Is There Any Actual *PROOF* That Jesus Christ Actually Existed?

[THUNDER HANDS]

I think I remember reading this in a conspiracy book once. That there is really no documented proof of anyone named Jesus actually being around when the New Testament says he was.

None of the scholars of the time had ever heard of him. And from what I remember in this book, the actual depiction of Christ on the cross didn't actually start appearing until about 800 years after the supposed crusifiction.

I mean, from what I've heard, most people assume Jesus was a real person, but the dispute is whether he was actually the son of god.

I'd like to know if there's any evidence Jesus actually existed at all.

Is there any?

:shrug:

[enki23]

1. depends on what standard you set for "proof"

like everything else in life. evidence will never make it impossible to believe contrary. we've got gravity every day, but the maharishi yogi does great business teaching idiots to er... fly.

jesus the man is quite a way down from gravity, but quite a bit higher than the loch ness monster. ymmv

[geniph]

54. Enki! Hey!

Sorry, don't mean to threadjack or anything, just happy to see an old friend. :hi:

[wryter2000]

2. I can't give you a citation

But there is a historical record of an itinerant preacher named Jesus or whatever the equivalent name was. I think more than one reference.

Sorry not to be more helpfu.

[BlueJazz]

3. Does Jesus exist?...

...This is an interesting link to read.

http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html

[Skittles]

4. MAGIC RAT

DON'T YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO *QUESTION* THESE THINGS. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST "HAVE FAITH", YA KNOW? JUST *BELIEVE* WHAT THEY TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Submariner]

5. None

Just fables, myths, and holy book stories. The first account was written by Mark (I believe) which was 65 years after the supposed Jesus died.

Rumors today change dramatically over a weekend, imagine how the story got skewed over 65 years or so.

[pw]

10. Remember also that the Odyssey wasn't written by Homer

but by another greek of the same name.

The problem with "proof" in a case like this is what you're trying to prove. Even if, say, you prove that there was a preacher named Y'shua (or whatever the aramaic form might be) and that he was crucified, that's a long way from "proof" that there was a virgin birth and miracles and more miracles and resurrections and that whole megilla (um).

On the other hand, even if there isn't a single word about Jesus and his followers in the contemporary historical record, that doesn't really mean diddly either. There are, for example, dozens of shipwrecks littering the floor of the mediterranean, but is there a specific identifiable reference to the loss of any of those ships, crews or cargos in the surviving written records of the roman empire? nuh-uh.

[Aristus]

56. Mark is believed by many to have been an eyewitness to the

arrest of Jesus. In the book of Mark, when Jesus is arrested by the Romans and the Sanhedrin, a boy gets caught in the fray. He gets his cloak ripped off, and runs away, stark naked. This boy appears in no other Gospel. Some scholars believe that it was Mark, and he wrote himself into the story, like Hitchcock doing a cameo.

[silverweb]

6. To the best of my recollection...

...Josephus (37-100 A.D.) is the ONLY historian of record who made any reference to an actual historical person named Jesus. Even he would have been no contemporary, so was writing based on hearsay evidence.

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-josephus.shtml

:shrug:

On edit: Grammar... duh! Add link.

[Warpy]

45. The "gnostic gospels"

...that were unearthed in the last century are the most interesting of all. The newly imperial church had declared them apostasy and ordered all copies destroyed. Apparently, a few copies were preserved and buried, and one set has been found.

These are the gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, and others. They are available on the web, and it's obvious why the church Paul had envisioned eventually suppressed them. Although the picture painted by these gospels has some similarities with Mark and Matthew, they paint quite a differetnt picture of the historical preacher and magician than the other, more acceptable, gospelists.

Oh, I think he probably existed. I also think there is little proof left after 2000 years that we can nail down completely. That the religion has been contaminated by a bunch of rubbish from the con artist and ambitious pretechnical televangelist Paul is obvious, as is the elimination of anything the historical figure might have said about resisting officialdom.

