[Overbear]

Originally Posted by ray77

i respect what i think ur trying to say. but he was a real person. the mthys added on to him can be falsh but i can not provde but ther is proof that he exiisted

If you can not provide proof, as you will note no one has been able to. Then I would say all the "OH jesus existed" comments are baseless. After all we all know the myths of paul bunyon and his ox babe, but does that mean he must have existed too?

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by Overbear

...Then I would say all the "OH jesus existed" comments are baseless. ...

true there is no "proof", but "baseless"? hardly. There is much evidences as has been mentioned in many other threads on this topic. I understand that you may not believe in a historical Jesus, but to say that any claim of His is "baseless", is, in my opinion, just not based in reality.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

true there is no "proof", but "baseless"? hardly. There is much evidences as has been mentioned in many other threads on this topic. I understand that you may not believe in a historical Jesus, but to say that any claim of His is "baseless", is, in my opinion, just not based in reality.

Like I pointed out RP, the myth of Paul Bunyon is a strong ideal but we know no 20'+ tall man with a blue ox existed.

[PB&S]

Ok so you guys will stop argueing this is all I could dig up of Non-Christian sources from around the time of Jesus:

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[33] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[34] though a few have raised doubts.[35]

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus". The name "Jesus" is not used.

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

These two are from Wikipedia, but I double checked the people mentioned to make sure they were valid. They are touted by Christians as 'official' none christian confirmation of the exsistance of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by PB&S

Ok so you guys will stop argueing this is all I could dig up of Non-Christian sources from around the time of Jesus:

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[33] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[34] though a few have raised doubts.[35]

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus". The name "Jesus" is not used.

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

These two are from Wikipedia, but I double checked the people mentioned to make sure they were valid. They are touted by Christians as 'official' none christian confirmation of the exsistance of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

all well and good, any soruces for said information that I can use to verify. Historical anthropology would be helpful. Do note neather example you quoted is of a anthroplogical stance.

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

all well and good, any soruces for said information that I can use to verify. Historical anthropology would be helpful. Do note neather example you quoted is of a anthroplogical stance.

From the same link:

Greco-Roman sources

See also: Yeshu and Yuz Asaf

Of the non-Christian writings from that time that have been preserved, very few mention Jesus or Christianity, and for that matter few of their authors showed much interest in Judea or the Near East in general. Nonetheless, there are passages relevant to Jesus in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger – as well as others. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Pliny condemned Christians as easily-led fools.

All you really need to do is sail on over there and clickitty click around for answers.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Mastermind26

From the same link:

After doing some clicking, it apears most of the "non-christian" evidence is writeings done 100-500 years AFTER "jesus" was around. This is as I thought, there is no real evidence that points to a existance, rather it is alot of anselary(sp) information that comes to us in the way of support not actual accounts.

So I would say, we still lack any real, hard, anthrological evidence of his existance, and at best, its a educated guess.

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

After doing some clicking, it apears most of the "non-christian" evidence is writeings done 100-500 years AFTER "jesus" was around. This is as I thought, there is no real evidence that points to a existance, rather it is alot of anselary(sp) information that comes to us in the way of support not actual accounts.

So I would say, we still lack any real, hard, anthrological evidence of his existance, and at best, its a educated guess.

Really?

The solution most commonly held in academia today, the two-source hypothesis, has Mark being written in the 60's or slightly after the year 70, with Luke and Matthew following 10-20 years later.[8] Other solutions, such as the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis, would give Matthew priority and a possible date of 40. John is most often dated to 90-100,[9] though a date as early as the 60s, and as late as the second century have been argued by a few.[10]

This part from the article even places Josephus during the time of "Christus" and his brother James:

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[33] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[34] though a few have raised doubts.[35]

He wrote it in 93, but the account is the time of Jesus' brother's life.

Maybe some more clicking is in order.

[mini_moi]

did he exist? yes
was he the son of god? ... prove it

[blueshifty]

After a couple hundred years it is near impossible to prove anyone existed. Take Napoleon for example, all we have is evidence of his existence, but without the body and a bloodline and dna samples there is no way to definitively prove anything. If there is little evidence of 1 man who lived 200 years ago, isn't it a bit un-realistic to think that we would have definitive evidence for someone who lived 2000 years ago?

