Was Jesus for real?

[mactbone]

Isn't it true that the earliest any of the NT was written was at least 30 years after Jesus died?

Also, when you say 500 people witnessed something, do you mean we have 500 accounts of something or one account of 500 people?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Read my source from the other thread:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Tacitus is not first-hand, documentary evidence. That page offers nothing but assumptions...assuming Tacitus had access to official records that are now lost, since nobody else has seen them. That's a big assumption.

Tacitus, despite his meticulousness, has been shown to have been wrong about several things, so saying that he wasn't wrong about this one, when there is no documentary evidence to support what he says, is rather sketchy.

Josephus suffers from the same problem, considering he wasn't even born until 37 A.D. Considering neither he nor Tacitus cite sources, and weren't there, that is not documentary evidence. It is, as far as we know, hearsay.

There's no question that accounts of Jesus's life exist from after the spread of Christianity. There is, however, nothing that documents his existence while he lived.

BTW, we have copies of Caesar's signature, as well as his image graven on contemporary monies. That's far more than we have of Jesus.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Isn't it true that the earliest any of the NT was written was at least 30 years after Jesus died?

Also, when you say 500 people witnessed something, do you mean we have 500 accounts of something or one account of 500 people?

He means an unsubstantiated claim in the Bible that many people witnessed something.

If I wrote down a story that 1,000 people witnessed me lift a house with my pinky, and then someone were to find the tale 100 years from now, but no corraborrating evidence of the fact, I'd think they'd be rational in disregarding the story as fabricated.

[Ben Kenobi]

MacTBone:

Also, when you say 500 people witnessed something, do you mean we have 500 accounts of something or one account of 500 people?

The passage in question:

1 Cor 15:3-8
"
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

What Paul is saying here, if you do not believe me, question any one of the 500 brethren whom Christ appeared to at the same time.

Boris:

If I wrote down a story that 1,000 people witnessed me lift a house with my pinky, and then someone were to find the tale 100 years from now, but no corraborrating evidence of the fact, I'd think they'd be rational in disregarding the story as fabricated.

Perhaps, but note your example relies on 100 years to pass. When was 1 Corinthians written? Most scholars give it a very early date, likely 54-55 AD, less than 25 years after the event.

For this reason, your analogy is false.

Tacitus is not first-hand, documentary evidence.

Tough. You asked for extrabiblical evidence without specifying first-hand. Just because Tacitus is not a primary historical source, does not mean you can reject him immediately. If you were to reject him on this point, you have to reject him for all of the history that he has written not just this one citation.

In fact, all of your criticisms apply to all of the work accomplished by Tacitus. To reject him on these points is to reject all of the research that he has done. Are you willing to do this, Boris?

Again, all of these points can apply to all history done in this period. Did Alexander the Great exist? What do we know about Caesar? Reject Tacitus on these points, and you reject the way Historians wrote history in this period of time.

There's no question that accounts of Jesus's life exist from after the spread of Christianity. There is, however, nothing that documents his existence while he lived.

Eyewitness testimony does not count if the person dies before the history is written?

BTW, we have copies of Caesar's signature, as well as his image graven on contemporary monies. That's far more than we have of Jesus.

Well, it kind of helps to be a Roman Emperor, to have people make busts and graven images and coins. Christ is not a Roman Emperor.

All we know of Caesar is that people for some reason made coins of him? How do we know that these busts are of Caesar, and not some other person?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Perhaps, but note your example relies on 100 years to pass. When was 1 Corinthians written? Most scholars give it a very early date, likely 54-55 AD, less than 25 years after the event.

For this reason, your analogy is false.

You're splitting hairs. Make it 25 years later, fine. As I said, there are plenty of stories of sightings of Elvis mere years after his death. I don't see you proclaiming that he rose from the dead.

Tough. You asked for extrabiblical evidence without specifying first-hand. Just because Tacitus is not a primary historical source, does not mean you can reject him immediately. If you were to reject him on this point, you have to reject him for all of the history that he has written not just this one citation.

In fact, all of your criticisms apply to all of the work accomplished by Tacitus. To reject him on these points is to reject all of the research that he has done. Are you willing to do this, Boris?

Again, all of these points can apply to all history done in this period. Did Alexander the Great exist? What do we know about Caesar? Reject Tacitus on these points, and you reject the way Historians wrote history in this period of time.

First, I didn't ask for anything. But I did specifically say I was looking for contemporary records, which is exactly what first hand documentary evidence is. So you're splitting symantic hairs again.