The gnostic gospels, especially that of Thomas, is worth a web search and a read. Even for an unbeliever like me, it was occasionally inspiring.

[silverweb]

58. I've been wanting to read those.

I've read bits and pieces, and a little bit about the gnostic gospels, and what I've learned concurs with what you say. Today's Christian church is clearly more based on Paul's teachings and the Council of Nicea than on any teachings of Jesus, if he was even the person we imagine him to be.

As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago I did some fairly extensive reading about Apollonius of Tyana, a well-known and documented teacher and philosopher, who would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/apollonius_of_tyana.html

There was some speculation that early in the history of the church a new mythology was deliberately and carefully constructed, purposely confusing the history of Apollonius with the person of Jesus. This was in order to unify Rome with a new state religion as well as give Constantine the mandate to expand and conquer. It made sense to me then and it still makes a lot of sense to me now.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. There is no proof that any of us exists, either

Everything that is called proof is based on the perceptive organs of one species on one planet. It's all a matter of faith.

[short bus president]

51. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you

a too-serious scholar of Rene Descartes!

Existential doubt can only carry you so far, in the face of contrary evidence. The way I learned it, the best exercise in existential doubt is to stand on the freeway and actively doubt the existence of that Mack truck bearing down on you.

;-)

[LuminousX]

8. I don't care

because I started a new sect of Christianity. The Church of Christ the Bon Vivant. Christ as the person who wants people to have a good time. At weddings he got people drunk (water to wine), at services he made sure people had food (fish and bread, Last Supper), and he hung out with prostitutes. It isn't fully gelled as an idea. It has been awhile since I've read the Bible, but I really feel that every religious belief needs a Dionysius/hedonistic sect.

By next week I'll ordain a few priests, I'll be the Cardinal of Funk or something like that, and our mass will be about sampling various wines, eating caviar and celebrating fornication in all its glorious forms. Oh, and we'll marry any consenting people, not matter orientation or number of people. I don't recall any passages in the Bible specifically against polyamory and fundamentally for many people it makes the most sense. I recall on group in Minnessota when I was at a convention there that was discussing their relationship and how it really helped in the raising the brood of children they had (some people just make better parents) and how much money their household had (with guaranteed quality childcare, everyone else worked). I couldn't do that, I hate people too much, but all in all it isn't my place to tell them they are wrong. I believe in a Moral Universe but to me, no harm is coming from the relationship as described so it must be good.

Back to the point. Christian Hedonism. Essentially we'll downplay the idea of the life after death thing and focus on making this life as happy, fun, and joyful as possible. Do what feels good, do what creates good. Just imagine the hymns we'll sing:

1. Shout
2. Proud Mary
3. Bang the Drum All Day
4. Having A Party
5. I'm So Excited
6. Footloose
7. Born to be Wild
8. Joy To The World (Three Dog Night version)
9. Holiday
10. Celebration

And the holidays... Sure, we'll do Christmas and Easter as is fundamentally required, but we will also make sure to celebrate the wedding Christ attended where he turned water into wine. Upon this special day we pay tribute to the power of wine. We raise our glasses and celebrate the beverage that Christ found to be very important. Easter will be more about the feast of the Last Supper, more food and wine, than about the crucification and resurrection.

Accepting applications for priesthood soon. Oh, I guess we should also have a monastary. So we will need an Abbott of Partydom as well.

Party On, Christian.

[Dhalgren]

18. Brother, I have seen the light!

Lead on, and I will follow! (Oh, and by the way, I am much more fond of red wine than white, so should I study more in the white, because of my failings, or should I go with my strengths and stick with studying the red?) How about a monastery in Jamaica? Just a thought...

[LuminousX]

25. Christ wants to party with you.

Do what feels good to you and you shall be good at what you do.

If you think you need to study the white wines, then go and drink the Zin. If you choose to stick with your strength, then your Syrah's will taste all the better for it.

