Evidence for Jesus

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi GoodK

When you get back to it, please explain how we know when Luke lived.

The we passages in Acts cover roughly the period 50-61. Paul refers in Col 4:14 to “Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.” Col is generally dated to 61 AD.

[_JAK]

If I were to suspend critical thought for a few minutes and believe in only your version of a biblical Jesus. am I then required to discount the wisdom and philosophy of those who preceded and those who followed who have never heard of him. why in the world would I do that? the universe is so much bigger than traditional Mormonism or Evangelical Christianity allows for.. do you really believe in a God who would create a world, populate is with his precious children, and by design instantly condemn over 90% of them to eternal HELL and endless torment based solely on geography and time of birth... what A limited, myopic god you believe in ... have you ever thought god may be bigger than you ever imagined and may also be so small as to only exist in your heart -- there is wisdom and power in all belief systems. why limit your potential to a belief in only one?

~evolving

evolving,

You make excellent observations. I would add that the evolution of invented religions and invented God (or previously gods) in the image of humans who did the inventing.

It seems an exclusive touch to invent God of exclusion. The “children” are no more “precious” than the dinosaur which became extinct some 65 million years ago. And the multiple species of dinosaurs prevailed on this very earth we call ours for approximately 165 million years prior to their extinction.

But your point is good. There are many Christian groups who perceive it as you describe. Only a very few will merit or be granted by “grace” eternal bliss. Of course, that would likely be hell as we consider Rod Serling’s “Twilight Zone” episode of the man who thought for a short time he had gone to “heaven” because all was beautiful, all was comfort, no effort was required, no problems were to be solved, no discomfort was tolerated. It was eternal. There was not a single challenge for the mind. It was all mindless, and it was not heaven.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl: GoodK,

Are you overlooking the existence of Christianity from it's inception and throughout the first century?


GoodK: I don't understand. Because Christianity existed, Jesus did?

Jersey Girl: Yes.

[_JAK]

GoodK,

What kind of evidence would you find acceptable for the historical Jesus?

Jersey Girl,

I understand your question was addressed to GoodK. With regard to it, however, I’m skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced. One might make a case for a character of similar description but only on the grounds that word of mouth had some validity over time.

The challenge of “historical Jesus,” does not mean some charismatic figure (and many charismatic figures may have appealed to the emotions of people).

But the Bible claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. The notion that exact words in fact were recorded and then translated into many languages verbatim is the problem and the challenge for a singular historical individual as the biblical proponents claim.

There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words and life of an individual with absolute historical accuracy. The latter case is generally what Christianity has claimed. It is, dare I say it again, truth by assertion. The evidence for such a claim as the latter is non-existent.

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief. Even today, a verbatim news coverage of what someone said, actually said becomes a subject of dispute, tone of voice, person-in-the-flesh.

And there were no recorders, there was no television, there was no publisher with writers who took quick notes or short-hand.

So to believe that any evidence for a person, a single person who fits all the absolute biblical verbiage of the Bible, is an irrational leap to conclusion. Not only that, we have many biblical translations which have altered words from other translations on what Jesus said really.

So the “kind of evidence” for which you ask does not exist.

GoodK will have to answer as she wishes.

“History is a point of view.” I wish I could take credit for that brilliant understanding, but I can’t. Even history of the war with England in the fight for an independent country (America) which is much more recent is not a “history” which is recorded in English history as it is recorded in American history. Villains to the British were heroes to the Americans (not yet identified as Americans).

History is a point of view.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

What kind of evidence would you find acceptable for the historical Jesus?

Jersey Girl,

I understand your question was addressed to GoodK. With regard to it, however, I’m skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced. One might make a case for a character of similar description but only on the grounds that word of mouth had some validity over time.

The challenge of “historical Jesus,” does not mean some charismatic figure (and many charismatic figures may have appealed to the emotions of people).

