Was Jesus a real person?

[EL PRESIDENTE]

here's a video I shot of the shroud (wasn't supposed to, oh well). took 3 hours to go through the line to see it....for 45 seconds.

[video=youtube;rVv4-5qNsvY]

 

[crowTrobot]

and real. its been inconclusive depending on whom you listen to. I actually saw it live last year, it was pretty moving as a historical artifact.

this just came out actually.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/the-shroud-of-turin-wasnt-faked-italian-experts-say/

that's a joke, or at least some serious media spin - scientists who don't know how it happened but claim it couldn't have been "faked" (nonsensical), releasing the info just before xmas etc.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Never mind, I should have figured it was on Google Images.

Looks about as real as Obama's

 

[BrianFromWA]

Just a couple of things from a wiki page:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

- Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995).

Even Dawkins, who I'd imagine would be one of the guys most likely to attempt to "disprove Jesus,", said

while Jesus probably existed, it is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all

Anecdotally, I've been told by history professors at St. Andrews and Oxford that historians regard the early bible manuscripts as some of the most-documented and reliable source material in ancient history. It's the theologians who pore over details and doctrinal applications of the work. And if you can believe what creationists receive from the Smithsonian (the original question they asked the museum was about NOah's flood, which they don't buy):

‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.’

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

that's a joke, or at least some serious media spin - scientists who don't know how it happened but claim it couldn't have been "faked" (nonsensical), releasing the info just before xmas etc.

yes, its all part of the conspiracy! they're trying to prop up christmas!!!!!

:MARIS61:

I'll wait until the "conclusive" proof of its forgery you will surely show us.

 

[PapaG]

Never mind, I should have figured it was on Google Images.

Looks more legitimate than Obama's...

 

[PapaG]

my post wasn't wrong. there is nothing contemporaneous outside the bible - only hearsay references to jesus written decades after his death, and well after the cult of early christianity was up and running.

Wrong. There are historical letters that have been found from that period of time. If you're going to be an expert, at least know all of the relevant data. Unless you're looking for photographs or video, there will never be enough proof, but demanding more proof of the existence of a dude named Jesus puts you in Kooksville, because you're not going to find it for anybody from that region, and in that time period.

Most of history is based on the written word, and how others interpreted the events from the pre-modern era.

 

[crowTrobot]

yes, its all part of the conspiracy! they're trying to prop up christmas!!!!!

you think it's just a coincidence they released this info 3 days before christmas?

I'll wait until the "conclusive" proof of its forgery you will surely show us.

the only time it was carbon dated it was to the middle ages. that's the only meaningful scientific information available on it at this time.

 

[Eastoff]

Looks more legitimate than Obama's...

and with this, i write you off.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

and that was argued as well.

 

[crowTrobot]

Wrong. There are historical letters that have been found from that period of time.

there are no references to jesus known from during his lifetime. only after his death.

but demanding more proof of the existence of a dude named Jesus puts you in Kooksville, because you're not going to find it for anybody from that region, and in that time period.

i'm not demanding anything. i'm answering the OP's question.

 

[crowTrobot]

and that was argued as well.

as you would expect, but it's the only relevant information available at the moment. a scientist who doesn't know how it happened but says it's "genuine" isn't relevant.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

its not conclusive as a forgery, as you claim.

 

[crowTrobot]

I am not a religious person but I find the early histories of Religions very fascinating. I'v read a lot of this subject and have come to my own conclusion that I believe Jesus was a real person.
There is a lot of second hand evidence that Jesus was an actual person that mostly pops up in letters. It is hard to come up with "concrete" evidence of that time because of a few things.
1. Jesus was only alive teaching for somewhere between 3 to 5 years depending on were you get your information
2. Very few actual historical writings of that time have surivived
3. Most historians rarely recorded events of faith or religion
Taking those few things into account makes it hard to both disprove and prove of Jesus existence. There are a few writings that mention Jesus most noticeably from:
Josephus, Flavivus (not exactly sure how to spell his first name) - Was a jewish Historian that was born somewhere between 35 to 40 AD and he writes of Jesus in his writings
Mara Bar-Serpion - Was a Philosopher in 60-70AD who wrote of Jesus's (Reffered to him as the Wise King) persecution and eventual execution, comparing it to the persecution that other Philosophers faced.

josephus may or may not have referenced jesus 30 years after his death. scholars do not agree on the legitimacy of those references, as i'm sure you're aware if you've studied this subject.

it's also widely disputed that "wise king" referred to jesus.

There are many more that talk of Christians that are as old as 11AD

i'm not aware of any that the dates aren't universally disputed by secular scholars. link?

Some notable people who talk of Christians well before 100AD are Lucian of Samsata who talks down about Christians but never claims they are not a people and then Cornelius Tactus who was a Roman Senator and renown for his examination of History. He blames the great fire Nero started was because of Christians.

nobody disputes that christians existed in the mid-late 1st century.

 

[crowTrobot]

its not conclusive as a forgery, as you claim.

it's not conclusive that it's not a forgery, as the article claims. i'm not claiming anything either way.

 

[crowTrobot]

Anecdotally, I've been told by history professors at St. Andrews and Oxford that historians regard the early bible manuscripts as some of the most-documented and reliable source material in ancient history.

reliable in the sense that what we have now doesn't appear to have changed that much since the 2nd or 3rd century. that says nothing about the reliability of the original authors in describing actual events.