And you're also not addressing the issue of corraborative evidence. Much of what Tacitus wrote is corraborated by contempory evidence, first-hand accounts, archeaological findings and other historians on whom he relied. I wouldn't advise taking anything a historian of any era wrote without corraborating evidence. Would you trust a contemporary history that had no citations or sources listed?

Tacitus is mostly reliable, because we can validate what he says through other means. One thing we cannot, however, validate is the existence of Jesus. It isn't certain he existed, that is all we know. Given that the meticulous Roman record-keeping has failed to account for him, and given the turmoil his trial and crucifixion caused in Palestine, I think it's reasonable to question it and be skeptical.

You're welcome to your faith, that's something no one can begrudge you.

Eyewitness testimony does not count if the person dies before the history is written?

Depends on the nature of the testimony. Whose eyewitness testimony is being given, and who is recording it, and for what reasons?

Did Mark, Luke, Matthew or John witness these events? Not that we know of. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written 30 years after Jesus's supposed death. So which of these was a witness?

We're left with Paul, who never met Jesus in his lifetime, that we know of.

So where are these reliable eyewitness accounts?

Well, it kind of helps to be a Roman Emperor, to have people make busts and graven images and coins. Christ is not a Roman Emperor.

All we know of Caesar is that people for some reason made coins of him? How do we know that these busts are of Caesar, and not some other person?

Historical description + documentary evidence + corraborating evidence = reasonable historical fact. We know Caesar existed because there is a wealth of information from first-hand sources about him, including his own writings, in some instances. While it is possible Caesar is a great fraud perpetrated on history, the probability is negligible. The same does not hold true for Jesus: He may have existed, he may not have, but there's nothing documenting him in contemporary accounts, nor in physical evidence. That makes questioning his existence more reasonable.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, merely that we don't have sufficient evidence for it. A cult of personality's writings that are clearly propagandic in nature don't cut it, and even they aren't first-hand documentary evidence.

[RGBVideo]

It's a matter of faith, not proof.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can work with this Boris.

Make it 25 years later, fine. As I said, there are plenty of stories of sightings of Elvis mere years after his death. I don't see you proclaiming that he rose from the dead.

The reason you listed 100 years was to make it difficult for eyewitnesses. Now, there are still some people alive before Elvis died, who have presented ample evidence that he really did die. Not enough time has passed for the manner of his death to convince people of something else.

Consider this, It's been 25 years since Elvis died, in that period of time we see 1 Cor 15:3 having been written.

Now if someone told you that Elvis rose from the dead, would you not believe they were lunatics?

What about 1 Cor:15? Paul not only said that Christ rose from the dead, but also provided 500 witnesses that someone could go and question. Why then do we not see the enemies of Christianity, the Romans and the Jews, providing counter-evidence to the Christian claims?

Much of what Tacitus wrote is corraborated by contempory evidence, first-hand accounts, archeaological findings and other historians on whom he relied.

What about this passage? He says that Nero blamed the Christians, who's leader was arrested by Pontius Pilate. That's evidence in favour for the existence of Christ.

There is substantial archaeological evidence supporting the discriptions of the Gospels, particularly of Jerusalem.
For this reason, would we not conclude that the Gospels are an accurate historical record?

Did Mark, Luke, Matthew or John witness these events? Not that we know of. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written 30 years after Jesus's supposed death. So which of these was a witness?

John is featured in the Gospels, as is Matthew. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, but are thought to be close to many of the apostles.

As for Paul, you have to deal with his claim that he saw the risen Christ. How else can you explain a Pharisee becoming one of the biggest Christian evangelists?

A cult of personality's writings that are clearly propagandic in nature don't cut it, and even they aren't first-hand documentary evidence.

Fair enough.

That still leaves you with the evidence of the Christian church. How do you explain the formation of the Church, for which there are substantial historical records without the Gospels?

How do you explain the records of Christians dying for their faith without the Gospels?

Why didn't the Jews produce the body and deflate the entire Christian heresy?

There are too many unanswered questions that the Gospel accounts provide the best explanation we have.

[Joseph]

There is God and Jesus, if you don't believe that to bad, if you do that's great.
Jesus once said God the Father is in me as much as I'm in him.
Odo of Star Trek was part of a link, and when joined was one with the link. But he could at any time become individual again.
To me Jesus and God are the same. They are as one, but still two entity.
Here is a story, believe it or not, your chose.
In the summer of 1958. In a canal about 1 mile north of Castle AFB, near Atwater, Calif., I was drowning. I had lost my ability to fight the water any more. I can remember being tumble by the water but with no fight. A though or a voice told me "Joseph it is not your time, not your time, but you must fight, you must fight" I don't think for a moment that I had the ability to think that statement while drowning.
At that moment I had strength to fight again and was able to get to the side of the canal where my 2 cousin and 2 friend were and they were able to pull me out. We were next to a spill way for the canal. They never yell that statement to me either. In fact while in the water, I could not hear anything because of the roar of the water coming over the spill way.

