Where is the evidence for Jesus?

[pladecalvo]

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.

Do you think that the spread of Christianity had anything to do with the choice that the early church gave to people i.e. convert or die!

 

[pladecalvo]

Thank you all for your interesting contributions today, but now it's time for bed. Hope to see you all tomorrow. Goodnight to you all.

 

[FFH]

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.

So true, so true....

 

[Comprehend]

I think that maybe the historians who wrote about Hitler or Stalin were not followers and disagreed with what they did but they still documented the events.

No, but Hitler and Stalin had immediate effect on the entire world. Jesus only influenced a very small number of people in a very small area. Do you think that Jesus was on TV all over the world or something when he was alive? Nope, hardly anyone even knew who he was. He only became widely known well after his death, and when he did, Historians all over the world began writing about him, and they haven't ever stopped.

How about you find a little street preacher in Moscow from the 1500's and show me all the historical documents about him.

If they were reported to be as famous as Jesus, yet they had no evidence to support their existence, I would have to say.......yes!

That is just it. Jesus was not famous at all when he was alive. So you deny the existance of almost everyone who ever lived.

Jesus was someone who was reputed to have raised people from the dead, cured the blind, healed the sick, walked on water, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread. Far from being a common criminal, he was considered important enough to be tried by Pontius Pilate. Pilate would not be interested in common criminals. So I think the trail and execution of such an important man would have been recorded.

can you prove Jesus was tried by Pilate? I think He was tried by the Sanhedrin. What makes you think that one had to be important to be brought before Pilate? didn't Pilate release the common criminal barrabbas? That would demonstrate that he dealt with common criminals.

What evidence do you have that anyone who did not follow Christ thought he was at all important? You are completely wrong about that but you keep saying it.

No I don't have access to legal proceedings of the time but I think that if they existed, the Church would have been the first to make them public in order to strengthen their claim.

So what makes you think detailed legal documents exist for Jerusalem from 33 A.D. ? You can provide no evidence of them and I say they do not exist.

We have the works of Plato and accounts of his life that have been written by his contemporaries.

You have some supposed works of a supposed man named Plato and none of them are from anywhere near the time he supposedly existed.

Oops. You can't use any philisophical writings or writings of his followers (like aristotle) as evidence. sorry. Any evidence independant of philosophers?

For Alexander we have cities that were named after him and reports of his battles written by historians that were not necessarily his followers. The life of Julius Ceasar is recorded and we have coins with his portrait on. The same for people like Cleopatra and Mark Anthony.

I didn't say Alexander, I said Anaxamander, and Xerxes. and I certainly didn't ask about Julius Ceasar, notice you only can provide evidence of world leaders? How about some little street preachers?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think that the spread of Christianity had anything to do with the choice that the early church gave to people i.e. convert or die!

Not in the first 400 years of Christianity...

 

[pladecalvo]

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....

Yes, you are right. Perdone!:sorry1: I incorrectly assumed that when most people refer to Jesus they mean the Jesus of the Bible. 'My bad', I think you say in the US.

 

[pladecalvo]

No, but Hitler and Stalin had immediate effect on the entire world. Jesus only influenced a very small number of people in a very small area. Do you think that Jesus was on TV all over the world or something when he was alive? Nope, hardly anyone even knew who he was. He only became widely known well after his death, and when he did, Historians all over the world began writing about him, and they haven't ever stopped.

If he was not famous why do we hear about the 'multitudes' that came to hear him speak?

How about you find a little street preacher in Moscow from the 1500's and show me all the historical documents about him.

If a Moscow street peacher had raised someone from the dead I doubt if he would remain unknown.

That is just it. Jesus was not famous at all when he was alive.

Again, the 'multitudes' that followed him and came to hear him speak.

can you prove Jesus was tried by Pilate? I think He was tried by the Sanhedrin. What makes you think that one had to be important to be brought before Pilate? didn't Pilate release the common criminal barrabbas? That would demonstrate that he dealt with common criminals.

The story of Barrabas is a bible story and demonstrates nothing unless you believe in the bible.

What evidence do you have that anyone who did not follow Christ thought he was at all important? You are completely wrong about that but you keep saying it.