But the Bible claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. The notion that exact words in fact were recorded and then translated into many languages verbatim is the problem and the challenge for a singular historical individual as the biblical proponents claim.

There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words and life of an individual with absolute historical accuracy. The latter case is generally what Christianity has claimed. It is, dare I say it again, truth by assertion. The evidence for such a claim as the latter is non-existent.

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief. Even today, a verbatim news coverage of what someone said, actually said becomes a subject of dispute, tone of voice, person-in-the-flesh.

And there were no recorders, there was no television, there was no publisher with writers who took quick notes or short-hand.

So to believe that any evidence for a person, a single person who fits all the absolute biblical verbiage of the Bible, is an irrational leap to conclusion. Not only that, we have many biblical translations which have altered words from other translations on what Jesus said really.

So the “kind of evidence” for which you ask does not exist.

GoodK will have to answer as she wishes.

“History is a point of view.” I wish I could take credit for that brilliant understanding, but I can’t. Even history of the war with England in the fight for an independent country (America) which is much more recent is not a “history” which is recorded in English history as it is recorded in American history. Villains to the British were heroes to the Americans (not yet identified as Americans).

History is a point of view.

JAK

JAK,

Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Another question for you, do you doubt the existence of Paul?

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

GoodK,

What kind of evidence would you find acceptable for the historical Jesus?

Jersey Girl,

I understand your question was addressed to GoodK. With regard to it, however, I’m skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced. One might make a case for a character of similar description but only on the grounds that word of mouth had some validity over time.

The challenge of “historical Jesus,” does not mean some charismatic figure (and many charismatic figures may have appealed to the emotions of people).

But the Bible claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. The notion that exact words in fact were recorded and then translated into many languages verbatim is the problem and the challenge for a singular historical individual as the biblical proponents claim.

There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words and life of an individual with absolute historical accuracy. The latter case is generally what Christianity has claimed. It is, dare I say it again, truth by assertion. The evidence for such a claim as the latter is non-existent.

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief. Even today, a verbatim news coverage of what someone said, actually said becomes a subject of dispute, tone of voice, person-in-the-flesh.

And there were no recorders, there was no television, there was no publisher with writers who took quick notes or short-hand.

So to believe that any evidence for a person, a single person who fits all the absolute biblical verbiage of the Bible, is an irrational leap to conclusion. Not only that, we have many biblical translations which have altered words from other translations on what Jesus said really.

So the “kind of evidence” for which you ask does not exist.

GoodK will have to answer as she wishes.

“History is a point of view.” I wish I could take credit for that brilliant understanding, but I can’t. Even history of the war with England in the fight for an independent country (America) which is much more recent is not a “history” which is recorded in English history as it is recorded in American history. Villains to the British were heroes to the Americans (not yet identified as Americans).

History is a point of view.

JAK

JAK,

Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

As I indicated “history” is a point of view, a perspective. The farther we go back toward pre-historic man, the less we have in any reliable material save the artifacts which were left and which survived time and erosion.

Jersey Girl stated:
Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?

Were it not for Constantine the Great and his ancestors, Christianity might never have made it past his descendents. However, because he and his descendents had wealth and power and because they used Christianity to advance their own power and influence, Christianity did survive through many schisms. My “assertion” as you phrase a term is no more and no less than I stated.

It is the word “historical” which is a term for deliberation. We lack reliable evidence regarding the copying of words which were eventually scrutinized to the extent it was possible and canonized by the early pundits of the evolving religions of any time including that of Christianity.

The Bible (with different script/translations/languages) is a product over time with revision and configuration. There is a wide variety of beliefs today regarding the accuracy or the historical statement found in the 66 books (including the apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, etc.) Such beliefs are not reliable based on the fact of belief. They are also not made reliable based on various interpretations though the various schisms.

We can find various claims for messiah for example. (I post a link to save space.)