I think there should definately be a monastary in Jamaica, for Christ would want everyone to have a good time.

[Cassandra]

38. You will, of course,

want to invest in a few cases of Cardinal Zin from Bonny Doon.

[LuminousX]

48. But of course

While the Church of Christ the Bon Vivant does not favor any one wine, region, or even favor wine over its fermented cousins, I have to say that the symbolism and irony of Cardinal Zin is too humorous to pass up.

[Cassandra]

53. The label is pretty funny, too.

http://www.bonnydoonvineyard.com/wi_bdv_zin.html?s1p4

Looniest site in the wine biz.

[Drifter]

26. Does your new religion need ...

a Juggler. I'm available.

Cheers
Drifter

[LuminousX]

30. Absolutely

Our theological experts are quite sure Christ loved jugglers.

Party On, Christian

[FlashHarry]

29. "Do what thou wilt?" How Rabelaisian!

[LuminousX]

31. Do what feels good.

God created us. He would not have created us to enjoy things if he didn't expect us to ENJOY them. We could have easily been created so alcohol just gave us the headache without the inebriation. Dancing could have been more like shoveling manure. Music could just be loud and annoying. Instead, music makes us feel good. Dancing makes us feel good. And drinking within limits makes us feel good. Sex is good.

As we sing in one of our hymns,

'Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to you and me.'

Amen

Party on, Christian.

[arcane1]

39. gotta add annointing oil to the list

or at least the main ingredient :smoke:

[FlaGranny]

9. No, there is no proof.

Is there real proof that anyone ever existed from more than 2000 years ago? I don't really think so. There is lots of stuff written about Caesar, there are busts of his likeness, and his name carved into stone, because he was the leader of Rome (but can that be proof he really existed?). As far as I know, there were no busts of Jesus and his name was not carved in stone. Jesus, if he existed, was not widely know outside his own community. Just like you or me. No one will be able to prove we existed probably in 2000 years. I don't see that it makes a big difference whether it can be proved or not. If you believe in him, then he existed. If you don't believe in him, what difference does it make if he existed or not? You can't prove that he didn't exist.

Edit: Not advocating he existed. I'm an agnostic, maybe an atheist.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. oh really?

In 2000 years people won't know Abraham Lincoln existed?

[FlaGranny]

15. People might know, but will it be

provable? Washington may no longer exist. Books will be dust. CDs might survive.

[Kolesar]

16. Go check the county recorders office to see if he did anything

Those records last. I wonder if Rome had recorders.

[FlaGranny]

19. Magic was asking if we would "know"

that Lincoln existed in 2000 years. Want to bet on what might have become of county record offices in 2000 years?

[LuminousX]

20. Rome was meticulous in record keeping

And the crucifiction of Christ by Pontius Pilate would have been dutifully recorded. We know Pontius Pilate existed because of the vast amount of records associated with him. Not a lot regarding Christ or anyone doing the things he did.

Of course the few mentionings that might be him in Roman records could easily have been inserted by Christian monks many centuries later as they transcribed and translated various works.

[tuck]

12. i think they're fairly certain....

"they" being, i dunno, the CIA? the KGB? anyway....

i think they are fairly certain he did exist, it's just the mystical stuff that's got eveyone in a tizzy.....

[Kolesar]

13. I don't disagree with you, but...

You could have started with a reference that was more concrete. For example, I just googled "Jesus Christ Actually Existed" and got a bunch of links.

My concern here is not to put the believers here on the defensive. Most of them are nice people (and no one needs a testy exchange, much less flame war). Starting with a reference could only help.

Now I am going to go look at those links.... :-)

[lastliberalintexas]

14. It depends on what you mean

Joseph of Arimathaea was a contemporary who wrote of Jesus (also supposedly took the Holy Grail to England, so take that for what you will). Josephus wrote of Jesus in the Book of Antiquity (not sure what volume), tho he was not a contemporary of the man.

