RGD

This is, of course, is fundamentally wrong. The essential sciences and important architectural, historical, etc. works were NOT preserved by Christian monks - they were preserved and fundamentally amplified by the Muslims. The important renaissance in Western culture occured when these works were re-introduced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Once again - false. See above.

LOL. Have you read Beowulf? Have you noted the Christian elements? What survived survived purely by chance - the most pagan poetry survived only in Iceland, which adopted Christianity so late that a culture of historical interest preserved some of them.

And your knowledge of the history of this period is woefully incomplete and distorted.

RGD

An opinion is an opinion. As the responses to the OP make clear, there is no objective contemporary evidence to support this opinion.

OldYgg

They can be evaluated for reliability - in context. Given that they are the only source on specific information regarding Jesus - it is not enough evidence to say he existed, that specific events happened to him or that he was a particularly nice guy - if he existed.

By your level of evidence - every religious text is true. Clearly you don't accept that - as you are not a member of the multitude of religious movements that have occurred in the past, you are a member of one of three religions that are players in the present.

Given your need for level of evidence, there is no reason why you should not be a Mormon and believe in the Angel Moroni or that the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Jews.

So, you need to confront something. You believe Jesus Existed and that the events in the bible really happened with some provision that there may have been human error in the reporting of individual facts. The New Testament is not different than Scientology with a single text detailing historical fact, Mormons with a single text detailing historical fact or the Bhagava Ghita, or the Quran. What you need to confront is 'Why don't you believe in any of these other religions, instead of Christianity, since they all have the same level of evidence as there is for Christianity?'

The answer, more than likely is Cultural Georgraphy. That you were born and raised a Christian in a Christian society and that chances are given these circumstances, you will be a Christian.

Certainly, many members of the atheist community come from Christianity, and some small percentage of Christians convert to other religions. But in the main, the seeds are not falling far from the tree.

In the end, if something incredible happens or something happens that changes the lives of a significant number of people - it gets recorded by a lot of people - at that time - with thier views on the subject.

It would be different and we might accept a single source for the history of just about anything, if there were no other records surviving from that time. But this isn't true as I stated earlier in this thread. The death of an emporer shook the world - and there are lots of records about his death and the effect it had on his society. Given that the death of the son of god should be more important than the death of a terrestrial emprorer - there should be more, not less documentation about the death of Jesus.

Old Ygg

OldYgg

BTW - nice shift of topic. Regardless of anyone accepting the New Testament as enough evidence of Jesus existence - the topic is Extrabiblical Evidence for Jesus. As the New Testament is a part of the bible, we are excluding this from the topic.

We could probably have another entire thread discussing the veracity of the New Testament as a historical document.

Old Ygg

Gullwind

You're shifting the goalposts.

First of all, your original assertion was:

You specified no time period or number of people that had to be involved to qualify. I pointed out that the War of the Worlds radio broadcast of Halloween, 1938 was a fictional account that was misinterpreted by some as a real event, contrary to your original claim.

Also, have you ever heard a recording of that broadcast? I have. It was not a hoax. It was a radio play, with a disclaimer at the beginning that what was about to be aired was a fictional account. The people who panicked were the ones who tuned in after that point. It was not and was never intended to be a hoax. As I recall, Orson Welles expressed great remorse over the misunderstanding.

OldYgg

Jesus was alive for a good number of years before the events recorded in the New Testament.

What exactly was he doing during this time, studying with a mystic?

No really, is there anything out there about what happened before he became popular or was he just like a boy band where what happened in his earlier life is of no consequence except for a few devoted fans?

The interesting thing about this time period of his life - is that everything that would be detailed would necessarily come from non-biblical sources.

Old Ygg

Geetarmoore

He taught at the temple when he was 12? :huh:

Julian

For those readers who are waiting to see some contemporary extra-biblical evidence for Jesus, I suggest that you spend your time in a more fruitful pursuit. No evidence will be forth-coming...



Julian

Atheos

Although I respect your opinion of the word "hoax" versus "religious text" I disagree with it. At some point someone had to make up the story of Zeus and claim he was real. Others accepted it and a whole series of "religious texts" resulted. Religious texts are symptoms and carriers of hoaxes. At the core they are no different than chain letters and those insane emails about urban legends I keep getting.

The best evidence indicates that the Jesus myth was a hoax started by a few people (probably mainly by Paul/Saul), possibly involving a kernel of truth (i.e., a historical Yeshua who was an itenerant preacher/prophet and died in obscurity) that borrowed from the tales and practices of other pagan hero gods (Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Hercules, etc). This is a reasonable and rational conclusion to make based on the fact that we know people concocted such stories regularly in ancient times, as well as the dearth of evidence cooberating the Jesus story. Additionally, much of what we can verify turns out to be false (i.e., Herod never had the babies killed, there was no census by Quirinius with the ridiculous requirement that people had to travel to the cities inhabited by their ancestors to be counted, and not one independent scrap of information anywhere cooberates the spectacular "night of the living dead" crap that Matthew dreamed up, which would most certainly have been noticed by someone.)

In short, the OP proposition stands. There is no evidence to support the proposition that Jesus ever existed. He could have, but there is no evidence for it. The standards by which one must accept that Jesus was real and was who he claimed to be are exactly the same as the standards by which one must accept that the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, led him to some golden tablets, assisted him in translating them out of reformed Egyptian into KJV english and whisked the tablets off to heaven never to be seen again. Exactly the same. We eagerly await any evidence that indicates otherwise.

-Atheos

ddc0708

It would seem that our friend Gamera here is a muslim, hindu, mormon-christian, buddhist, and regular christian all at the same time. He identifies that basically since a document is a religious text, that it must be therefore true!

Gamera, I have to know man, which side were you rooting for in Kingdom of Heaven ??? And please spare me the "Orlando Bloom side" recital ... rofl.