I have no evidence for this but I think that his 'miracles' would have made him widely know to all.

So what makes you think detailed legal documents exist for Jerusalem from 33 A.D. ? You can provide no evidence of them and I say they do not exist

.
Do you not think that the Romans would have kept quite detailed records? After all, they did record the 'problems' they were having with various religiuos groups at the time.

You have some supposed works of a supposed man named Plato and none of them are from anywhere near the time he supposedly existed.

Oops. You can't use any philisophical writings or writings of his followers (like aristotle) as evidence. sorry. Any evidence independant of philosophers?

I didn't say Alexander, I said Anaxamander, and Xerxes. and I certainly didn't ask about Julius Ceasar, notice you only can provide evidence of world leaders? How about some little street preachers?

I'm sorry but I have never heard of these people so I will have to find some time to look them up.

 

[Comprehend]

I'm sorry but I have never heard of these people so I will have to find some time to look them up.

multitudes? A multitude could be 40 people. Your entire argument isn't making any sense.

Nobody claims that Jesus was famous except you.

All you are doing is making a straw man argument. Show me in the bible where it claims that Jesus was famous like Hitler or Stalin.

You have to first establish that the Bible claims Jesus was known around the world when he was alive if you want to make an argument based upon that assumption.

 

[pladecalvo]

multitudes?

A multitude could be 40 people. Your entire argument isn't making any sense.

....and a multitude could 20,000.

Nobody claims that Jesus was famous except you.

I have difficulty in imagining he wasn't.

All you are doing is making a straw man argument. Show me in the bible where it claims that Jesus was famous like Hitler or Stalin.

:help: I have not heard of this 'straw man'.

 

[Comprehend]

....and a multitude could 20,000.

yes, and 20,000 is still not famous. hundreds of millions is famous.
Where do you get the idea that Christ was well known outside of his own small area?

I have difficulty in imagining he wasn't.

what evidence do you have of your imagination?

:help: I have not heard of this 'straw man'.

a straw man argument is where you set up an easily defeatable false example and then argue against that, instead of against the true points of the other side.

A "straw man" is easily defeatable. This is where the phrase "straw man" comes from.

 

[pladecalvo]

For s2a: FlaviusJosephus

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Josephus - An Eyewitness to Christianity
Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, and was taken hostage by the Roman Empire in the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 A.D. Josephus spent the rest of his life in or around Rome as an advisor and historian to three emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. For centuries, the works of Josephus were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. They are invaluable sources of eyewitness testimony to the development of Western civilization, including the foundation and growth of Christianity in the 1st Century.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Josephus - Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:

Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [/FONT]

I have found some of the 'evidence' for Jesus but I can't find who the author is.
I post it only for interest.

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refer to Jesus, son of Damneus.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant. What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But, there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
.

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm

 

[pladecalvo]

yes, and 20,000 is still not famous. hundreds of millions is famous.
Where do you get the idea that Christ was well known outside of his own small area?




what evidence do you have of your imagination?




a straw man argument is where you set up an easily defeatable false example and then argue against that, instead of against the true points of the other side.

A "straw man" is easily defeatable. This is where the phrase "straw man" comes from.

Oh dear! I don't think I will ever understand this English! :no: :shout

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

But, it is reasonable for a human being to be irrational. So, could we not say that it is irrational for a human being to be completely rational?

Human beings always believe in irrational things. Believing in Jesus is perfectly reasonable, since the man as a historical figure (not necessarily one that actually lived) certainly exists. This figure certainly has had a lot of impact on history!

 

[s2a]

I have found some of the 'evidence' for Jesus but I can't find who the author is.
I post it only for interest.

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

TACITUS (c.112CE)

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

THALLUS (date unknown)

VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

POLYCARP (c.155CE)

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

Thanks (and due frubals when the opportunity presents itself once more_). You spared me (and others) from a bunch of time and effort...

 

[XAAX]

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.

I would say that the crucifixion was good propaganda. I agree as far as the stuff of tales goes. I would bet with certainty that's what they stem from. I do believe however that Jesus could have existed and very well could have been an enlightened person with the power to heal. This is not an uncommon ability for those who believe in holistic healing. Now whether he walked up touched someone with leprosy and they jumped up and were cured, I think this goes back to the passing of stories from one person to the next. Each person adding a little bit to make it better. Next thing you know you have an enlightened man who was capable of teaching people about the true inner path to God walking on water, raising the dead and pulling loafs of bread out of his....uh, basket... :biglaugh:...I'll be nice...