Your question at the top may not be singular as you pose it. There were many claims to “messiah.” Such claims were not uncommon in the very period when Christianity was mentored by the powerful who found it useful to themselves. The “Gospels” as you refer were also tuned, if you will, to fit the preference of power at the time copying of words (scripts) were taking place.

Very, very few could write or read at the time of biblical constructions and editing. That fact made it easy for the few, under the auspices of the rulers who favored the construction to make the scripts.

There were so few who could read or write, let alone, construct books, that the production of what became biblical scripts were most unlikely to be challenged. Had some individual spoken out in opposition or written in opposition to the control of the power structure, both they and their writing would likely have been destroyed by an emperor.

There was no “free press.” In fact, there was no “press” at all. Only many, many centuries later did Johannes Gutenberg invent the earliest form of printing. Prior to that, all that was written (and as language evolved), was written by hand, copied by hand, passed on by hand (or not passed on).

Those who were in positions of strength were the ones to determine what was passed on and what was copied. And printing then was a very slow, laborious process, one character (impression) at a time.

This is addressing your questions above. There was then little interest or time or motivation to “challenge” what was a slow, tedious process of copying by hand (no ball-point pens, no fountain ink pens). And the copy material was all from hand and financed (they didn’t use that word) by the powers in control of “history.”

So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.

It’s easy for us today sitting in our climate-controlled homes with our Internet and computers to imagine that thousands of years ago, people were really interested in detailed writing of something, anything. But the very strong likelihood is they were not. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of people (the masses) could actually read anything let alone write anything. It would be most difficult to make a credible case that writers were investigative reporters about what they heard or that they had capacity to investigate.

Today, if a “Jesus” suddenly emerged, there would be hundreds of news agencies covering the emergence and not only reporting on it but interpreting the “meaning” of the words and the “context” of the words, and the “appearance” of the speaker, etc. There could be no Jesus today. Reporters would track the DNA, the linage, the history, etc.

There was very little of that at 2,000 years ago. But, there was a little for some people. Certainly it was not done for many.

It’s very easy for people today, Jersey Girl, to imagine that “life” 2,000 years ago was just like it is today without electricity. Well it was not. If we look at only what has transpired in the past 100 years, we have some idea of how quickly communication becomes primitive. We can contemplate only with great difficulty and probably inaccurately what any life was like, 2,000 years ago.

That is most important to keep in mind and difficult to keep in mind as we speculate on checks and balances of communication many centuries into the past.

What tends to happen for believers, is simply the wave of the magic wand (figuratively speaking) to magically make truth.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Not meaning to discredit or ignore the entirety of your lengthy post.

You wrote,

So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.

And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.

Do you deny that these historical figures existed?

Jersey Girl

[_GoodK]

Jersey Girl: GoodK,

Are you overlooking the existence of Christianity from it's inception and throughout the first century?


GoodK: I don't understand. Because Christianity existed, Jesus did?

Jersey Girl: Yes.

Well, I can't really do much with this kind of logic.

I guess this is where our methods of reasoning take different paths.

[_JAK]

JAK,

Not meaning to discredit or ignore the entirety of your lengthy post.

You wrote,

So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.

And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.

Do you deny that these historical figures existed?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

You make a point with which I agree.

You state: “…historian's did write their accounts of that time period.”

While there was (as I stated) a very limited percent of individuals sufficiently educated to read and write, there were some.

In many, if not most cases of written history, there were few peer reviews of what was written. In addition, it was all done by hand and that hand copied material was heard before it was written. There was no recording. So historians were not only limited in number, they were even more limited by lack of corroboration from other historians. As a result, we have “history” which lacks essentials for accuracy in times before the printing press (1400).

So as we consider the hard times, the unfriendly weather, the sheer stress and struggle to survive, we have much limitation. That is not suggest we have nothing. It does suggest that reliability for fact and reports of thought-to-be-facts have reliability problems.

