Evidence for Jesus

[_JAK]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

No, we cannot “safely say” there was no character with some characteristics characterized as having presence in an individual. However, the fact is that no ideas of universal appeal attributed to Jesus (fictional or otherwise) were not present in the human species prior to the claims made in behalf of Jesus.

The idea of kindness, understanding, sympathy, generosity, etc. were not original with a singular individual. Keep in mind that the alleged Jesus was a product of his time. Any idea which might have been presented by this alleged Jesus was present in the culture of his time. (Fiction or some element of fact), the persona of Jesus was admitted even by supporters as a carpenter and an uneducated person.

We have no reliable data (a recording, a verbatim note-taker) which makes factual any words or deeds of a Jesus (fiction or fact).

What we can “safely say” is that there are multiple religious doctrines and dogmas that are contradictory resulting from interpretations of those individuals or groups (denominations, sects, or cults) regarding claims about a Jesus as ambiguously portrayed in biblical scripts.

So, GoodK, do your “digging” as you wish. The time-frame is so distant, the records so ambiguous, the historic record so muddy, that conclusions certain are unreliable.

In case this is not clear to you, GoodK, it is an essential agreement with you. But qualifiers are required. Wholesale statements absent clarification and qualification make for probable assertions, which themselves can be questioned.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

What is the relevance of skeptics calling for evidence of Jesus prior to the 19th century, Goodk?

[_JAK]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

Modern Return to Dangers of Religion

Political Punch & Religion

What Obama Saw in Wright’s Church

The Campaign and Religion

Obama Calls Pastor’s Words “Inflammatory, Appalling”

Religion, Preacher, Obama, & McCain

Religion, Race, Obama, & Clinton

Religious Controversy from Obama’s Minister

Obama Slams Preacher (his preacher)

Obama Forced to Denounce Pastor’s Inflammatory Remarks

Obama Distances Himself from Long Time Pastor

And the “Dangers of Religion” continue.

JAK

[_JAK]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

What is the relevance of skeptics calling for evidence of Jesus prior to the 19th century, Goodk?

While GoodK is composing, “relevance of skeptics.”

Jersey Girl,

For me, your question is unclear.

It’s always relevant to call for evidence where questions arise regarding information.

To what extent evidence was an issue at any point is a valid question and inquiry.

From Constantine the Great forward, Christianity was used and advanced is a matter of background and identification. The extent to which reliable history is available is open to academic question even if not to religious doctrine.

The “relevance” is a point of historical reliable information. It’s not easy to attain. Particularly, it’s not easy in that many Christian pundits have a special interest in preserving their doctrines and dogmas. They push those doctrines/dogmas continuously. They set them forward as truth by assertion. So finding actual truth or historical truth is made more difficult by religious doctrine/dogma.

The “relevance” is to those who seek accurate data. Whether they can obtain that accurate date is questionable. Christian organizations are in protection mode. Each new scientific discovery and advance which intrudes on religious doctrine is a clear threat to religious doctrine.

Evolution has challenged the doctrine of Creation. A woman’s right to choose has challenged human identity (life) begins at conception. Embryonic stem-cell research challenges Bush fundamentalism in Christianity. Ironic in this last example is that Bush has no compunction against killing living, mature people who have different politics, religion, and goals than his own. Yet, he opposes embryonic stem-cell research on cells which will for certain be discarded if not implanted in a woman. Religious dogma does not rely upon nor does it embrace rational thinking.

In addition, it’s not merely “skeptics” as you suggest. It’s anyone with an interest in historical accuracy that can or will call for evidence regarding claimed truth absent certainty of information.

+++

It seems as if your question is really a question of reliability of information anywhere. While you apply it to a specific issue “Evidence for Jesus,” it’s a much more broadly based and fundamental question.

It applies universally wherever questions of accurate information are at issue.

We will look forward to the additions which GoodK makes.

JAK

[_GoodK]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

And what about this statement:

There were plenty attempts to debunk Christianity in the early years, but no one thought to argue Jesus never really existed. It seems this would have been an easy task back then, if it were true.

This certainly can't be correct, I will have to do some digging but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find a skeptic who calls for evidence indicating Jesus actually existed before the 19th century.

What is the relevance of skeptics calling for evidence of Jesus prior to the 19th century, Goodk?

Nehor's post.

[_dartagnan]

I don't believe this is a correct statement.

Well, it is.

Certainly some historians accept Jesus, but there are others who do not, precisely because there is no historical evidence.

