Jesus and I

I'm confident that in the supermarket, the message of sacrifice and redemption will be lost on them as they will be too busy focusing on things that actually exist like cans of baked beans and bottles or washing up liquid, as opposed to Jesus, for whom there is no evidence he even existed as a real person. Any suggestion of his performing 'miracles' or being the offsrping of a deity, of course, barely needs to be commented on given the absurdity of such claims. I find it baffling that post-Enlightenment people in the 21st Century can be so blind to their own subjectivity and so uninformed when it comes to historical evidence. If only Constantine had been defeated at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Europe and beyond would never have been polluted by the Abrahamic traditions.

http://bit.ly/9Wevx5

http://bit.ly/doC93x

I have always assumed that Jesus did exist as evidenced by the Gospels as well as the Roman and Jewish writngs of the time. Its a very long time ago and I am sure that records can be incomplete, but saying Jesus did not exist is like saying Socrates did not exist because Plato was not objective or Mohammed was a figment of the imagination because he is only mentioned in contemporary sources a few years after his death.

I find the comment " . I find it baffling that post-Enlightenment people in the 21st Century can be so blind to their own subjectivity and so uninformed when it comes to historical evidence" a tadge arrogant. This subject is hotly contested and I am willing to exercise an open mind.

Whatever people might think of the historical resonances of the belief system I would think it is uncontestable that the Christian tradition in the form of some of the cultural and artistic figures that I have mentioned as left the world a better place.

I thought this was interesting today.
Daily Mail - (quote)

- Not a carpenter: Jesus 'was the son of a middle-class architect', new book claims -

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263029/New-book-claims-Jesus-so...

"saying Jesus did not exist is like saying Socrates did not exist because Plato was not objective"
No it isn't. I am simply saying that there is

"saying Jesus did not exist is like saying Socrates did not exist because Plato was not objectivE".

What a load of nonsense. I am simply saying that there is NO EVIDENCE of Jesus' existence. This is a FACT.

"as evidenced by the Gospels as well as the Roman and Jewish writngs of the time"

I think you are in dire need to re-evaluating what counts as historical evidence. So if someone writes something down as having happened, this makes it 'evidence'. If I write down on a piece of paper that I was abducted by aliens, it is reasonable to regard that as 'evidence. Roman and Jewish writings of the time provide NO EVIDENCE of this man's existence. Again, FACT.

"I would think it is uncontestable that the Christian tradition in the form of some of the cultural and artistic figures that I have mentioned as left the world a better place."

Yes, tell that to the millions of people persecuted, tortured and murdered across the centuries in the name of Christianity. Tell that to the billions throughout the ages who have been forced into regarding sex and sexuality, a natural part of our species, as something filthy and shameful. And tell that to the millions in Africa who have had their lives ripped apart by Catholic dogma on AIDS and HIV.

The net effect of this ideology has been, and continues to be, simply horrific.

http://bit.ly/do8Zbz

This just some of the evidence copied from various websites

" The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger."

The point about the crimes commited by Christains is an obvious one, but atrocities have been carried out by people of belief and no belief. The common denominator is that they are people and as someone once wrote " nothing straight was ever made from the crooked timbers of humanity"

I said it in my last post and I will say it again.

I think you are in dire need of re-evaluating what counts as historical evidence!

Bill, let's go back to 8 year-old history. Do you understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source?

I really do feel we have to start at this level.

I would strongly recommend watching this very short video: http://bit.ly/doC93x

"Bill, let's go back to 8 year-old history. Do you understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source?

I really do feel we have to start at this level"

I think we can add patronising as well as arrogance to the charge sheet.

"Roman and Jewish writings of the time provide NO EVIDENCE of this man's existence. Again, FACT."

Was the allegation and I offered a comment that suggested otherwise.

I am no theologian but I would have thought that the Gospels offer some evidence the earliest being written about 40 years after Jesus.

from what I understand the majority of classicists and theologians accept that Jesus was ahistorical figure

Erm, that's probably because the majority of classicists and theologians are and have been Christians.

You may as well have said, 'From what I understand, the majority of relgious people of the European tradition accept that Jesus was a historical figure.'

Text book circular logic.

40 years is a pretty long time to wait before someone bothers to mention a guy wandering around performing mind blowing miraculous feats of wonder! Especially when the characteristics associated with that guy are common attributes of 'hero figures' not just in that century but in centuries prior to it.

Most thinking people would totally disagree that Theology is even a proper subject at all.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/88

As the phenomenal Carl Sagan once said on this matter, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

In " Annie Hall" when someone is pontificating on the subject of the media Woodie Allan produces the academic Marshall McChulan to refute the views of the loud mouth.

A friend of mine is a retired academic in the field of theology and recently wrote a piece for and against the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus for his 12 year old grand daughter. I realise that this is 4 years older than the evidence of proof than or anoymous friend demanded.

Here its and it seems fair and balanced enough to me.

