Did Jesus exist? Court to decide

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


There are countless disinterested historical documents that confirm Caesar's existence. Not so Jesus.

The better comparison is to Homer. And, as with Homer, the ultimate question is, does it matter? For liberal Christians, I suspect the answer is "no," since what's important is Christ's message, and we've got that (just like we have the Iliad and Odyssey, regardless of whether Homer existed). But for conservative Christians, the bodily resurrection is all-important, which means a historical Jesus is necessary.

umm, to be Christian is to beleive in the bodily resurrection

you might follow Christ as I follow Bhudah.. (I like his message.. and so on..)

but you aren't Christian unless you beleive in the bodily ressurection...

and those that go by the term liberal Christians.. do generally beleive in the bodily resurrection (well, they have doubts..)

they just don't beleive in most/all of the miracles, or in creationism, or many other things...

now it is true that some try to call themselves Christian, without believing in the bodily resurrection

but they do not share in common the core beleifs of Christianity since its foundation (Which was by Paul, before 100 AD)

Jon Miller

[OzzyKP]

Exactly.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Seeker
There are hundreds of documents from the time, from other countries , monuments, etc etc etc reams of evidence for Caesar.

For Jesus Christ, we have two possible interpolations, which consist of three sentences, from two writers.

The Gospels? Way way after jesus.

For actual physical documentation of the period when he lived, of a man reputed to be the son of god and to have had a huge number of followers, at least temporariliy (remember Palm Sunday? the Sermon on the Mount?), we have virtually nothing from the period, and NOTHING that is not suspect.

There are obscure peasants from 16th century France whose lives are documented in far better detail, even just birth, profession, marriage, death.

Comparing Caesar and Christ is worse than comparing apples and
oranges. Caesar was famous throughout the roman world and adjacent lands. His ancestors, birth, childhood, deeds, and death are extensively written. There are physical artifacts of his you can go and see at a museum and touch with your hands. You can go to his house in the Forum if you want and look at the room were his desk once rested and he wrote the Commentaries, a book directly attributed to him (book 1 anyway) which almost all scholars believe he wrote himself (not to mention accounts, letters, legal documents, senate records etc.

For Christ, besides Josephus and Tacitus, we have: The Gospels, written hundreds of years after the fact, conflicting in points major and minor, conflicting in style, containing numerous interpolations, containing stylistic elements out of contemporary greek drama, by multiple unknown authors with different agendas.

Other than that: No records of Joseph or Mary in roman Nazareth. No birth records. No Jewish or Roman legal religious or tax documents of anykind. No records by jews of the period of a messiah claimant like jesus. No physical artifacts of any kind, no house, no sandal, no cross, no body, no verified tomb, no grafitti from 23-90AD saying 'Jesus is Lord' scratched into the walls of some pre-Essene hermits cave, nada, zip, zilch.

Some call it the 'Incredible Power of Faith'. I call it 'marketing'.

the Gospels weren't that long after Jesus, less then 100 years (this might be a difference of opinion on what way way means)

and some of the writings in the new testament are thought (by theologians and experts.. who often don't beleive in Christ) to be pre 70 AD (Paul is held by most (And all reasonable ones) to have existed, and written parts of the New Testament (But not all attributed to him), and is placed pre 70 AD)

how many records of the average jew (and poor at that) do we have from ~0 AD

and no body is the claim of Christianity

Jon Miller

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


umm, to be Christian is to beleive in the bodily resurrection

you might follow Christ as I follow Bhudah.. (I like his message.. and so on..)

but you aren't Christian unless you beleive in the bodily ressurection...

and those that go by the term liberal Christians.. do generally beleive in the bodily resurrection (well, they have doubts..)

they just don't beleive in most/all of the miracles, or in creationism, or many other things...

now it is true that some try to call themselves Christian, without believing in the bodily resurrection

but they do not share in common the core beleifs of Christianity since its foundation (Which was by Paul, before 100 AD)

Jon Miller

As you just said, liberal Christians can have their doubts about the bodily resurrection. That's all I'm saying. As for the core beliefs of Christianity, it's worth remembering that those beliefs (including the resurrection) were hotly contested for hundreds of years after Paul, and Christianity only developed "core beliefs" by actively and often violently oppressing those with alternative interpretations of the faith. Are you saying that people who believe the same things as second century Christians are not, in fact, Christian?