 

[Comprehend]

...pulling loafs of bread out of his....uh, basket... :biglaugh:...I'll be nice...

XAAX, it is one thing to not believe what other people believe. It is quite another to demean and make a dirty joke about another faith's God.


Do you really think it is funny to make sick jokes about Jesus?


Are you gay? If not, would you like to make a bunch of gay jokes? Would that be funny since gay people are different than you?


Try having a little respect for other people's deity...

 

[s2a]

Hello comprehend,

I said:
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?

You replied:

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.

Indeed. I am looking for "evidence that can be examined." Does that standard strike you as unfair, or unreasonable? If so, how so...or in what way?

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 applaud your candor in proffering such an assessment.

I myself readily acknowledge that faith is requisite to (religious) belief. But is even "spiritual evidence" either measurable or quantifiable in objective determinations? Is there an accurate and reliable test of either adherent piety or faith available from which to compare "spiritual evidences"? Does the book of Mark provide greater or lesser "spiritual evidence" of divine presence/entity...than a cooked pancake that looks like kinda like Jesus, or some burnt toast that suggests a likeness of the Virgin Mary?

Is adherent belief evidence of anything other than belief itself?

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.

Yes, and yes. Now what? ;-)


I said:
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...

You said:

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.

Fair enough.

But let's bear in mind that the OP asks...

"Where is the evidence of Jesus?"

This inquiry probes beyond some exercise in mere plausibility.
The question put, is not:
"Could there have been a real person by the name of 'Jesus' as described in the Bible?". This only presents a hypothetical question, not unlike "Could John Kennedy have been assassinated by more than one shooter/person?" The default answer to such a hypothetical premise would be..."maybe". But the [hypothetical] question does not present any evidence of itself (beyond rampant specualation), nor does it provide substantiation of any specified/detailed claim.

The OP inquires as to the veriable location (or source) of "evidence" that might be presented as compelling substantiation as to His veritable existence.
To be fair, this qualified standard does shift the burden of proof upon any claimant that insists that Jesus Christ was a "real person", and inasmuch presents no greater burden of provisionally evaluative/compelling evidences than a criminal trial might require.

To wit (as premise):
A crime (or other act) has been committed.
A claim has been asserted: "He [the accused] did it!".
The burden of proof is therefore borne by the claimant to make their own case...inasmuch in some provision of measurable/testable/verifiable evidence that support (beyond reasonable doubts) the validity of the initial accusation/claim.

It's not the burden of the accused to otherwise "disprove" the claim.

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.

You offered/conceded:

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?

An artfully rendered myth?

"Passion" is not an especially reliable measure of fact, or truth. Do you argue that sheer numbers of adherent believers alone is an establishment of some universal "truth"?

In what way shall we qualify, or quantify this "passion"?

In estimates published in the World Christian Encyclopedia, by Oxford University Press...Christianity accounts of itself 33,830 different denominations.

"Passionate"? Perhaps...

"Evidence"? Maybe...but of what?
Divergence...or agreement?

Are there that many suckers?

I can not answer with any authority to this.

How many people did the predominantly Christian-based nations of the "dark ages" influence/persuade/'sucker" their subservient adherents into "believing" that the cosmos (and our sun) revolved around the Earth? Was the majority (opinion) "persuaded by the 'truth'", or some other pervasive influence?

How many people over 10 believe in the Easter Bunny?

A lot. Many. I leave it to you to prove that the Easter Bunny DOES NOT exist to 10 year olds the world over. ;-)

I put forward:
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.

Yet, in a recent CNN/Time poll, 64% stated a belief that aliens have abducted humans, and 37% believed that these aliens have had interactions with the US government.

Whaddya think of that? A sizable majority of Americans believe that extraterrestrials have not only visited our planet, but that "they" have abducted humans against their will (for reasons unexplained/unknown). Ya think that such a majority opinion makes (by default) accordant belief factually and veritably "true"?