Evidence for Jesus's existence as a real person:

The evidence that somebody called Jesus (Greek version of his name) of Nazareth or Yeshua (Joshua) ben (son of) Joseph (Hebrew / Aramaic version) a young wandering teacher (rabbi) and healer who had a popular following in Galilee and who was crucified by the Romans for allegedly claiming to be 'King of the Jews', is much better than for most prominent ancient personalities. The only problem is that except for the evidence of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century AD (see (ii) and (iv) below), all of the documentary evidence for Jesus's existence is written by Christians and this is one of the factors that has led some people to doubt whether the sources can be trusted. So far as we know, Jesus himself didn't write anything.

(i) The earliest writings in the New Testament section of the Bible are the letters (traditionally called 'epistles') of Paul the apostle (apostle means someone who is 'sent' for a special purpose). Jesus was crucified around 33AD and Paul's letters were probably written between 48 and 60AD. Paul (he changed his Jewish name Saul to the Roman (Latin) name Paul(us) after he became a Christian) had never known Jesus in person. He had been a Jewish teacher who had persecuted the earliest Christians but whilst doing so had a vision in which he believed that he encountered Jesus (see his letter to the Galatians 1 verse 12 - and another New Testament book, the Acts of the Apostles chapter 9 verses 1-31, 22 verses 6-11 and 26 verses 4-23). As a result, he became a Christian and later a great teacher and leader. In his letter to the Christians in Rome (Romans chapter 1 verses 3-4) he refers to the human Jesus as 'descended from David', the great Jewish king. It was believed by the early Jewish Christians that Jesus's father's family descended from David (see Matthew's Gospel chapter 1). In his letter to the Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 3-11) he refers to Jesus's death and subsequent appearances to the apostles and others.

(ii) However, the major sources of evidence that Jesus existed are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the 'New Testament'. It is the first three of these which are particularly important. They're called the 'synoptic' ('seen together') gospels because they are connected - Matthew and Luke are really later expanded editions of Mark's gospel with each writer's own extra material added; but they all give a credible account of life in Palestine in the early first century AD, its major religious and political groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots, Jewish resentment of Roman rule and taxation, historical figures such as Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor) and Caiaphas (the Jewish High Priest) and institutions such as the synagogues and Temple in Jerusalem. This corresponds closely with the account of Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities and some of the writings of the Jewish rabbis preserved in the Mishnah and Talmud. It is known that there were many independent wandering teachers (rabbis), healers and exorcists who gathered disciples at this time - Jesus and John the Baptist were but two of many. Geza Vermes in his book The Changing Faces of Jesus (Penguin Books, 2000) pages 230-246) gives examples of healers and teachers (e.g. from Josephus's Antiquities, the Essenes, a monastic community living near the Dead Sea who wrote the 'Dead Sea Scrolls', practised healing techniques; Eleazer who 'cast out' or 'exorcised' demons, and from rabbinical sources Honi and Hanina ben Dosa) - and the portrait of Jesus fits the scene and the times. There is no reason to think that the basic picture the synoptic gospels give of Jesus is anything but authentic.

(iii) However, the gospels were all written long after Jesus's death. Mark's Gospel was written around forty years later (i.e. around 70 AD). The author was not an eye witness of Jesus's life and teaching but gathered stories about him and his teaching remembered by early Christians and wrote them down. In tradition the author was John Mark who was the young secretary of the apostle Peter and wrote down Peter's memories but this is unlikely. Mark's Gospel includes nothing on Jesus's birth or childhood or his resurrection appearances. Matthew's gospel (dated around 80-90AD) was compiled for Jewish Christians and includes stories about Jesus's birth and resurrection appearances; Luke's Gospel (80-90AD) also does so but the stories are different. John's Gospel is probably the latest (around 100AD) and gives a very different (and much less authentic) portrayal of Jesus as a mystical teacher reflecting later beliefs about him. Many more 'gospels' than these were written, most in the second century AD, but only one - The Gospel of Thomas - is thought to have some reliable content.

(iv) It is the writings of Flavius Josephus, especially the Jewish Antiquities which give the only reliable independent evidence of Jesus's existence. Christians were responsible for preserving and translating Josephus's work and almost certainly inserted some passages supporting their Christian belief in Jesus into his writings (an unlikely thing for a Jew to do!). For the text of the 'Testimonium Flavinium' (Testimony of Flavius) as it is called, enter Josephus and Jesus in your browser and open the website entitled 'Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus'. This gives you translations of the text from Greek and Arabic manuscripts and puts in brackets the bits that may have been inserted into the Greek version.

Although this is an evangelical Christian website, it concludes by saying:

'Even if both versions have been tampered with, the core of them both mentions Jesus as a historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.

That was probably the gist of what that Josephus originally wrote and really wanted to say.

Evidence against Jesus's existence as a real person

Very little - the evidence for his existence is overwhelming. But something can be made of the lateness of the written sources of evidence, the fact that all of the major sources are Christian and therefore biassed and that the Christians have even tampered with Josephus's text. But why would the Christians want to go to the trouble of inventing Jesus if he hadn't really existed? Most people today accept that Jesus existed as a historical person but many question his resurrection and the church's belief in him as the second person of the Trinity - ie his divinity. Another good book on Jesus that your teacher might like to read in addition to the one by Geza Vermes (a Jew who was a Christian) I mention above is E. P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Books 1993).