[Frogman]

from Boris

Did Mark, Luke, Matthew or John witness these events? Not that we know of. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written 30 years after Jesus's supposed death. So which of these was a witness?

John was a witness. He closes his gospel declaring himself to be a disciple who knows his testimony to be true.

James, and Peter were eyewitnesses and we have their testimony. Luke declares that he recieved much of his testimony from eyewitnesses. To say that the most influential man to ever walk the planet didn't exist to me is absurd. There are plenty of witnesses. Not only were many of the followers of Jesus there with Paul. Some of the followers of John the Baptist were as well. Do you really believe they just made him up and died trying to convince the world of a lie?

from Boris
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, merely that we don't have sufficient evidence for it. A cult of personality's writings that are clearly propagandic in nature don't cut it, and even they aren't first-hand documentary evidence.

It amazes me how atheists think believers are the ones hanging on blind faith and emotion and they're the intellegent rational ones when they proceed to just willfully ignore the evidence. Have you even read the NT? Pauls letters come along in 54 AD and there are plenty of witnesses to the events still alive. Don't you think there would be plenty of witnesses to dispute such a large exaggeration if Jesus never existed?

They couldn't make up Jesus. If they were going to make something up they would have made it a lot easier to believe. What they couldn't just make up was the teaching that was revolutionary for the time, a pack of liars or deluded individuals couldn't have done that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The reason you listed 100 years was to make it difficult for eyewitnesses. Now, there are still some people alive before Elvis died, who have presented ample evidence that he really did die. Not enough time has passed for the manner of his death to convince people of something else.

Consider this, It's been 25 years since Elvis died, in that period of time we see 1 Cor 15:3 having been written.

Now if someone told you that Elvis rose from the dead, would you not believe they were lunatics?

This is still not answering the point, which is that anyone can claim there are witnesses to something that maybe didn't happen. The best reason to make it 100 years later was to account for the difference in available communications.

But this still misses the point--until one can verify through the actual eye-witness testimony that something happened, there does not yet exist the eye-witness testimony. Claiming tons of people saw something does not equal eye-witness testimony.

What about 1 Cor:15? Paul not only said that Christ rose from the dead, but also provided 500 witnesses that someone could go and question. Why then do we not see the enemies of Christianity, the Romans and the Jews, providing counter-evidence to the Christian claims?

It's not exactly easy to provide evidence that someone didn't exist, and there's no reason to believe that the Romans and Jews of the time would have had any cause to doubt Jesus's existence anyway. But you're still failing to see that this was DECADES after Jesus died. And there's no documentary evidence of anything that the gospels claimed happened as happening. It would be a rather difficult task in Roman times to go back 30 years to look for evidence contradicting accounts as vague as the gospels. At any rate, a lack of such contradiction does not connote proof. It merely denote an assumption on your part that things must be true because the source you want to believe says so.

What about this passage? He says that Nero blamed the Christians, who's leader was arrested by Pontius Pilate. That's evidence in favour for the existence of Christ.

It's evidence of NOTHING except that Tacitus had heard the same stories as everything else. It isn't documentary evidence, it's hearsay. There is nothing that corraborates it. For all we know, Tacitus accepted the common mythology. This is not unheard of in his writings, after all.

There is substantial archaeological evidence supporting the discriptions of the Gospels, particularly of Jerusalem.
For this reason, would we not conclude that the Gospels are an accurate historical record?

This only shows the authors of the gospels were familiar with certain areas they described. An author writes of that which he knows. Catch 22 gives some vivid descriptions of New York City, and I can walk up to all the locations he cites and see them for myself. Does that mean Holden Caufield is a real person?

John is featured in the Gospels, as is Matthew. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses, but are thought to be close to many of the apostles.

Matthew was written after Mark, which was written in c. 64 AD (this is the commonly accepted date by theologians):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html

Since there isn't even agreement on Christians who wrote Matthew and when, I'd be hard pressed to say that qualifies as documentary evidence that is reliable.

As for Paul, you have to deal with his claim that he saw the risen Christ. How else can you explain a Pharisee becoming one of the biggest Christian evangelists?

Do I have to deal seriously that a dog told the Son of Sam killer to commit murder? Or do I have to deal with claims of others to have spoken with God?

