Outside of the Bible, is there any proof Jesus existed?

[TruthSeeker60]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

There is more proof of Jesus Christ than there is of Cesar, Socrates, Alexander the Great and Homer!!!!!!

Correction:

We have a ton more evidence for the existence of Caesar than Jesus. We have documents personally written by Caesar Plus the entire history of Rome which testifies to the outcome of his crossing of the Rubicon.

While there is controversy surrounding Alexander the Great, there is archeological evidence for the burning of the palace at Persepolis and his many conquests.

As for Homer and Socrates, many scholars are skeptical about their existence because of lack of evidence for their existence.


I'm not claiming that Jesus—meaning a person whom the gospels were at least loosely based on—did not exist. In fact, I think it is a more likely than not that there was such a person. However, since the evidence is very weak, I'm not too certain about this and I don't claim to know much historically about him or any of his followers. Typically when Christians mention evidence for the existence of Jesus they bring up documents written at least six decades after Jesus died and questionable artifacts such as the Shroud of Turin.

On a related issue, I have found no verified evidence for any of the magical claims in the gospels.

[RICKY RASPER]

Just look at the date on your calender!

[Pieman333272]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60

Correction:

We have a ton more evidence for the existence of Caesar than Jesus. We have documents personally written by Caesar Plus the entire history of Rome which testifies to the outcome of his crossing of the Rubicon.

While there is controversy surrounding Alexander the Great, there is archeological evidence for the burning of the palace at Persepolis and his many conquests.

I'm willing to grant that there is more evidence for these characters than for Jesus (to an extent), but does that really give the Christ myth hypothesis any grounds?

By the way, if you're willing to accept Caesar's historicity based on the fact that Rome's history was built on his life, why do you not accept the entire history of Christianity (including at least one present denomination which can be traced to the late first century) as evidence for Jesus' existence? You could argue that Caesar also had written and archaeological attestation, but, needless to say, so does Jesus.

As for Homer and Socrates, many scholars are skeptical about their existence because of lack of evidence for their existence.

Name 3 scholarly (undergrad+) level books which dispute the existence of Homer and Socrates. You may not make a dubious statement like "my history professor told me" (unless he wrote an undergrad+ book advocating such, which you then must name).

I'm not claiming that Jesus—meaning a person whom the gospels were at least loosely based on—did not exist.

I don't see why you go on every resurrection/Christ myth thread and critique the arguments for his existence if you don't deny his existence.

In fact, I think it is a more likely than not that there was such a person.

Again, I don't see why you spew anti-historical Jesus propaganda on every thread on the issue if you affirm this.

However, since the evidence is very weak, I'm not too certain about this and I don't claim to know much historically about him

You're using a dubious term in "evidence" here. Why do you reject the attestations of the Jewish and Pagan historians from the first to third centuries, which give us (albeit secular) multiple clear key pieces of his life? Also, why do you reject the Gospels? It makes a little sense from a secular standpoint to deny the miracles, but between the nature and results of textual criticism and the multiple criterion I mentioned earlier, you should at least admit that they provide strong evidence for Jesus' existence, if not miracles (again, I'm willing to grant you wiggle room on the supernatural aspects simply because that is beyond the scope of the thread). This isn't even touching on the archaeological and geographical evidence for a historical Jesus, nor circumstantial evidence for a historical Jesus.

or any of his followers.

Aside from the gospels, I have to agree, but we do know he HAD followers.

Typically when Christians mention evidence for the existence of Jesus they bring up documents written at least six decades after Jesus died

Within that context a document within 3 centuries (and this is being GENEROUS) is still considered authoritative. Consider Hammurabi and Zoroaster - much later references in proportion to Jesus, similar context, undisputed historicity.

and questionable artifacts such as the Shroud of Turin.

Actually, there is an abundance of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. I can't expand now as I don't know what actual objections you have, but I completed an entire 2 year research project on it and I have genuinely reached the conclusion that it is authentic. Again, if you mention specific issues I can comment, I'm happy to debate this.

On a related issue, I have found no verified evidence for any of the magical claims in the gospels.

Define "verified evidence", and then we'll talk. While I'm at it, "magic" and "Miracles" have an important theological distinction which you have (on multiple occasions) failed to pick up on.

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60

I'm not claiming that Jesus—meaning a person whom the gospels were at least loosely based. However, since the evidence is very weak,

You clearly have not done the comparative analysis. I urge you to actually do the scholarship and compile an unbiased comparative list the historical evidence. There are many ancient historical figures that are known to have existed. Select a statistically significant set, say 10 individuals such as Aristotle, Plato, Hannibal, etc. for which there is no serious doubt of their existence. Compile the evidence for their existence and for Jesus using the same type of evidence and unbiased analysis. This is how an objective analysis is done.