We don't actually have any physical proof that any particular person from that time period existed, save for the mummies of Egypt, Peru and parts of China. For example, any information that we have concerning the existence of Caeser or Nero is also anecdotal or testimonial.

So while we may have testimonial or written circumstantial evidence detailing the life of a man named Jesus, there is no DNA or skeleton to verify this. A belief in anything more than his physical existence is a matter of faith for the individual.

[Birthmark]

17. No proof that I'm aware of.

I don't think that that is terribly important, do you?

[Um_Yeah]

21. To my understanding

About as much as there is of Charlemagne or many other historical figures.

[Drifter]

22. Did he exist ...

Probably.

Was he magic ? I doubt it.
Sorry, the thought that a physical man is the son of some invisible power able to perform all miracles, is a bit much for me to buy into.

Was Jesus a great man who set a righteous example for all man kind ? Sure, if buy into what he belives represents a righteous example.

Did Moses talk to God ? Did God give him the 10 commandments ? Or was Moses an ancient version of Ted Kazinski (uni-bomber), who felt that all the problems in the world would be solved if his version of morality is followed ?

Before you answer that last one, remember that God talked to George W. Bush and told him to strike at Al-Queida, and then told him to invade and occupy Iraq.

Sounds like a pretty fucked up God to me.

Cheers
Drifter

[Cheswick2.0]

62. what does Magic have to do with it?

? Is your understanding really that juvenile?

[Loonman]

23. Yes there is, in the records written down by Tacitus

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-tacitus.shtml

[Az]

44. Tacitus offers no direct evidence

At best he is evidence that a sect of christians existed at his time. Examine his comments

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

This does not clearly indicate that he had ever met or heard of Jesus prior to his exposure to the sect. We know that the sect was already underway at this time so it is very concievable that he is only reporting what they told him of their beliefs.

[Kamika]

24. lol weird arguments

scholars at his time didnt know abouthim because he was a NOBODY until after he died

[LynneSin]

27. I think 2000 years ago a really great guy came to earth and did good stuff

I think that he really believed in the power of people over the power of the Elders in the Church.

He led a ministry where riches were not a value, but instead what was value was how you treated other people and the respect that you show.

I believe he never once asked for money for this ministry, maybe an occasional place to sleep and some food if available.

The "Church Elders" (aka the Pharisees) didn't like that this guy was doing things outside the realms of the Church. They didn't like that we would actually befriend those that the Church considered "undesireable" and whether or not Jesus did miracles, they surely didn't like the fact that Jesus dare do them on the Sabbath.

Jesus, whether the son of God or a precursor to the Ghandis, Kings, and other peace advocates out there, probably was here on earth. I swear that when Christianity took hold they enlisted Paul in order to reign the people back in. Maybe some of the people were going to accept a new religion, but no way were they going to have a religion that frowned upon wealth, money and strict obdedience to biblical laws.

I kinda like the Jesus that Gandhi admired. I think many of you folks here at DU would think the same thing if you just looked at what Jesus did while he was here on earth and seperate him from the religion that has totally corrupted his message.

[MrBenchley]

28. In a word, no

Furthermore, there was no Roman empire-wide census during Augustus' reign.

Pontius Pilate was a real person; his name appears on coins and other artifacts. Some of his records are still around, and they make no mention of somebody coming back from the dead, nor anything else about the events in the Gospel. There are claims that he did in a document, but if it existed, that document is now conveniently missing.

The Romans recorded many of the events in the world around them,, often with persnickety detail. When Jesus was crucified, according to Matthew, there was an earthquake...which Roman records failed to mention.

The "references" to him in contemproary authors soch as Falvius Josephus are now widely considered fakes added at a later time, as are artifacts such as the infamous Shroud of Turin.

[sam sarrha]

32. to understand Jesus you MUST first check out Mithra... the story is

too close to believe it isn't related in some way, the 3 kings at the manger Christmas were Mithra astroligers.........