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
(Do not listen to those who say that the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the common people always is close to insanity.)
--Alcuin to Charlemagne, circa 798

 

[pladecalvo]

But, it is reasonable for a human being to be irrational. So, could we not say that it is irrational for a human being to be completely rational?

Human beings always believe in irrational things.

Believing in Jesus is perfectly reasonable, since the man as a historical figure (not necessarily one that actually lived) certainly exists. This figure certainly has had a lot of impact on history![/quote

]
Odysseus and Osiris were also historical figures. Should we say that they also existed?
There does not seem to be any motive for people to write about Odysseus - unless he was real.

There does not seem to be any motive for people to write about Osiris - unless he was real.

Harry Potter has had an impact on the world and much has been written about him. Will future generations come to believe that he was real?

People DO write legends, stories, myths. They do it today, they have always done it.

 

[Comprehend]

Indeed. I am looking for "evidence that can be examined." Does that standard strike you as unfair, or unreasonable? If so, how so...or in what way?

Nope. There is plenty of evidence to be examined, simply follow the directions. The problem with skeptics is that they not only want evidence but they want it on their terms. God has rules, obey them and you can have plenty of evidence. Demand something on your own terms and you are left to yourself. I know you don't like that answer, but there isn't much one can do to change God's mind.

I applaud your candor in proffering such an assessment.

Thanks.

I myself readily acknowledge that faith is requisite to (religious) belief. But is even "spiritual evidence" either measurable or quantifiable in objective determinations?

Nope. The problem is that spiritual evidence is not intersubjectively verifiable nor even internally quantifiable. (I don't believe anything is actually objective). God has done this on purpose. If knowledge of God were ostensive, it would remove the need for faith. (see LDS plan of salvation, purpose of earth life, etc)

Faith is obviously the difficult part. God requires faith first, even a desire to believe is enough. Then if you obey his commandments, God will turn your faith into knowledge. So it is very possible to verify Gods existence but you must begin with faith and you can only prove it to yourself. It has always been Gods plan that we come to a knowledge of His existance and purpose. He doesn't want people wandering around not knowing whether He exists or not. He wants everyone to have a knowledge.

Is there an accurate and reliable test of either adherent piety or faith available from which to compare "spiritual evidences"?

Yes. You need adherent piety and faith together.

Does the book of Mark provide greater or lesser "spiritual evidence" of divine presence/entity...than a cooked pancake that looks like kinda like Jesus, or some burnt toast that suggests a likeness of the Virgin Mary?

I think both provide exactly zero spiritual evidence. It is the Holy Ghost that provides the spiritual evidence. The Holy Ghost can and will teach an individual the truth of all things, however, faith and piety (I like that you use piety, reminds me of Plato) are required before the Holy Ghost will teach you anything at all.

The principle of how to learn of God is taught in many places in the scriptures but one specific time is with the mustard seed, growing into a tree. The tiny seed is the smallest amount of faith, and with that, the spirit can make your faith grow into a great tree firmly planted in the ground. The scriptures say that even a "sincere desire to believe" is enough for the spirit to begin working with.

The scriptures are to put the right things in your mind, when you contemplate these things, the spirit will confirm the things that are true. The spirit will also build upon the truth that you have and increase your understanding of anything that is good and true.

Is adherent belief evidence of anything other than belief itself?

I don't think so.

Yes, and yes. Now what? ;-)

You asked for a source that directly accounts or documents the existance of Jesus. If you read the entire Book of Mormon, you no doubt recall the 3rd book of Nephi chapter 9 I believe, where Christ's ministry in the America's begin? Also, accounts of Jesus' visit to Joseph Smith multiple times is recorded in the Doctrine &Covenants. (I would submit those as other accounts of his existance).

Having read the Book of Mormon, you also would no doubt be familiar with the method that is set out by many Book of Mormon prophets teaching what you asked for above. Namely a "formula" of sorts, for how to have the spirit verify to you the truthfulness of the gospel. It is plainly set out in the Book of Mormon. All one has to do is follow what it tells you to do.

Fair enough.

But let's bear in mind that the OP asks...

"Where is the evidence of Jesus?"