In cases where attempts were made to produce unified view (what today might be called work of an editor, such unified views could be orchestrated at certain levels of power (emperors, kings, rulers).

Consider today how often newspapers get a story wrong, national television gets it wrong. Obituaries which are written carefully for the paper get published with wrong data. And in this case and with news many are looking. There is much opportunity to correct the record when it goes wrong.

No such virtually unlimited capacity to check, to verify, to correct record existed prior to the printing press in which we had preserved language with specific characters (letters). So, history of ancient time, yet a time when there was language and there was hand written material, the propensity for error was enormous.

That error may or may not have been deliberate. We don’t know. Where one historian got his material from another historian, there was a greater chance for agreement. Where the authority of the kings, emperors, or other people of power were in a position to control history, there was potential for the making of history as in making a record fit with what the powers wanted the record to show.

It’s important to keep this in mind as we consider the reliability of ancient, hand scribbled notes on paper nothing of the likes that we have today for paper.

So readers of something written by someone else perhaps long before (and 10 years was long, hundreds of years was eternity.

That is not to contend the historians such as they were got it all wrong. Rather it is to recognize the problematic issues with which they were confronted.

As we know, our modern papers and magazines can and do get it wrong. If they do so on purpose, they are quickly subject to correction.

When J. F. Kennedy was assassinated, the first announcement of his death was held up 18 minutes (I think), before it was put on the television network. The network did NOT want to get something like this wrong. It would have been unforgivable. It would have destroyed credibility for months or years. So, the network waited to be sure they had it right.

And that event was covered by hundreds if not thousands of cameras and reporters and individuals with cameras of their own in Dallas.

And today, after all the studies and all the documentation endlessly reviewed, there are still those who claim the studies and reports were false. Of course, they present no countervailing information. But for years after that event and the weeks following that event, challenge was made to the historians conclusions.

No such checks were so voluminous thousands of years ago.

Not only that, but other languages were developing in other places with other histories about other events and other people.
+++
Jersey Girl observed:
And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.
===
Yes, of course that occurred. At the same time, content pertinent to Christianity in particular was subject to control and manipulation from Constantine the Great forward through his descendents and kings who used that religion to their own benefit. We have a long historical record demonstrating the implementation of religion and the intertwining of it with the power of popes and kings.

There were events surrounding people whom you mention.
+++
History.

Consider the news just today regarding the 54th Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.

Look at this regarding Eliot Spitzer

How is this relevant to our discussion?

With all the news coverage of this man and all the things he did for the good of New York, we learned more history about Eliot Spitzer just in the past couple of days which caused his resignation of the Governorship of New York.

I linked you to WikipediA because as of my post for you, this latest news about his involvement with prostitutes, that he paid out over $80,000 for their services etc. was not in any news prior to the past few days.

With all the press and television surrounding this person in 2000+, still he was able to keep secret for an extended period of time part of his history which now learned by the public destroys his political career.

What’s my point?

It is that what we may think we know may be faulty. There may be more than historians of ancient time could accurately reflect. There may also have been less than what they wrote.

History is a point of view. It’s a perspective of someone or a group of individuals, or today millions of individuals watching television and reading news stories.

Does Eliot Spitzer exist? Of course. Did ancient rulers exist? Of course.

But what we know about them is only what we can see in the limited perspective of a very limited number of historians.

If you are unaware of the revelations regarding Eliot Spitzer, you can see news and read news regarding the past several days.

It’s important to recognize that we are limited in what we can learn even when we try our best to learn with accuracy. There are errors in history. That’s why someone said: “History is a point of view.” (I don’t know the author.)

Spitzer accomplished a great deal of good. But, the total of his life wasn’t what nearly everyone saw. There were secrets. And that’s part of history as well.

Every person who lived even a short life thousands of years ago had a history. If he/she survived being born and reached some age, he/she had a history. It may never have been recorded in any way, but there was a history. Of course that applies to people who lived merely centuries ago as well.

JAK