Perhaps Paul was an opportunist and liar. He certainly didn't behave very well as a Pharisee. Perhaps he had a hallucination, being out in the hot desert. Perhaps he was mad. Who knows? But since his account is unsubstantiated, he could theoretically that he saw a purple unicorn then. So what?

That still leaves you with the evidence of the Christian church. How do you explain the formation of the Church, for which there are substantial historical records without the Gospels?

Does the rise of Scientology mean L. Ron Hubbard's writings are true and their beliefs real? Does the rise of Islam mean Mohammed's writings are real? The arising of a cult does not give credence to the ideology on which the cult is founded.

How do you explain the records of Christians dying for their faith without the Gospels?

Gee, how do you explain Islamic suicide bombers? Fanatics who believe in their faith to the point of willingness to die for it aren't unique to any religious philosophy.

Why didn't the Jews produce the body and deflate the entire Christian heresy?

Duuuh I dunno, maybe because my argument is that Jesus may not have even existed at all, which would mean no body was there to be produced?

There are too many unanswered questions that the Gospel accounts provide the best explanation we have.

Most of that is circular, since most of the questions that arise are the ones that arise from reading the Gospel as an accurate historical source in the first place. Propoganda isn't known to be the most reliable kind of historical evidence. Unless you'd like to rely on Goebbel's accounts of WW2 as being historically accurate...

At any rate, just because the Bible Gospels provide an answer to something doesn't mean it is true. Without corraborative evidence (where, logically, there should be some), it's not a reliable source, just a popular mythology.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogman
John was a witness. He closes his gospel declaring himself to be a disciple who knows his testimony to be true.

Oh, well then! The author says it's all true and he saw it, it must be true then!

James, and Peter were eyewitnesses and we have their testimony.

What firsthand testimony do we have from them?

Luke declares that he recieved much of his testimony from eyewitnesses.

Who was Luke? When did he write his gospel? Who were the witnesses? What corraborates his claim? Again, I can claim to have witnesses to anything. Proving I do is the thing. Did he cite sources?

To say that the most influential man to ever walk the planet didn't exist to me is absurd. There are plenty of witnesses.

Yet none of these witnesses bothered to write contemporary accounts. Why? You'd think the most influential man to walk the planet would have inspired someone to take up the pen and write while he was alive.

Not only were many of the followers of Jesus there with Paul. Some of the followers of John the Baptist were as well. Do you really believe they just made him up and died trying to convince the world of a lie?

Until you produce documentary evidence from a witness who saw Jesus first-hand and stop relying on hearsay, this is just smoke.

It amazes me how atheists think believers are the ones hanging on blind faith and emotion and they're the intellegent rational ones when they proceed to just willfully ignore the evidence.

I'm not ignoring any evidence, just hearsay. Show me evidence. Yeah, I'm irrational and acting on blind faith because I am asking for corrobarating evidence for the claims of the gospels. Gee, how insane of me.

Have you even read the NT? Pauls letters come along in 54 AD and there are plenty of witnesses to the events still alive.

So Paul claims. But he doesn't produce any evidence of the witnesses, just says they exist. Why don't these witnesses speak for themselves? I'm reminded of McCarthy's supposed "list" as well.

Don't you think there would be plenty of witnesses to dispute such a large exaggeration if Jesus never existed?

That depends. Who in Jerusalem would have had access to Paul's writings in 54 AD? How widespread were they? How well-known were they? Why didn't all these witnesses Paul supposedly had corroborate his story and write down their own accounts?

They couldn't make up Jesus. If they were going to make something up they would have made it a lot easier to believe. What they couldn't just make up was the teaching that was revolutionary for the time, a pack of liars or deluded individuals couldn't have done that.

Actually, there is some evidence that the "revolution" preached by Jesus wasn't all that knew, and that the cult of Christianity that rose to prominence was the extension of another cult that had been around for over a hundred years before Jesus was supposedly born.

At any rate, this is just assumption. "Oh it had to have happened like that because I think it's too unrealistic to be otherwise." Yep, assumption.

Off to bed folks, ta!

[Ben Kenobi]

Catch 22 gives some vivid descriptions of New York City, and I can walk up to all the locations he cites and see them for myself. Does that mean Holden Caufield is a real person?

True, that point alone will not prove that Christ is a real person, but it does reinforce the Gospels as a historical source for that time period if they accurately protray Jerusalem and the surrounding environs.

Since there isn't even agreement on Christians who wrote Matthew and when, I'd be hard pressed to say that qualifies as documentary evidence that is reliable.