[TruthSeeker60]

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

By the way, if you're willing to accept Caesar's historicity based on the fact that Rome's history was built on his life, why do you not accept the entire history of Christianity (including at least one present denomination which can be traced to the late first century) as evidence for Jesus' existence? You could argue that Caesar also had written and archaeological attestation, but, needless to say, so does Jesus.

I do, to a small degree, consider the scant existence of very early Christians to be evidence that the gospel myths may have been at least loosely based on a person who really existed, but I consider the history of Rome, in corroboration with the documents written by Caesar, to be much better evidence for Caesar because it is a drastic military and political change (which changes the entire history of the civilization) that corroborates perfectly with many pieces of data, including writing of the very person in question.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Name 3 scholarly (undergrad+) level books which dispute the existence of Homer and Socrates. You may not make a dubious statement like "my history professor told me" (unless he wrote an undergrad+ book advocating such, which you then must name).

So is this going to turn into a game of “cite the most experts”? That's a clever way of making the other person waste his time. I'm not going to search to find “X” number of experts. Instead, I'll ask you to name a credible scholarly community that has conclusively settled the Homer Question (which includes whether or not he exists). Then get back to me about how that is relevant to the current discussion (evidence of Jesus existing). If you really think that scholars generally except that Socrates and Homer exist, and that there is better evidence for the existence of Jesus than them, you get busy.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

I don't see why you go on every resurrection/Christ myth thread and critique the arguments for his existence if you don't deny his existence.

I haven't been on a thread like this for months. However, I am sometimes motivated by the fact that many people believe extraordinary things on little or no evidence.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Again, I don't see why you spew anti-historical Jesus propaganda on every thread on the issue if you affirm this.

I've never claimed that Jesus didn't exist. I have stated that I don't see any reason to consider the gospels as anything other than myths though.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

You're using a dubious term in "evidence" here.

Evidence means data that supports a claim.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Why do you reject the attestations of the Jewish and Pagan historians from the first to third centuries, which give us (albeit secular) multiple clear key pieces of his life?

Do you really not understand why documents written 6 decades after someone's life which barely mention the person is weak evidence for the existence of that person?

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Also, why do you reject the Gospels? It makes a little sense from a secular standpoint to deny the miracles, but between the nature and results of textual criticism and the multiple criterion I mentioned earlier, you should at least admit that they provide strong evidence for Jesus' existence, if not miracles

This is what makes me queasy about mentioning the possibility that “Jesus” might have really existed to a Christian who, if given an inch, will likely take it a mile (or a light year)...

Many ancient documents about actual historical events contain magical elements. Suetonius, for example, wrote in the “Lives of the Twelve Caesars” about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, yet also mentions, "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty . . . sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe" who persuaded Caesar to cross the river. This account could arguably be evidence, albeit weak if taken by itself, that Caesar crossed the Rubicon without subscribing to the details of the story. Likewise, the gospels, even with all of their contradictions, may be weak evidence for the existence of some sort of person resembling Jesus.

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Within that context a document within 3 centuries (and this is being GENEROUS) is still considered authoritative. Consider Hammurabi and Zoroaster - much later references in proportion to Jesus, similar context, undisputed historicity.

This is a solid strategy you have. Throw around these claims and make the other person spend the time to do the research (even specifying a certain number of textbooks to cite). But regarding Zoroaster and Hammurabi, I'm not convinced that there is a scholarly consensus about their existence. However, do you really think that writings, which came much latter, convince historians that they existed or do you think that other evidence, such as archaeological evidence, played a huge role (or that a number of historians doubt they exist)?

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Define "verified evidence", and then we'll talk.

You do know what evidence is don't you?

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

While I'm at it, "magic" and "Miracles" have an important theological distinction which you have (on multiple occasions) failed to pick up on.

It may be a theological distinction , but not a distinction that is useful when considering whether or not there is evidence for a claim. The distinction is of no practical value when discussing whether or not there is evidence for it occurring. For example, as a skeptic, I would approach the claim the Pharaoh's priests changed water into blood just the same way that I would approach the claim that Moses changed water into blood. Both would require the same type of evidence.

[TruthSeeker60]

Originally Posted by Ignatius

You clearly have not done the comparative analysis. I urge you to actually do the scholarship and compile an unbiased comparative list the historical evidence.

Why? I've already stated that “Jesus” probably existed, so I don't really see the point of me using a lot of time for this endeavor. If you think that there is a large body of evidence that I am unaware of that supports anything beyond that, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, I'm only going to devote a certain amount of my time to it.

BTW, I use the scare quotes to alarm people that in saying that “Jesus” existed I am not saying anything positive about the magical parts of the gospels in the same way that saying that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is not the same thing as saying that Caesar had an apparition (such as in the “Lives of the Twelve Caesars”). So many people don't get that.