 

[BrianFromWA]

no, they meant in terms of dates, places, people, etc. At least, that's what the conversation was about. Not things like "did author X use word Y to mean that Doctrine Z was the true teaching" or "is the translation from the aramaic accurate?" Those are what I meant when I said the theologians pored over them.

 

[crowTrobot]

no, they meant in terms of dates, places, people, etc. At least, that's what the conversation was about. Not things like "did author X use word Y to mean that Doctrine Z was the true teaching" or "is the translation from the aramaic accurate?" Those are what I meant when I said the theologians pored over them.

ok. yeah there are a lot of real places mentioned in the bible, and some real kings etc. although presumably the smithsonian isn't including the torah among the "historical" books of the OT.

 

[Denny Crane]

It looks to me like the best evidence is hearsay. The archeological record affirms many places and events, and people who did write about him don't appear to have met him. But there are a few whose lifetimes overlapped his. A lot of possible evidence was destroyed over centuries of warfare and pogroms. There are modern cities built on top of biblical sites where it is impossible to dig for artifacts.

Even without hardcore evidence, it's hard for me to believe he didn't exist. There is enough hype close enough to his time that he must have been real.

Whether he was son of god, messiah, etc., is a very different proposition. I figure he was a rabbi or other religious figure whose reputation is hugely exaggerated.

IMO.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think that view is consistent with even the most ardent atheists...the whole "good moral teacher" thing.

From a religious perspective, though, it's hard for me to reconcile that with his proclamations that he was the Son of God, that no one could attain heaven without His direct intervention, etc. It seems difficult to believe that a "good moral teacher", especially if a rabbi, would basically create a heretical sect of a fringe religion by proclaiming his divinity to anyone who would listen.

 

[Denny Crane]

All the Philosophy that stems from his teachings is hard to ignore. It's not Jewish and it's not Roman. It's not something a Locke couldn't come up with, but somebody had to be the thinker behind it all.

 

[crowTrobot]

All the Philosophy that stems from his teachings is hard to ignore. It's not Jewish and it's not Roman. It's not something a Locke couldn't come up with, but somebody had to be the thinker behind it all.

a lot of it is eastern, predating jesus.

 

[crowTrobot]

From a religious perspective, though, it's hard for me to reconcile that with his proclamations that he was the Son of God, that no one could attain heaven without His direct intervention, etc. It seems difficult to believe that a "good moral teacher", especially if a rabbi, would basically create a heretical sect of a fringe religion by proclaiming his divinity to anyone who would listen.

why is it difficult to believe, particularly if it's someone with a magnetic personality? it's not as if there isn't a historical precedent for that.

 

[Blazerfan22]

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

This site has some examples of people who mention Christ.

 

[blazerboy30]

it doesn't require faith to lack belief in something you have a reason not to believe in. atheism is not a faith, at least by any meaningful definition of faith.

Def: Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Def: Belief - An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Def: Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


According to "meaningful definitions", atheism certainly requires faith or belief.

"lack of belief" is more along the lines of agnostic than atheism.

 

[crowTrobot]

Def: Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Def: Belief - An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Def: Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


According to "meaningful definitions", atheism certainly requires faith or belief.

"lack of belief" is more along the lines of agnostic than atheism.

the working definition of atheism used by almost all atheists is lack of belief in god, or belief that god is improbable - not belief that god is impossible. technically the latter view would be only one type of atheism - 'strong', and you will have a tough time finding many people who actually hold that view.

agnosticism technically refers to someone who thinks certain knowledge of god's existence isn't possible, so it actually answers a different question. you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. i'm certainly agnostic about deism.

 

[PapaG]

the working definition of atheism used by almost all atheists is lack of belief in god, or belief that god is improbable - not belief that god is impossible. technically the latter view would be only one type of atheism - 'strong', and you will have a tough time finding many people who actually hold that view.

agnosticism technically refers to someone who thinks certain knowledge of god's existence isn't possible, so it actually answers a different question. you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. i'm certainly agnostic about deism.

Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God, and traditionally is anti-religion. Atheists have tried to sanitize their beliefs, but at the core, atheism is a belief system. It's like bizzaro religion. Either one is an atheist, or one is not.

Agnosticism is much more vauge than atheism, and really isn't comparable or compatible at all.

 

[TripTango]

I think Penn Jillette puts it well.

[video=youtube;swkAGExZCII]

Summary: Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge -- literally "I don't know whether there is a god, and in fact it may be unknowable". Atheism is a statement of belief -- "I don't believe there is a god." In this sense, they are different concepts but entirely compatible.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Hey I was just goofing around about the Jesus birth certificate comment and birth certificate picture. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone or to use it as an editorial to insult anyone's believes or opinions.

 

[crowTrobot]

Atheism is literally a belief that there is no God, and traditionally is anti-religion. Atheists have tried to sanitize their beliefs, but at the core, atheism is a belief system. It's like bizzaro religion. Either one is an atheist, or one is not.

nice of you tell atheists what they think.

Agnosticism is much more vauge than atheism, and really isn't comparable or compatible at all.

the semantics you want to use doesn't change what people think. as i said the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists believe some type of god is at least a remote possiblity, and you will have a tough time finding someone who thinks god is factually impossible.