[carolinayellowdog]

33. Evidence, yes; proof-- what qualifies

Hey--

Up front I will say that I am NOT a Christian believer, and while not a professional historian have published 3 historical books with a university press. The notion that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth is far, far from a mainstream position. There is much more evidence of his existence than almost anyone else of his time who wasn't royalty. But proof? What qualifies as that?

Paul's epistles were written within a generation of Jesus's death and include debates with people who actually knew him. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus which probably date back before the first canonical gospel Mark. There is undoubted proof of the existence of John the Baptizer, and thus the historical context of the gospels is independently attested.

While there is considerable doubt about the specifics of Jesus's career, that he was a Jewish religious reformer working in the wake of John the Baptizer's execution and was executed himself is fairly well accepted by scholars across the board.

Believing that Jesus was invented after the fact is almost as dogmatic and stupid as believing everything asserted about him by Christian fundamentalists.

CYD

[papau]

40. Well - it was the same facts I was going with -but spun a bit differently!

:-)

The interning with John the Baptist, etc seems to have more documentation that the average non royal event.

But what is in the "record" and indeed mainstream - and what is "dogmatic and stupid ....(as)...asserted about him by Christian fundamentalists" may overlap.

The PBS series is the best "life of Jesus" that I have seen documented - pity it is not called "Life of Jesus". :-)

But in any case, the MrBenchley (DU) comment is similiar to many that believe in the atheism faith make - that statesments by Christians and by Falvius Josephus and by Roman references to the new Jewish sect are all false or planted or not on point - so one choses one's faith - and goes with it as to the value of the "proof" offerred up.

As to the no census, for instance, there was indeed no empire wide census - but there were local censuses going on all the time, most of which did not rate a recording in the records that were passed down over the centuries. Detail, details, details....

I spent a few years chasing the historical record - and as you say - what is enough proof for one person, is not enough for another.

[Exultant Democracy]

34. He might be a Snowman

People that have found their way into our history, but melt under investigation. For example Nathaniel Hail is famous for saying “My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country.” At the time of the revolution there was indeed a man named Nathaniel Hale, but it is very clear that he never said any such thing. With JC things are a little bit different because of the time that has elapsed, so while he is impossible to prove using firsthand documentation. It is also impossible to disprove him as we can with Nathaniel Hale. Given the stories about his life JC would seem to be a composite character, based on any number of real people, with a dash of myth tossed in (Dionysus, Osiris, etc...).

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

35. He's alive within my heart, and He owns my soul.

I don't give free space within my heart to entities that don't exist, so for me, there's absolute proof The King Of Kings did, and does exist. Nothing written down anywhere can ever cause me to give up that belief. Noone here or anywhere else will ever dissuade me.

[On the Road]

36. The Best Proof Jesus Existed is thr Existence of His Brother

Jesus wsn't the kind of person whose name would be written in stone or mentioned in offical documents during his life. His brother James, however, was a prominent priest, apparently the chief priest of the purist opposition to the Roman collaborators. Josephus describes the death of James, "the brother of him who was called the Christ." Most scholars accept the reference even if they feel it was "improved" by early Chrisitans.

There's also a reference to the emperor Domitian interrogating Jesus' relatives about 100 AD as potential leaders of a rebellion (they could claim to be sons of David). After seeing that they were rustics who believed in a heavenly kingdom, Domitian dismissed them with contempt.

Most claims that Jesus did not exist come from people not familiar with the breadth and antiquity of the early material. However, there's a guy called Earl Dougherty who maintains a site called The Jesus Puzzle claiming that Jesus never existed.

His claim is that Jesus was originally thought of as a spritial Messiah and existed only as a legend. The stories about Jesus are just that -- stories told and retold about a legend. His arguments that Paul thought of Jesus primarily (or completely) as a spiritual entity are startling.