Uhh... sorry bad example as we know where his body is, but what about Genghis Khan or someone else.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by blueshifty

Uhh... sorry bad example as we know where his body is, but what about Genghis Khan or someone else.

lets take Gengis Khan as an example. We know because of documents from sources outside the countrys/areas he invaded of his existance. We have historical evidence in the form of items and weapons of his time period that colaberate the writen evidence, and lastly we have a family liniage that can be traced backwards. While no, we do not have DNA proof, we have far more than one books "say so" on him existing.

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

While no, we do not have DNA proof, we have far more than one books "say so" on him existing.

Did you skip over the entire article posted where you even quoted from? The "one book" reference can no longer be applied to Jesus' existence on earth.

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Mastermind26

Did you skip over the entire article posted where you even quoted from? The "one book" reference can no longer be applied to Jesus' existence on earth.

There is a key word in the links you posted that are not used with Gengis, alow me to quote it...

hypothesis

They use that word, because none of the 'records' can be substatiated with other sources. One of the big must do's in anthroplogy and historical research, is to have documentation that verifys aganst other documents and/or aganst physical findings (bones, tools, camps, walls ect...). Now, if say the grave of mary were to be found, THAT would be enough evidence to show he existed, however at this time all we can do is hypothesis and extrapulate from what little we can see. There is a huge road betwene a hypothesis and proof/fact.

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

There is a key word in the links you posted that are not used with Gengis, alow me to quote it...




They use that word, because none of the 'records' can be substatiated with other sources. One of the big must do's in anthroplogy and historical research, is to have documentation that verifys aganst other documents and/or aganst physical findings (bones, tools, camps, walls ect...). Now, if say the grave of mary were to be found, THAT would be enough evidence to show he existed, however at this time all we can do is hypothesis and extrapulate from what little we can see. There is a huge road betwene a hypothesis and proof/fact.

I musta missed that. Where do you find that word used for Jesus' existence on earth (post the portion of the article with it please)?

Because I can only find where it says SCHOLARS AGREE on such and such. Especially this line:

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[3]

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Mastermind26

I musta missed that. Where do you find that word used for Jesus' existence on earth (post the portion of the article with it please)?

Because I can only find where it says SCHOLARS AGREE on such and such. Especially this line:

alow me to point out the biased part here, you will note I have asked for a non-secular(am I using that word right?) unbiased point of view here.

scholars in the fields of biblical studies

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

alow me to point out the biased part here, you will note I have asked for a non-secular(am I using that word right?) unbiased point of view here.

Allow me to again post the part you left out (conveniently):

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Mastermind26

Allow me to again post the part you left out (conveniently):

the bias is still implyed, the word "AND" means they are not strict students of history, but use/study the bible to explain such. Sorry man, anthopology and historical resarch just doesn't work like that.

[Mastermind26]

Originally Posted by Overbear

the bias is still implyed, the word "AND" means they are not strict students of history, but use/study the bible to explain such. Sorry man, anthopology and historical resarch just doesn't work like that.

Actually you are reading too much into 1 word. "And" is used to join 2 groups, thoughts, subjects, etc.. In this case the "and" joins scholars of biblical studies AND scholars of history.

[karnavor]

Who cares it's not like you can bring him back from the dead.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by karnavor

Who cares it's not like you can bring him back from the dead.

assuming He is dead, adn assuming He did/does exist.

[PB&S]

Well after all the argueing no one can provide substantial proof on Jesus's exsistance.

It took Columbus sailing around the world to prove it was round. Think of something of that magnitude in order to provide the proof of Jesus, and go get to work on it.

Of course you christians already can, can't you? That is thru faith and the Bible. In order to believe your proof though one would have to buy into the faith and believe in the Bible. That would then make them a christian though so their view would be biased, and they could no longer be counted as an objective observer and prove your stance...

How ever will this be solved?!?