Your source does not dispute the authorship of the Gospels, all it shows is that the scholars do not agree on who wrote which Gospel first.

However, as a historical document, is it necessary to know the exact date of composition in order to determine the reliability of the source?

Yes, it helps to know if a source was written one generation or two, but will it matter if the source was written in 25 years or 30 years after the event?

This is not unheard of in his writings, after all.

From my Tacitus source:

"I have already noted that Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such, and the Livia/Agrippa story is no exception. The story in question, from the first book of the Annals, is clearly reported by Tacitus as a rumor. He was consistent in discerning rumor from fact--as I noted from a Tacitean scholar, he did this with the sort of scruples rare in an ancient historian."

From this point, I say that Tacitus provides a reliable extra-biblical reference to Christ of Nazareth.

The arising of a cult does not give credence to the ideology on which the cult is founded.

No it does not. But it does give credence as to the existence of the founder of the cult. If you see a cult founded by L. Ron Hubbard, this is evidence as to the existence of a L. Ron Hubbard. If you report the existence of Christians, you would expect to find a leader of the cult named Christ.

Fanatics who believe in their faith to the point of willingness to die for it aren't unique to any religious philosophy.

No, they are not, but they do raise the question of why. Why would the Romans persecute people belonging to a cult headed by a leader who did not exist? Again, this is evidence that somebody lead a cult of Christians.

It would be a rather difficult task in Roman times to go back 30 years to look for evidence contradicting accounts as vague as the gospels.

"vague as the Gospels?"

The Gospels are very clear on this issue. Christ died, and rose again. All you need to do to deflate the Christians is to provide the body of Christ, who was buried inside of the tomb.

To close, I'll use your own words.

there's no reason to believe that the Romans and Jews of the time would have had any cause to doubt Jesus's existence anyway.

So why do you? If they had no cause why do you doubt the existence of Christ?

[Frogman]

I'm new here so I need some help. Is Boris a thinking individual or not? How can a person rant so much about something he obviously knows nothing about. Obiwan, your posts are quite good.

John and Matthew were eyewitnesses to their gospels. James, Jude and Peter were apostles and eyewitnesses and they wrote letters and they're in the Bible too. (toward the back ) By my count thats five eyewitness testimonies.

The authorship of Matthew and Jude is debated and the skeptics like Boris will never be convinced of the other three either. Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus must be invalid too. It reminds me of arguing with my brother when we were kids. He wouldn't believe the encyclopedia. I don't believe everything I read either, but at some point you have to look at the evidence and accept what it tells you.

from Boris
Oh, well then! The author says it's all true and he saw it, it must be true then!

and later

What firsthand testimony do we have from them?

My question to you is what difference does it make, you are determined not to be convinced. John James and Peter are first hand witnesses.

I'm tired of repeating myself to people who just want to scoff. The evidence is convincing enough for anyone who wants to look at it objectively.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, well then! The author says it's all true and he saw it, it must be true then!

We do not reject historical testimony without evidence that said testimony or the testifier is unreliable.

Call this a bias towards the truth, for otherwise, how would we believe anyone?

So tell me, how is John unreliable?

What firsthand testimony do we have from them?

They each wrote seperate epistles, claiming to be believers of Christ.

Luke, as the author of Acts has numerous references to Peter and James.

All four gospels mention them as eyewitnesses.

Who was Luke? When did he write his gospel? Who were the witnesses? What corraborates his claim? Again, I can claim to have witnesses to anything. Proving I do is the thing. Did he cite sources?

From what he says of himself, and from his familiarity with medical terms, a doctor familiar with Greek.

Most scholars give his gospel sometime around 65AD.

Probably Peter and James, although they may be others.

The other Gospels.

All of the apostles still alive at the time.

Why? You'd think the most influential man to walk the planet would have inspired someone to take up the pen and write while he was alive.

How long was Christ's mission? Only a few years. His disciples were too busy with Christ's mission to write a full gospel account of their times with Christ.

After the death of Christ, most expected his imminent return. When this did not occur, and some of the witnesses started to die, then they wrote down their gospels, an account of Christ.

Until you produce documentary evidence from a witness who saw Jesus first-hand and stop relying on hearsay, this is just smoke.

John's gospel as well as Matthew's.

Why don't these witnesses speak for themselves?

500 hundred witnesses? Many of those who did witness the risen Christ do testify, including Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc.

Actually, there is some evidence that the "revolution" preached by Jesus wasn't all that knew, and that the cult of Christianity that rose to prominence was the extension of another cult that had been around for over a hundred years before Jesus was supposedly born.

Do tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris: Do you doubt the existance of Socrates?