GenesisNemesis

As the evangelical would say, it's not about evidence, it's about faith...?

RAFH

I think the biggest issue is how to hang all of xianity on one oblique mention by a historian who never met Yeshua and never met any of his followers. One minor oblique reference in a document published 60 years after Yeshua supposedly died and even that reference is questioned. There isn't even an original of Josephus' work to work with, the closest thing is a copy of a copy made more than two centuries. The strongest evidence for that reference was made by Origen 120 years after Josephus and that is only through a copy of Origen's work made another 100 years after he supposedly made it. Yep, hard, solid, unquestionable corroboration.

Any other claim for a historical figure supported by that kind of evidence would have very little acceptance.

Tiberius

Ad hoc, as defined by Wikipedia:

Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which ... generally signifies a solution that has been designed for a specific problem, is non-generalizable and can not be adapted to other purposes.

But my comments in post #4 are not ad hoc. They are not limited to Jesus only. I am merely stating that if there is no evidence of a person from the time that this person lived, but only from many years after this person's death, then how do we know that the information about this person wasn't just made up?

The same thing would apply to Abraham Lincoln, or Cleopatra or James Cook.

Gawen

In the Abrahamic Scripture: Criticism & History forum, you will find a myriad of threads on this subject. I have no idea how many posters there believe a Mythical Jesus (MJ) or how many believe an Historical Jesus (HJ) to have existed. Nor do I know what capacity Jesus may have played in those times of those who believe in an HJ.

But what is relevant to THIS forum, if Jesus did exist, was he God in the flesh? What are the arguments for and against? What does the evidence say?

Newton's Cat

To me the clearest evidence that Jesus Christ was simply a character invented by whoever started the cult that became Christianity is the fact that his name, IESOUS CHRISTOS, anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS (Chous means "grave").

Gooch's dad

That's quite the straw man you're knocking down.

I didn't say the historicity of Jesus hung on one quote from Josephus. I said that this quote corroborates what Paul also said about Jesus. They both talk about Jesus having a brother named James.

There is quite a bit more, and I think the gospels themselves have historical value, although there is quite a bit of mythology and hagiography mixed in, too.

Of course I don't believe that this Jesus was a god-man. I do think that the man, Jesus, very likely existed.

Jesus-Mythers are very much like creationists, in that they're perfectly willing to ignore what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship on the topic is saying. The idea of a mythical Jesus was considered in historical inquiry, nearly 100 years ago, and the idea was discarded.

jsygirl

Exactly my point.

Good to see there's someone out there reading the same kinds of books as me.

ELECTROGOD

Yeah, just like Zeus...and all the other religions out there.

aa5874

I would like to know if the Hindu Gods are real because of the Hindu religion?

A belief in any God does not require the God to be real, all Gods are mythical, Jesus included. Historically, Gods are refered to as supernatural beings, these Gods have never been real, Jesus Christ is refered to as a supernatural being, doing supernatural acts, his humanity was fabricated, because no human can do supernatural acts.

The virgin birth, the temptation by the devil, the casting out of devils for being blind, dumb and deaf, the feeding of thousands with a few loaves of bread, walking on water, turning water into wine, the transfiguration on the mount, replacing a man's ear after being severed, the ressurection and the ascension are all supernatural acts, Jesus Christ was never seen alive doing any of those acts. There was no crowd that was fed, Jesus Christ was never seen raising the dead, Jesus Christ is fiction.

No historian, king, queen, soldier, writer, philosopher, pedestrian, doctor, nurse, fisherman that lived when Jesus Christ was supposed to be alive, left a word about Him. It is incredible that some believe he lived, perhaps they still would like to go to Heaven, or avoid going to Hell.

RAFH

100 years ago, lots of ideas were considered and discarded, many because they didn't agree with the status quo, regnum dei. Show me the proofs. Reference the studies. 100 years ago they believed continents didn't drift, they were just beginning to belief flight was possible, they knew nothing of penicillin, there was a lot that was not known and even more that couldn't be explored. But bring it forward. Put your evidence where your claims are.

As best I can tell, there is not a single item that Jesus made, wrotr, used, wore, lived in, spit on, whatever, not a single contemporary account, not a single account by someone who personally knew Jesus, not even any items they made, wrote, used, wore, lived in, spit on of whatever. No coins, no records, no records of records. No records of any of the supposed events that occurred. Nothing. Nothing but a sideways reference (that reads much better and more believably as the "son of Damneus" and so eliminate the problem with Josephus using the term Christ, which would be very unlikely for a Jew). A sideways reference about a minor event recounted in a history written 50 years later, a history for which no original exists, and the reference is only authorized by another reference in a document made 120 years later by a very devoted xian and which there are no original copies of, only copies made 200 years later of copies made in between. That is the totality.

The Gospels are nothing, they don't even agree on significant issues or with recorded history, they are not eyewitness accounts, but copies of copies of oral traditions. The copies made by xians and the oral traditions by xians. So, nothing.

But, as I said, bring it on. I love history and I love any good history. But real history, with provenance, not hearsay, not myth. I like mythology as well, but as mythology. Its amusing as well as instructive about its culture. But myths are not history.

As for there being a man living in the Middle East at the beginning of the common era who was named Jesus, sure, there probably was, it was a fairly common name in that area at that time. But I don't believe there was one that was the Jesus in the bible, whether devine, god-man, or not.