There is no proof that Jesus existed

[Devils Advocate]

too many political threads, not enough religious threads.

There is zero archeological evidence that Jesus existed.

Zero contemporary historians mention him. The ‘contemporary’ historians that do mention him came some years later. Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus & other’s that mention him (which is barely a mention) are considered fraudulent; that is to say, that it is accepted by today’s historians that where Jesus is mentioned in these writings, it was added some time later, sometimes centuries later, by someone else (not the original writer).

Jesus wasn’t even his name as Jesus is Roman(Latin?) for Joseph.

So yeah, countless Joseph’s probably lived throughout the ages, including the time of ‘Jesus’, but none as magical as the storied savior.

[*Nately120*]

Fake Jews. Sad.

[SunsetBengal]

Well, there is the shroud of Turin, which many hold to be the strongest Archeological evidence of his life.

[*bfine32*]

Most likely why they call it faith

[SunsetBengal]

I would think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be considered contemporary historians of the era. There were 12 deciples, but only 4 of them were blessed with the chronicling and retelling of the accounts of Jesus' life.

[fredtoast]

I am familiar with this issue, but I am no expert.  Scholars disagree over how many of the references from Josephus and Pliny were sourced from existing Christian writings (both were born after Jesus died so neither was an actual eye witness), but there is one major reason that I believe that Jesus was real even if he was not holy or magical.  I don't see how the myth could have arose the way it did if there was no actual man.  It would have to have been created by someone and if the entire story came from one source then that one source would play a much bigger role in the mythology.  Instead Christianity is based on multiple accounts from different sources.  I can see how myths evolve in prehistoric times with nothing but an oral history. But these accounts of the life of Jesus arose in a very short time period after his death in a time of recorded history and include people who we do have a historical record of actually existing.

[Benton]

There’s no proof the bengals are going to win a game this season but thousands will buy tickets with that belief.

It’s called faith.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2018, 06:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, there is the shroud of Turin, which many hold to be the strongest Archeological evidence of his life.

Many, but not all or even most. There are a lot of questions surrounding the actual age of the shroud.

(07-11-2018, 07:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I would think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be considered contemporary historians of the era. There were 12 deciples, but only 4 of them were blessed with the chronicling and retelling of the accounts of Jesus' life.

All were written after the life of Jesus and are not likely works of any disciples of Jesus.

(07-11-2018, 06:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely why they call it faith

Yup. Even though I say what I just said above, there is still that thing called faith.

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2018, 07:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I would think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could be considered contemporary historians of the era.  There were 12 deciples, but only 4 of them were blessed with the chronicling and retelling of the accounts of Jesus' life.

Mark and Luke were not disciples, they're later figures originally considered authors of their respective gospels, but that is strongly contended. Matthew and John are almost certainly not written by the disciples Matthew and John based on analysis of their historiography.

Though I would argue that the fact that people were writing about this man in the years following his death, albeit even within a religious context, is enough to suggest Jesus existed. 

[fredtoast]

So DA, who started the myth and how did he make it so popular so fast?

[*Nately120*]

(07-11-2018, 07:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So DA, who started the myth and how did he make it so popular so fast?

Multiple middle eastern guys who started with had the right idea of amalgamating ideas and people who preached peace and civility but then went a little overboard when they added magical stuff and martyrdom to get people's attention and then bootstrapped it all to and older book that talks about sin, destroying/killing/raping people, and eternal damnation etc.

That's just my take, though.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2018, 07:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Many, but not all or even most. There are a lot of questions surrounding the actual age of the shroud.


All were written after the life of Jesus and are not likely works of any disciples of Jesus.


Yup. Even though I say what I just said above, there is still that thing called faith.

I believe the shroud has been pretty much proven to be a fake.

[*michaelsean*]

Jesus is a big deal now because of what followed His death. He wasn't necessarily a big deal during His life outside of the area He preached.

[*bfine32*]

The closest "proof" I can provide is how the beginning of Genesis so closely mirrors what science consider evolution. And how the Bible referred to the earth being round 1000s of years before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2018, 12:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The closest "proof" I can provide is how the beginning of Genesis so closely mirrors what science consider evolution. And how the Bible referred to the earth being round 1000s of years before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Yes...creating everything out of thin air and using a man's rib to make women is just like evolution.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2018, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Jesus is a big deal now because of what followed His death. He wasn't necessarily a big deal during His life outside of the area He preached.

Honestly, Jesus is a big deal because of Paul. Were it not for him, there would be no Christianity, only a branch of Jewish reformers.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2018, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, Jesus is a big deal because of Paul. Were it not for him, there would be no Christianity, only a branch of Jewish reformers.

Doesn't matter...no one is getting into heaven except the Jehovah Witnesses.

[Benton]

(07-12-2018, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes...creating everything out of thin air and using a man's rib to make women is just like evolution.  

The early books are mostly allegorical, and are borrowed from another religion to help followers make sense if the NT. If people 2,000 years later jump into a story about a guy being the living embodiment of God and that he was expected in the other religion, it wouldn't make a ton of sense. The OT also helps set up his intent of showing his people that they — in the long run — do damage to themselves mostly because they stop listening to what he's told them.

Speaking directly to people: "Do all this stuff." [Jews do it for a while, stop doing it and have calamity]
Speaking to Moses: "Here, I dumbed it down. Take these 10 laws, do them." [Jews do them for a while, stop doing it and have calamity]
Speaking as Jesus: "Ok, look, I came here to give it one last try. Forget the long lists. Forget the Big 10. Just love each other. Can you try that?" [The answer was, no. No, we can't.]

[Millhouse]

(07-11-2018, 06:28 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: too many political threads, not enough religious threads.

There is zero archeological evidence that Jesus existed.

Zero contemporary historians mention him. The ‘contemporary’ historians that do mention him came some years later. Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus & other’s that mention him (which is barely a mention) are considered fraudulent; that is to say, that it is accepted by today’s historians that where Jesus is mentioned in these writings, it was added some time later, sometimes centuries later, by someone else (not the original writer).

Jesus wasn’t even his name as Jesus is Roman(Latin?) for Joseph.

So yeah, countless Joseph’s probably lived throughout the ages, including the time of ‘Jesus’, but none as magical as the storied savior.

There have been some scholars over time question the validity of what Tacitus wrote, but overall most don't consider it fraudulent.

[*Nately120*]

(07-12-2018, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I believe the shroud has been pretty much proven to be a fake.

I may be thinking of something else, but I believe it is one of those things that is believed to be falsified because it portrays Jesus more as "what we've come to expect" and less of "what he probably actually looked like."  Basically, Jesus looks like a northern Italian guy from the late 1400's or so since Michelangelo's depictions of him have become the standard when it comes to what we look for as we seek evidence of Jesus.

Not unlike the  manner in which people see ghosts and aliens and what not that coincidentally look like how we expect ghosts and aliens to look due to their depictions on tv, etc.