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60

Correction:

We have a ton more evidence for the existence of Caesar than Jesus. We have documents personally written by Caesar Plus the entire history of Rome which testifies to the outcome of his crossing of the Rubicon.

While there is controversy surrounding Alexander the Great, there is archeological evidence for the burning of the palace at Persepolis and his many conquests.

As for Homer and Socrates, many scholars are skeptical about their existence because of lack of evidence for their existence.


I'm not claiming that Jesus—meaning a person whom the gospels were at least loosely based on—did not exist. In fact, I think it is a more likely than not that there was such a person. However, since the evidence is very weak, I'm not too certain about this and I don't claim to know much historically about him or any of his followers. Typically when Christians mention evidence for the existence of Jesus they bring up documents written at least six decades after Jesus died and questionable artifacts such as the Shroud of Turin.

On a related issue, I have found no verified evidence for any of the magical claims in the gospels.

We have five sources for Caesar; writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian (and Appian was second century, more than 150 years after Julius died). We have 42 sources for Jesus within 150 years of his death.

The Gospels are the best attested historical documents. No literary work has as much early testimony as the Gospels.

[Lui]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

The Gospels are the best attested historical documents. No literary work has as much early testimony as the Gospels.

I don't consider the Gospels as historical evidence at all. First of all they contradict each other, secondly they were written more than two generations after the crucifixion. Third, no one knows for sure who wrote them.
I repeat, it is a difference what we believe. We can say we believe in the Gospels and in Jesus. Caesar's existence is an undeniable fact.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Lui

I don't consider the Gospels as historical evidence at all. First of all they contradict each other, secondly they were written more than two generations after the crucifixion. Third, no one knows for sure who wrote them.
I repeat, it is a difference what we believe. We can say we believe in the Gospels and in Jesus. Caesar's existence is an undeniable fact.

good grief!!!!

[Lui]

Originally Posted by steve b

good grief!!!!

Great constructive criticism

I stick to my opinion: the Gospels are not historical evidence and no serious historian would ever regard them as that. PERIOD!!

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by Lui

I don't consider the Gospels as historical evidence at all. First of all they contradict each other, secondly they were written more than two generations after the crucifixion. Third, no one knows for sure who wrote them.
I repeat, it is a difference what we believe. We can say we believe in the Gospels and in Jesus. Caesar's existence is an undeniable fact.

Well historians do, the core of Gospels is historical text. We have archeology to prove the Gospels and the Old Testament is historical, there are plenty of websites on Biblical archeology. So it is not a mater of just believing, it is a matter of faith because the Virgin Birth for example is a miracle and has to be taken on faith, but the Gospels are historical texts, Luke for example is seen as one of the best historians of the ancient world.

We have far less evidence for Caesar than we do for Jesus, yet historians still consider Caesar to be a historical person just as they do Jesus.

There is a lot of evidence that the Gospels were written all before 70AD, even the most liberal scholars, those that reject Christianity say a maximum of 90AD. And as I have said on another post on this thread, A N Sherwin Wright, a professional historian who wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament says the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history.

For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.

If the recording of the event is within one generation (about 70 yrs or so), then the recording is very accurate - because within one generation, hostile witnesses will testify against the writing and false writing will usually die away (poorly perserved)

The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles (i.e., those that reject Christianity) is:

* Mark was written around 70 AD
* Matthew and Luke were written around 80 AD
* John was written around 90 AD

There are evidence that all gospels were written before 70 AD, but even with such a liberal dating, all gospels are wriiten within the lifetime of various EYEWITTNESSES of the life of Jesus INCLUDING hostile ones

This fact is important - human nature being what it is - if false teaching about Jesus were going around (e.g., that Jesus' resurection was false), these hostile witnesses would make sure any false teaching were corrected

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/01/intro.html

[Pieman333272]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60

So is this going to turn into a game of “cite the most experts”?

If you want to call it that, sure, unless you would rather play "I have an opinion so I must be right".

That's a clever way of making the other person waste his time.

I had no idea a less than one second google search is now considered a waste of time.

I'm not going to search to find “X” number of experts.

In other words, you have done no research to back up your sweeping, undefended, dogmatic claim. If you know enough to say "many scholars dispute topic y" shouldn't you have read a BOOK ABOUT TOPIC Y FIRST?

Instead, I'll ask you to name a credible scholarly community that has conclusively settled the Homer Question (which includes whether or not he exists).

For the record, I was focusing more on Socrates than Homer, simply because I never looked into him beyond a class I took in literature. That being said, I have looked into the Homeric Question in the short time-frame between me writing my post and now. Consider that 2 of the three mainstream answers to the question still include or presume the statement "Homer exists" and the other one doesn't preclude it. The question seems to be more on what Homer did rather than whether or not Homer existed, which, IMO, is highly similar to the Historical Jesus debate - the question is not "did he exist" but "who was Jesus"?