This is not true. It is silly to say only "some" historians accept this. Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries. Only recently have atheists tried to argue the untenable by saying he never really existed. If you find historians who reject the historicity of Jesus, then they are the ones on the fringe, not vice versa.

And by reasserting a falsehood (i.e. "no historical evidence") it doesn't become more plausible.

Alexander the Great, and what we know about him, is more likely to have happened than what we are told about Jesus.

Well, historians who know their business, disagree.

This is why Alexander is universally accepted by historians as a real person, while Jesus is not.

Jesus is accepted as historical. The only reason atheists don't reject the historicity of Alexander is because it doesn't serve their agenda. It certainly isn't because consisitency is important to them. JAK was trying to use coinage as his new standard of evidence. How does he react to the fact that Zeus appears on coins? As he always does. He ignores the point and then throws up dozens of meaningless web links, none of which prove whatever point he thinks he is making.

How many standards need to be shot down before you guys give it up? JAK is all over the place now, trying to come up with new standards. So Alexander had sculptures? That's the new argument? So did the Greek Gods.


Of all the links to past discussions provided by JAK, he doesn't draw your attention to this one:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 3&start=21

[_huckelberry]

Making the assumption that this thread is aware that the gospels are from the same century as Jesus and several centuries bofore Constantine and the time when political power turned to support instead of suppression of Chiristianity there remains some interesting questions.

I cannot find any interest in the observation that the gospels present details like Jesus mom being virgin which are historically utterly unverifieable. It is clear that the presentation of Jesus is not exact and without error. It is a general picture colored by the beliefs of early Christians. This is the general working assumption of people studing Jesus as a historical figure.

But could he have been a fiction? Several people have referenced historical novels with fictional characters so Jesus could have been the same, correct?

It may not be possible to entirely disprove this theory. I think that observation must lie behind otherwise absurd comments about no evidence. No evidence could mean no evidence demonstrating Jesus existed beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is possible to doubt his existence. There are even some theoriss about how that could have happened. I think they are a bit deep in conspiricy theory type thought but then the beauty of a conspiracty theories are that they are very difficllt to absolutely disprove. (shooter on the grassy knoll)

The basic problem with the novel theory is accounting for the Christian believers before the novel. Why did they exist except as followers of Jesus. The earliest writing and preserved witness to Jesus is Pauls writing. It is clear from his writing that he is not originating Christianity but tried to stop it before believing. Further he ran into conflicts with earlier Christians who felt their views when not agreeing with Paul had priority.

We do have some stories of the life of Jesus. They do have a fictional dimension in the construction of events and fitting words into the course of action. They do not agree enought that it is clear words were being fit into a a chain of events with some degree of arbitrariness. One can see a fictional element. Yet any study of these gospels shows that the authors were using collections of sayings that the Christian community had saved. The witness to Jesus, the community, preceeded the story. that is serious evidence that the novel did not create Jesus.

It seems fair to ask anyone discarding all of the primary evidence of Jeus , Q ,where and why did this evidence come from if not from Jesus. This would be of some importance because Jesus words would be stong evidence that Jesus existed. (repeating my observation that evidence for Jesus though strong may not be absolute)

The consciously developed theory of no Jesus has, in the past century, been that he was an imaginary spiritual figure at first but people after Paul misunderstood and thought he was real. grassy knoll. Paul understood him as human and found no conflict with earlier believers on this point. (the outlines of the conflicts can be found in the New Testament)

[_Jason Bourne]

So 5 pages later, we can still safely say that there is no evidence indicating Jesus actually existed?

Oh I don't think you can really say that. If you are really interested in this topic I recommend the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.

http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Strobels-Case ... 156&sr=8-3

Strobel was an atheist turned Christian

Book Description

Based on the best-selling book by the same name, a seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history.

The Project: Determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God. The Reporter: Lee Strobel, educated at Yale Law School, award-winning former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune-with a background of atheism. The Experts: A dozen scholars, with doctorates from Cambridge, Princeton, Brandeis, and other top-flight institutions, who are recognized authorities on Jesus. The Story: Retracing his own spiritual journey, Strobel cross-examines the experts with tough, point-blank questions: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence exist for Jesus outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual historical event?

This remarkable documentary is like reading a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

[_Jersey Girl]

Back on the thread and wading my way through, JAK. I'll do the best I can to make this readable. I find myself, once again, thinking with you. And so it begins...

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).