This inquiry probes beyond some exercise in mere plausibility.
The question put, is not:
"Could there have been a real person by the name of 'Jesus' as described in the Bible?". This only presents a hypothetical question, not unlike "Could John Kennedy have been assassinated by more than one shooter/person?" The default answer to such a hypothetical premise would be..."maybe". But the [hypothetical] question does not present any evidence of itself (beyond rampant specualation), nor does it provide substantiation of any specified/detailed claim.

I agree. I was pointing out that we accept the existance of many many people on less evidence, but you are correct that my argument only goes to plausibility.

The OP inquires as to the veriable location (or source) of "evidence" that might be presented as compelling substantiation as to His veritable existence.
To be fair, this qualified standard does shift the burden of proof upon any claimant that insists that Jesus Christ was a "real person", and inasmuch presents no greater burden of provisionally evaluative/compelling evidences than a criminal trial might require.

Yes, and if I was the D.A. I wouldn't indict with the evidence I have. None of my evidence is admissible in court. :areyoucra

However, I would maintain that it is possible for one to verify the existence of Christ to themself but not in a manner that is ostensive. An individual can only verify it to themselves.

To wit (as premise):
A crime (or other act) has been committed.
A claim has been asserted: "He [the accused] did it!".
The burden of proof is therefore borne by the claimant to make their own case...inasmuch in some provision of measurable/testable/verifiable evidence that support (beyond reasonable doubts) the validity of the initial accusation/claim.

It's not the burden of the accused to otherwise "disprove" the claim.

I did pretty good in Evidence, I am aware of how burden of proof works...

An artfully rendered myth?

possibly. I think not, but it is obviously possible.

"Passion" is not an especially reliable measure of fact, or truth. Do you argue that sheer numbers of adherent believers alone is an establishment of some universal "truth"

No, that would be a losing position. I offer it as evidence.

In what way shall we qualify, or quantify this "passion"?

In estimates published in the World Christian Encyclopedia, by Oxford University Press...Christianity accounts of itself 33,830 different denominations.

"Passionate"? Perhaps...

"Evidence"? Maybe...but of what?
Divergence...or agreement?

I only offered it as evidence that a plurality of the planet found the existance of Jesus to be reasonable.

I can not answer with any authority to this.

It was rhetorical anyway... I didn't really expect you to answer it.

How many people did the predominantly Christian-based nations of the "dark ages" influence/persuade/'sucker" their subservient adherents into "believing" that the cosmos (and our sun) revolved around the Earth? Was the majority (opinion) "persuaded by the 'truth'", or some other pervasive influence?

I am not sure what you mean by "persuaded by the 'truth'". LDS believe that the Christian church apostasized close to the first century AD. So we beleive the spirit and authority had left the church, so your argument would actually agree with my beliefs. As I mentioned above, when you lose the spirit of God, you are left to your own abilities, and as was evidenced in the dark ages. Man does stupid things when left all by himself. The dark ages is a magnificent monument to the stupidity of man.
However, when you have the spirit of God with you, God's faithful always do better than without.

A lot. Many. I leave it to you to prove that the Easter Bunny DOES NOT exist to 10 year olds the world over. ;-)

Dang it. I am a poor judge of kids. My daughter is 3 and doesn't believe the easter bunny is real. Who are these 10 year olds and worse, who are their parents???

Yet, in a recent CNN/Time poll, 64% stated a belief that aliens have abducted humans, and 37% believed that these aliens have had interactions with the US government.

Whaddya think of that? A sizable majority of Americans believe that extraterrestrials have not only visited our planet, but that "they" have abducted humans against their will (for reasons unexplained/unknown). Ya think that such a majority opinion makes (by default) accordant belief factually and veritably "true"?

I find that to be terribly embarrassing both personally and nationally.

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit

.
(Do not listen to those who say that the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the common people always is close to insanity.)
--Alcuin to Charlemagne, circa 798

here here. I do not align my beliefs to whichever way the social winds are blowing or where the majority chooses to rest for the time. I would certainly agree that people in groups are frightening.

 

[roli]

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.

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.
The writings themselves of this are found within the same century of his birth and death.
Google the life of Jesus,,his teachings etc
But when all that is done then ask him to reveal himself to you