If you really think that scholars generally except that Socrates and Homer exist, and that there is better evidence for the existence of Jesus than them, you get busy.

I've already listed a list of reasons to trust Jesus' existence on page 1 or 2.

I am sometimes motivated by the fact that many people believe extraordinary things on little or no evidence.

You mean like how skeptics say "Jesus didn't exist" with little or no evidence?

I've never claimed that Jesus didn't exist.

Stating all of the evidence for Jesus (ESPECIALLY the Judeo-Pagan attestations) is not authoritative implies that there is no reason to think Jesus existed.

Evidence means data that supports a claim.

Finally, an agreeable definition of evidence from a skeptic!

Do you really not understand why documents written 6 decades after someone's life which barely mention the person is weak evidence for the existence of that person?

You obviously did not look into them at all. First of all, they do more than "barely mention Jesus". Just SOME key facts we can deduce from them are Jesus having followers, living in a time-frame and area that matches the Gospels, Jesus' execution, and some other things I can't remember off the top of my head.

This is what makes me queasy about mentioning the possibility that “Jesus” might have really existed to a Christian who, if given an inch, will likely take it a mile

All I'm saying is the criteria I listed give reasons to accept (at worst) Jesus' historicity based on the Gospels alone. I'm also mentioning AT BEST, we can also deduce all of the miracles (to be clear, I am NOT saying that is what they have done nor that they actually can take us that far) based on the same criterion.

Many ancient documents about actual historical events contain magical elements.

A) Did you memorize Suetonius? If not, didn't you just bother to look something up? Why do you look up things to support your claims when I don't call you out but refuse when I do?
B) Why do you preclude Jesus' miracles being ahistorical?
C) Why didn't you even address the actual criteria I mentioned? I list them out earlier in this very thread!
D) Again, I am not guaranteeing the textual criteria can support the miracles. I am saying there is reason to believe, based on analysis on a few cases I've read, that they can be used for such. My point here is that you cannot rightly claim to be "open-minded" when you a priori reject all evidence we have for the miracles.

This is a solid strategy you have. Throw around these claims and make the other person spend the time to do the research (even specifying a certain number of textbooks to cite).

Again you admit to having done no research at the scholarly level. Either that or you're the most disorganized skeptic in the history of the internet. I don't even think I made you do research this time either!

However, do you really think that writings, which came much latter, convince historians that they existed or do you think that other evidence, such as archaeological evidence, played a huge role (or that a number of historians doubt they exist)?

From my understanding, Zoroaster is accepted on texts alone. The only authoritative archaeological evidence for Hammurabi which I know of is some coins, and also from my understanding numismatic evidence is not considered the best of evidence.

You do know what evidence is don't you?

Yes, unfortunatly some skeptics don't. I was more referring to the "verified" claim anyway. How do you define verified in the case of
A) The Gospels
B) The Shroud

It may be a theological distinction , but not a distinction that is useful when considering whether or not there is evidence for a claim.

The distinction refers to modern uses of the term "magic", so your point is moot. If you wish we can still discuss the whole "Pharaoh vs. Moses" thing in terms of standards of evidence, it's really up to you.

[Pieman333272]

Originally Posted by Lui

I don't consider the Gospels as historical evidence at all. First of all they contradict each other, secondly they were written more than two generations after the crucifixion. Third, no one knows for sure who wrote them.
I repeat, it is a difference what we believe. We can say we believe in the Gospels and in Jesus. Caesar's existence is an undeniable fact.

1) Name 3 contradictions in the Gospels
2) Mark was written as little as one after, and Paul one or less.
3) Most of Paul's letters (all the key ones) and Luke are virtually undisputed as being by who they claim. John, the Pastorals, and the Catholic Letters are accepted by many scholars as being by who they claim.
4) Jesus' story is meant to be a story we can verify, the centerpiece of a table of evidence for the reality of Christianity.

[Lui]

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Name 3 contradictions in the Gospels
.

1. When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15

2. Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb? Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple

3. Who sees Jesus first?
Mark - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to “the eleven”
Matthew - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to ”the eleven”
Luke - Jesus appears first to “two,” then to Simon, then to “the eleven”
John - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas

I can post much more but you asked for three.

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60

Why? I've already stated that “Jesus” probably existed, .

Actually you made the contention that [TruthSeeker60 "the evidence is very weak"] without doing the requesite scholarship. The libraries of most major Universities are now on line and you can do it with the very least bit of effort, If you wish to know the truth of the matter do the scholarship, If you honestly wish to know the truth of the matter.