I used to lurk on Crosstalk, a discussion group for historical Jesus scholars, and witnessed a long debate between Earl D (a newcomer) and the rest of the community. I thought Earl was treated a little unfairly, and was impressed by how well he defended himself.

But ultimately I don't believe ED's claims. Even if Jesus was completely different from how he's characterized today, and even if all the stories in the gospels are made up, he still had a famous brother, and had surviving relatives sixty years later. And a dedicated community in Jerusalem who revered him from early on. Forgetting Paul for a moment, I don't see how all the early letters and documents could have described a person who was known so shortly before as only a legend.

[papau]

41. The Roman Church prefers the translation "kin" to brother! :-)

:-)

but I am in the "brother" camp!

:-)

[On the Road]

43. I Know, the "Kin" Argument Never Washed With Me

Catholics need to believe that to maintain the eternal virginity of Mary. But even if he had a flesh-and-blood cousin, that proves his existence equally well.

Some people try to frame it that James' was Jesus' spiritual brother, but that's a stretch.

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. What about all the relics?

The church has 100's of relics stashed all over Europe, supposedly of the Cross, Jesus and many of the saints. Wonder if anyone has ever tried DNA testing on them? It sure would be interesting to see the results.

BTW: The Shroud of Turin was tested back in the 90's but I don't remember hearing about what they finally decided.

[papau]

42. The date for the snip was 1300(?- when it showed up) - but it is being

redated - as the method allowed dust/dirt etc from that time (1300) to cloud the picture as to the date of the fiber that is the shroud.

The position of the Church is that the Church does not attest to the "realness" of any relic.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. I sure they want to play it safe

but now with DNA testing and carbon dating, it sure would remove any shadow of a doubt if the same DNA was at mulitple sites and if those particular relics were all around 2000 years old? I'm surprised no one has done this yet?

[On the Road]

49. The Shroud is a Fake -- I Think the Church is Wise Not to Endorse It

And if there's any group that should know about fake religious artifacts, it's the Cathoic church.

I actually have a theory on why the shroud looks like it does and why it confuses so many people. Maybe it's worth a thread in the meeting room sometime. There's a lot of misinformation about the shroud and both sides are wrong about some pretty fundamental things.

[TrogL]

55. There's enough fragments of the Cross

to build a four-story house.

I seem to remember reading that it was decided that by some act of God, they were all valid.

[SnowGoose]

47. Thoughts and a reference

A great resource is www.infidels.org (especially the "library" section). My favorite is the stuff by ex-Church of Christ minister Farrell Till.

Some thoughts. As I think someone menioned above, the Aramaic version of the name was extremely common. When all the hullabaloo was going on some months ago about the ossuary (bone container) with an inscription which referenced Jesus, some "experts" estimated the number of Yeshuas likely to live in the area and it was quite large (although I'll admit I don't remember the figure). So, yes, undoubtedly there were many "Jesuses" in the area, just as there are many Bobs in Chicago.

I understand that your question related to evidence of that *particular* Jesus, but the above point is still germane, as many modern christian scholars have begun to draw the distinction between "the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith." For example, there was surely a Siddartha, but did flowers spring up everywhere his feet touched the earth? Likewise the existence of one (or more likely multiple) leaders/teachers named Jesus doesn't mean that any one of them raised people from the dead.

It's instructive to take into account that early versions of the bible have Barabas named as "Jesus Barabbas"! Some modern translations (such as the Scholar's Version) retain this form, while most other translations were altered (starting around 250 CE because of one of the early church fathers (Origen) who didn't like the similarity between this bad man and "the" Jesus.

An entertaining article on that subject can be read here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/absurd.html

One other point. Several people have said "oh there's no proof of anybody, even Cesar" (to paraphrase). Quite frankly, that's a load of crap. You can't compare someone who was mentioned frequently by contemporary historians with someone like Lao Tzu or Jesus. Historians kept track of all kinds of things, like important land owners, the weather, etc. There are scads of references to people like Cesar (surely not all of them true, of course). This is what's lacking for "the" Jesus. No one outside the Bible and Josephus (who I'll get to in a minute) mentions him.