I agree that the challenge or "search" for the historical Jesus does not carry with it the condition of charismatic features. I should think that it would require some evidence of the man who serves as the centerpiece for the stories whether or not the stories are entirely accurate. Consider the "stories" that evolved from the assasination of JFK. I don't intend to go off on a JFK tangent. I use him and the stories surrounding his death for comparison. Not a month or so ago, new evidence was released regarding the relationship between Oswald and Ruby. Prior to that, what we had were speculations about such a relationship.

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.

I'd like to see evidence that the Bible claims "exact quotations verbatim".

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.

I think that there are more than "at least two ways" to approach the question. You have presented methods that restrict the scope of the investigation. There is no claim that I can think of in the New Testament that the quotes are "verbatim". Again, I'd like to see your evidence for that.

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.

I agree that today, verbatim news coverage results in dispute however, that does in no way discount that the figures/persons being quoted existed. What it means is that the recorder of the quotes was in error. It does not rule out the existence of those who were quoted.

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

Of course there were recorders, JAK. There were scribes and other learned people who knew how to write and who did write their accounts. Luke comes immediately to mind. As richard demonstrated by the scholarship of Ramsey, the Acts of the Apostles, dates itself internally. Luke was a companion of Paul. He is with Paul in Rome for his final imprisonment. Luke was literate. Luke wrote. Paul was literate. He engaged in correspondence with his new congregations. Paul wrote.

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.

Here, you appear to contradict a statement you made earlier in this post regarding "charismatic". Previously you wrote: "The challenge of “historical Jesus,” does not mean some charismatic figure (and many charismatic figures may have appealed to the emotions of people)." And in the above you require evidence that "fits all the absolute biblical verbiage of the Bible." Have you changed your mind or am I misinterpreting what you have written?

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

I don't think that either you or I have established what "kind of evidence" would be acceptable.

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

I agree.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

That doesn't mean that what we do have overall, is inaccurate. We have pieces of the story of Jesus. I think that if the location in question (largely Jerusalem) were not ruined shortly following the death of Paul, Temple destruction 70 AD, we might have had more to work with and think about. As it stands, we do not.

Are you skeptical, for example, of the existence of Herod? I'd like to know if you are or not and on what you base your position regarding Herod. I may make a separate post for just those kinds of questions.

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.

I have to agree with the above as it stands.

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.

I want to save a response to the above for another and separate post.

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.

Even with the advent of the printing press and contemporary technological advances, we still do not enjoy 100% accuracy. The Gospels and Epistles are not the only ancient historical mentions of Jesus. Why limit the "evidence" in this discussion for the historical Jesus, to the Gospels and Epistles? There are more and other writings that make mention of Jesus. We can discuss those as the thread continues.

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

The question on the table is not evidence for the messiah. It is evidence for the historical Jesus.

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.

Again, the question is not evidence for the messiah. What do you mean when you use the word "tuned" for the Gospels?

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.

As I stated in a previous post. Luke wrote. Paul wrote.

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.

I don't see the "construction of books" as relevant to these exchanges. Do you disagree that scribes painstakingly made copies of the Jewish Bible, the Talmud? Were they not careful in their occupation given the subject matter?

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).

There was no free press in the production of material attributed to Aristotle or Plato. Do you question their existence? As I recall, we have discussed this before.

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.

And carefully so, though you'll get no argument from me that scribes wrote in error.

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.”

Who financed the transcription of the Talmud? Do you know? I plan to discuss the Talmud later in the thread so long as we remain engaged in this discussion.

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.

I would say that Nero was interested in challenge, yet I see no challenge from Nero regarding the historicity of Jesus.

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.

I have to disagree that thousands of years ago there were not people "really interested in the detailed writing of something, anything", JAK. I make no claim to scholarship here but, there did exist Jewish scribes who maintained the transmission of the Talmud. There did exist other writers who wrote of Jesus in fairly close proximity of the events described in the New Testament.

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.

I so strongly disagree with the above. As I have stated on boards in the past, if Jesus of the Bible suddenly emerged, he would likely take his place alongside other indigent persons on the street and go without notice. Unless, of course, the stories are true in which case his majesty would be undeniable. Even so, reporters "get it wrong" or in some cases, "report it wrong" for the purpose of intentional distortion. That, of course, depends on what is being sold and to whom it is marketed. (That final remark was intentional on my part).

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.

I quite agree.

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

JAK

I am not waving a magic wand. I am considering evidence with you and wishing for a threaded view.

Note: By my count, I have one more post of yours to reply to. I'll try to get that done this evening.

Editing: I see three posts of yours to reply to. I doubt I will get to them all this evening.