Oh my dear god. Please pass on my deep sympathy to your mate's granddaughter being forced to read all that.

I think there is little point continuing with this discussion.

Please give me an assurance that you will never pursue a serious academic subject through an educational institution, which requires a basic grasp of evidence and logic. There would be great embarassment for all involved.

However, on the upside, I imagine you would excel at theology, given that theology is basically a synonym for 'gibberish'. I suspect your retired friend was a master theologian.

The highlight for me in your response was:

"Evidence against Jesus's existence as a real person

Very little"

You are clearly, clearly in dire need of being acquainted with a certain teapot.

Allow me to do the honours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Go easy on Bill dear guest. I've known him a long time and he is, at the the very least... educated. ( Tony Johnson, Bill ). However dear guest I find myself firmly within your camp. I must confess that to discover that such an erudite, cultured and enlightened man ( whom I have always admired ) is now defending a point of view akin to voodoo or sun-worship is almost distressing. Speaking as an atheist - hate the term, afterall there is no word for folk who don't believe in pixies or goblins - I see all religions as a refuge for those crushed by an inescapable fact: we die.

I am quite able to defend my self, Tony but thanks all the same. The point of the argument was whether Jesus existed as a historical person. I was NOT arguing on the divinity question.

I don't need to be patronised by "Guest" and I see guest quits the field. He has the temerity to suggests that I stay away from any educational institution because of my lack of logic.

Perhaps in like vein "guest" removes themselves from any position that requires engaging with anyone in a teaching role. The toxic arrogance, the insufferable patrionising attitude and the over whelming closedness of mind that "guest" has demonstrated in this blog clearly demonstrates his/her is unfit to be anywhere near anyone who undertaking any study

I said at the beginning that I couldn’t make the “leap of faith” so presumably I will not get the medal from Nanny McPhee.

The point is we don’t know and we might never know. I would like to think that the vengeful God that exists in the Old Testament does not exist but I am not equipped to say that “God does not exist”.

My position is agnosticism. I don’t know whether there is a God, or an after life or a “anima”. (I have opinions but unlike “guest” I don’t confuse them with facts) As such I know I don’t know. However I don’t dismiss people who believe and in a sense I envy then it must be nice to have that “comfy” blanket. I cannot explain why people have mystical experiences although I am sure there might be a psychological or bio chemical explanation for them.

Like wise I remember always that’s there no reason for anything to exist, that the biggest absurdity of existence. Made modest by this fact, I feel no need to proclaim I KNOW

I don’t know

But then neither does George, Tony or “guest”

Jesus did exist, Roman records tell us this. That about the time the cristans say he existed, somebod calling himself Jusus was knocking around the holy land prforming a few magic trick, rather like David Nixon.- Showing my age there I think, ok then, shrape David Nixon, Darren Brown, thats better, rather like Darren Brown. Anyway, this lad got a bit to big for his boots, so they did what the Romans were good at, nailed him to a cross, witch at the time was a form of death penelty, that and stoneing . In no way did the Romans in any way say this old lad was in anyway inportant.
I won't stop anyone having a fath in anything thought, I'll just put my point over.

"Jesus did exist, Roman records tell us this".

Once again, the historian in me dies a little bit more. I imagine if I asked you to produce the evidence, you would not be so assertive.

This claim is just pure Christian dogma; it has no historical veracity WHATSOEVER.

The best that Christians can do is point to a name in Roman records that has a passing resemblance to their 'saviour', recorded at a point in time that is seriously out of kilter with other highly dubious and unsupported claims about dates, and claim that this is their man! And that is it! THAT IS IT!

Imagine another story. Imagine there was a story passed down the ages about a man called John who from time to time turned into cats and dogs and then back into human form again. Imagine that stories of people turning into cats and dogs were rife at the time, both in what people actually believed and total fiction. Imagine also that in allegorical writings of the time, stories of people turning into cats and dogs were also commonplace.

Then, 2000 years later, believers in the mythical John turned to state records from the era looking for evidence of John and found the name 'Jake', a not uncommon name at the time, recorded at a date out of sync with their other historical claims. The believers sit back satisfied they have found their man and assert this to the world.

An armchair historian going by the name of Warren then asserts, "John did exist, records from the time tell us this."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=696492648668420724#

Where are the BCC people in this debate? Or is it that they cannot use any other word than "awesome"

Christians don't debate Bill.

They just say, "I believe it because I believe it because I believe it because I believe it. I feel it is true. I feel it is true in my heart. In my heart, Jesus speaks to me."

And because as a species we have evolved from quite primitive and simple things, a lot of people are more than capable of fooling themselves that this is a legitimate position to take.

But then half the Christians probably deny evolution anyway and have some wacky views about the universe being made in 7 days 6000 years old and people fashioned out of clay.

If anyone's interested, fantastic Question and Answer session here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

|Guest, can you not read dude, that what I said, fool. I'm no christian neather.

By the way, I said it more awsomely then you, sorry Bill.