And think about this: in the bible, we're told that when Jesus died, dead people rose from the grave and went into Jerusalem prophesying. Isn't it odd that not one single historian outside of the bible mentions this rather unusual happening? Come on! People like Josephus devote line after line to discussions of the water system, for crying out loud... and not a mention of a city full of dead people?

The Josephus reference is fairly obviously a latter Christian redaction (rewrite). First of all, it is jammed in between two paragraphs which relate to each other, but not to Jesus at all... the passage makes sense if you believe that the paragraph was added later. Additionally, he calls Jesus the Messiah, and says he arose on the third day, etc. etc. But how reasonable is it to think that he would just drop this bombshell in one paragraph and not reference it again? The Messiah was the hope of the Jews (like Jesus' return is to modern Christians). Would he just plop one paragraph in the middle of a chapter about it? Additionally, he never became a Christian himself... it seems unlikely to me that he actually wrote this.

That's probably enough for now.

Best of luck with your inquiry,
John

[Karenina]

50. IMHO, many of these questions

point to the "encouraged" looting of the Iraq Museum, which contained documents predating Jesus. Can't have folks really checking the written record and separating fact from fiction, eh?

[dofus]

52. My understanding is that there

is absolutely no documentation of Jesus outside of the New Testament itself. And the Romans (like the Nazis) kept meticulous records, although not all of them have survived. It is quite clear that Caesar Augustus was a real person. We have lots of documentation about him.
Jesus? No documentation. Maybe he really lived, and since he was not a member of a prominent family, nor in any other way important at the time (outside of his followers who were quite few in number in his lifetime, if the accounts in the NT are to be believed) then the lack of documentation about him makes sense.

Personally, I'm not convinced he really lived. But believe what you want.

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. The NT is just a small portion of all of the writings

about Jesus, Christianity and the early church.

"The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth."

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html

In just the last 30 years this incredible archeological find was translated into English. I am not saying this proves or disproves Jesus's existance, but you are incorrect to assume that the New Testament are the only writings about Jesus that exist. Some of these writings are supposedly by people who had been apostles and had been taught by Jesus directly.

Peace Be With You as they used to say.

[Astarho]

59. Hard to say

It's nearly impossible to separate the man from the legend.

Jesus the man:

I think a man did exist who was called Eshu Bar-Yosep who lived in Judea in the early first centruy AD who was most likely born in Nazareth and was a stonemason (although the word was often translated as carpenter). He probably became involved with one of the many Jewish reformers in rebellion against the Jewish Priests who were colluding with the Roman occupiers. he followed John the Baptist until his death and then tried his own ministry only to be killed by the Romans (or maybe he and Mary Magdalene escaped to Massalia like some legends say).

Jesus the legend:

Constantine was the one who created the Church as we know it, making it an official religion to unite the empire. There are all kinds of theories that the New Testament was plagerized from the library of Apollonius of Tyana; that Christ was the Greek form of Krishna (worship of whom was intruduced by Alexander the Great.) The Resurected God is a common theme in many mythologies. Much of Christian myth and symbolism comes from older sources: Madonna and Child was originally Isis and Horus, for example.

Ultimately it probably does not matter since his message of peace and love still stands on it's own (if only more Christians would follow it, and I'm talking about Falwell and his ilk. I acknowledge the liberal Christians here on DU that do try to live their lives by that message).

[onager]

61. Some Big Problems With Josephus

Back when I was starting to question my Bible-literal Fundamentalist upbringing, which led to my current happy state of atheism, I got very tired of hearing about Flavius Josephus. Whenever I questioned the existence of Jesus, believers would always throw Josephus in my face and quote him as "proof" that Jesus was a real person.

Hmm. OK. So I went out and got the complete works of Josephus, together with some books on ancient historians.

