his findings in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Lemaire, who teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris, called it "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus' brother James, who by Christian tradition was the leader of the early church in Jerusalem.
Some scholars expressed doubt that the box, which is 20 inches long by 11 inches wide, could be definitively linked to Jesus, a Jewish carpenter by trade revered by Christians as the son of God.
"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."
While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life.
Two scientists from the Israeli government's geological survey tested the box last month, inspecting the surface patina and inscription under a microscope. They concurred that the object is more than 19 centuries old, the archaeology magazine reported.
"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that these three names refer to the personages so identified in the New Testament," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Writing provides answers

Many of the conclusions reached by experts relied on the inscription written on the ossuary. The boxes commonly were used by Jewish families between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70 to store the bones of their loved ones.
Lemaire said out of hundreds of such boxes found with Aramaic writing only two contain mentions of a brother. From this, scholars infer that the brother was noted only when he was someone important.
James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.
But it is unlikely there would have been more than one James who had a brother of such importance that it merited having him mentioned on his ossuary, Lemaire said.
Lemaire found the box in June by accident, said Shanks, who was able to inspect the box personally.
'Didn't realize the significance'

The owner is reported to be a collector of ancient Jewish artifacts. The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, bought the box some 15 years ago from an antique dealer for $200 to $700, Shanks said.
The boxes "are not popular on the market because ... people don't want a bone box in their living room," Shanks said.
The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. He discovered the interest in the object only when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.
The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"
Plans are under way to exhibit the box at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada, during the annual meeting of Bible scholars in November, Shanks said.
But he said whether the box belonged to Jesus' brother, it still provides a powerful link with the past.
"This is something that provides a bridge over time," he said. "My reaction is not so much excitement as it is awe."

Finally, I will end on the note that most people who are non-Christians still believe Jesus lived and was a wise teacher. They just deny the fact that he is the Son of God.

 

[pladecalvo]

If it is your sincere desire to believe that Jesus never existed then believe it and move on. Does it bother you that many do believe it? Your arguments will no more sway a believer anymore than theirs will sway you.

But is it not good to debate and discuss different subjects. My education under Franco was not good and I have gained knowledge from debating various subjects with people who are more educated than I will ever be and I am gratefull to them for the knowledge I have gained through them. It does not matter to me that we disagree about something and I know that I don't have as much knowledge as others on here but I hope to learn things........if only how to debate properly.

 

[Quiddity]

Oral tradition is a very unreliable way of arriving at 'The Truth' Victor. Ever hear of 'Chinese Whispers'?

Not to me. I’m perfectly content with trusting someone (say a doctor) without knowing all the details. The beauty is that the details are there if you wish to know more about both oral tradition (volumes upon volumes of early writings) and open heart surgery.

You may take it on faith that the Bible is true and accurate - but I accept this no more than you accept that the Koran or the Rig Veda or the Elder Edda or the Epic of Gilgamesh or any other religious work is true and accurate, all of which are (or have been in the past) considered so on faith by large numbers of people.

I don’t believe in the Bible because the Bible says so. Nor do I believe in it because they jive together the best (although the case can be made). But because the Church assembled it. If anybody has the credentials to do so, it would be the Church.

Christians have said to me "There’s lots of evidence, you just don't accept what evidence we have because you are a non-believer". Well, the thing about evidence is, its evidence if you agree with it or not, a knife sticking out of some ones body is evidence, even if you don't believe in knives. It is there for ALL to see not just those people who believe in knives.

If the requirement for accepting Christian evidence is believing in god, then it's not evidence at all is it!

Since you are fairly new to this forum, I would imagine you came here to hopefully educate yourself as well. It seems you have some incomplete or faulty understandings of what evidence is so I suggest you start here:
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

Because it is unreliable. If I told you that I believed that I had been once kidnapped by alien spacemen, would you believe it? Probably not, because you would know that if I believed it to be so, my account of it would be biased.

My trust is extended and dependant upon whom you are.

Non-Christian

You really buy the notion that non-Christians aren’t bias?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Non-Christians are biased...

 

[pladecalvo]

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/evidence-for-jesus.htm

Those may be helpful sources, but the next link is especially good. It is a link the article I am quoting below.:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html



Finally, I will end on the note that most people who are non-Christians still believe Jesus lived and was a wise teacher. They just deny the fact that he is the Son of God.

yes, I have read about this box and I have read the report from Isreali experts of antiquities that say that although the box is real, the inscription is fake. Another Turin Shroud it appears.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

 

[Quiddity]

Pladecalvo,
I provided one source in post#43 and now I'm providing this one:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html

Keep in mind that the one I gave you on post #43 aren't even Christian.

 

[Mister_T]

I am sorry, I don't understand your reply.

In other words, I'm not buying that. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Non-Christian, there is always a bias present.

 

[love]

But is it not good to debate and discuss different subjects. My education under Franco was not good and I have gained knowledge from debating various subjects with people who are more educated than I will ever be and I am gratefull to them for the knowledge I have gained through them. It does not matter to me that we disagree about something and I know that I don't have as much knowledge as others on here but I hope to learn things........if only how to debate properly.

To debate you have to have somewhat of an open mind and that is not one of my strongest attributes either. But a movement started 2000 years ago in Jerusalem that was based on one mans teachings and spread through the world like no other event in history. I find it hard to believe that this could have happened had not the man actually existed. To billions of people this is the year 2006 AD (in the year of our Lord). In my opinion His life had quite an impact on world history. If you can get past that we can discuss His teachings, His death, and His resurrection.

 

[pladecalvo]

The concensus says he more then likely did:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

If I have the right article, I see nothing in there that proves the exitence of the miracle man son of god, only that a man called jesus may have existed. I am not disputing that, only that he was the son of god.

 

[Quiddity]

If I have the right article, I see nothing in there that proves the exitence of the miracle man son of god, only that a man called jesus may have existed. I am not disputing that, only that he was the son of god.

No! The title of this thread specifically says "evidence for Jesus", not "evidence Jesus was God" which is an entirely different topic altogether.

Si gustas, te puedo explicar en espanol? Pero esta un poco flojo....