Some things I learned:

1. The famous "Testimonium Flavinium" about the existence of Jesus appears in "Antiquities of the Jews," Book 18, Chapter 3, Para. 3. It is a brief paragraph and pops up, totally out of context. It's sandwiched between an account of Pontius Pilate quelling a riot, and some hot gossip about Jews visiting the pagan Temple Of Isis.

Josephus had his faults, but bad writing was seldom one of them. The insertion just does not ring true, compared to the rest of his work. It's so out of context that it sticks out a mile. And considering that its subject allegedly raised the dead and performed sundry other miracles, it's awfully brief.

2. Josephus refers to Jesus as "the Messiah." Big problem here. By his own account, Josephus lived his whole life strictly according to the laws of Pharisaic Judaism. (He was born Joseph ben Matthias, and brags that he had studied all the branches of Judaism by a very young age.) If he had written that Jesus was "the Messiah," he would have no longer been a Jew. It's hard to imagine a more serious heresy.

3. There's no mention of the Testimonium Flavinium until the Fourth Century. Yet the earliest church scholars, going back to the First Century, had extensive knowledge of Josephus' writings and often quoted from them. NONE ever mentioned the controversial passage about Jesus.

The most likely culprit to have forged the Testimonium seems to be the fourth-century church historian Eusebius. As they say on "Law & Order," he had both opportunity and motive. Eusebius oversaw the transcription of ancient texts, and he wrote that it's perfectly acceptable to lie in service of the gospel.

4. Josephus is simply not always credible as a historian. He can't keep his stories straight from one account to the next. One time he describes himself as a general commanding an army of rebels during the Roman invasion in 66 CE. Elsewhere he claims to have been a sort of spy, sent by the Jewish leaders to keep an eye on the real hard-core extremists during the invasion.

His writings have caused some historical trouble. Josephus wrote the only account of the heroic siege of Masada, when Jewish rebels committed mass suicide rather than surrender. More and more, the archeological evidence shows that this may not have happened.

What apparently did happen was that Josephus re-wrote a sorry episode from his life, in which he became a Benedict Arnold to his own cause. Commanding the fortress of Jotapata, Josephus entered a suicide pact with the men, women and children defending it...and then surrendered the place to the Romans once everybody else was dead. (BEW, he writes about that betrayal in an incredibly smarmy, GW Bu$h-like tone.)

5. FWIW, Josephus mentions no less than 14 people named "Jesus" in his books. One was a religious fantatic who went around screaming "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" for 7 years. Sounding pretty relieved about the whole thing, Josephus writes that he was screaming during the siege of Jerusalem when a stone from a Roman catapult killed him in mid-"Woe."

6. Semi-fictional messiahs aside, I strongly recommend reading Josephus. What a writer! His apocalyptical descriptions of Jerusalem under siege are just amazing. Here's one example, describing Titus' final siege of Jerusalem. And proving that despite massive exposure to various religions, human nature hasn't changed a bit in 2,000 years:

"(In the sewers) were found the bodies of more than 2,000, some killed by their own hand, some by one another's, but most by starvation...Others were so avaricious that they pushed in, climbing over the piles of corpses; for many valuables were found in the passages and all scruples were silenced by the prospect of gold...

The Romans now fired the outlying districts of the town and demolished the walls. So fell Jerusalem, in the second year of Vespasian's reign, on the 8th September--captured five times before and now for the second time, utterly laid waste."

Onager...who promises to never be this long-winded again.

[THUNDER HANDS]

60. well

I'm still just as confused as when I started this thread.

I guess that's what happens when you're both Jewish and Catholic and a practicing agnostic.

LOL

[Cheswick2.0]

63. yes

oh, did you want me to do your research for you too? Is your google broken?

[THUNDER HANDS]

64. no

I'm just a lazy ass who wants Duers to do his thinking for him.

Is that so wrong?

:)