[Zkribbler]

You guys are missing one very big point.

First, plaintiff Luigi Cascioli has to present evidence that Jesus did not exist. Up until that point, defendant doesn't have to do anything.

[Jon Miller]

if you had read Paul, you would know that he says the bodily resurrection was key/fundamental

and yes, he was saying it, so it was contested in his time

and I would guess contested later

but as I said, Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, not the other beliefs (which didn't catch for one reason or another)

so yes, I say that there were people who followed Christ in the 2nd century who were not Christian.. just like there are some in the 21st century that follow Christ and yet are not Christian

as I said, I respect Bhudah, but I am not Bhudahist (And yes, I know my spelling is wrong)

out of the mixture of beleifs that came out of Christ's death (and Resurrection) there were many.. but only one set was Christianity, and that is the set that is based on Paul's theology

and in 2nd Century AD Christianity wasn't in the position to do much oppression, violent or otherwise

Jon Miller

[C0ckney]

jon miller

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
if you had read Paul, you would know that he says the bodily resurrection was key/fundamental

and yes, he was saying it, so it was contested in his time

and I would guess contested later

but as I said, Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, not the other beliefs (which didn't catch for one reason or another)

Okay, so you're saying Christianity is really about pauls' belief, not Christ's. We eman two differnt things by Christianity.

and in 2nd Century AD Christianity wasn't in the position to do much oppression, violent or otherwise

Right, which is why, in the aftermath of Christ's death, there were multiple Christianities. It wasn't until one version won teh approval of teh Emperor Constantine that teh violent suppression of teh other versions began.

Your basic argument comes down to the idea that the only valid belief in Christ was defined not by Christ but by a guy who didn't even know him, and that it's valid because Byzantine emperors killed the people who disagreed with it.

I suppose that's one way to define Christianity -- but it's a pretty depressing definition.

[StarLightDeath]

You are messing up the natural progression of things by constantly trying to force people to stop believing in their religion. Only time will continue to whittle away at the faithful, but belief in a higher power will always exist in some way shape and form. Stunts such as this are nothing more than a drop in the bucket and will have no historical effect, let alone change the minds of those following a religion. In fact, atheists are obnoxiously arrogant and hurt their cause more than help it. In America the constant anti-American assault by atheists only further solidifies belief in a higher power. If you want to help the cause then you should shut up and let time work its magic.

[Jon Miller]

most people followed Paul's theology pre the emperor Constantine

while I agree that other sects were persecuted under constantine (And some other roman rulers), I disagree that what caused the current beleif system to raise to promenence was Constantine..

I would recommend reading some early Christian history, it is a fascinating subject (note be careful of speculation)

Jon Miller
(I need to be up in 7 hours, and still have stuff to do, so I will continue this conversation later, maybe after Friday)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Okay, so you're saying Christianity is really about pauls' belief, not Christ's. We eman two differnt things by Christianity.

Christianity, as is commonly understood, is the beleif system that has existed for some 2000 years, and is founded upon the theology of Paul.

As I said before, I agree with a lot of stuff that Bhudah says, but that does not make me bhudist..

JM

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
You guys are missing one very big point.

First, plaintiff Luigi Cascioli has to present evidence that Jesus did not exist. Up until that point, defendant doesn't have to do anything.

I fail to see the point of this thread given this hurdle the plaintiff set for himself.

[Zkribbler]

The point is that some yoyo in Italy is suing a priest for fraud and for "imitation" because the plaintiff claims (a) that Jesus did not exist and (b) that the Church's stories about Jesus are really based upon someone else.

[DinoDoc]

Then why the lack of jokes at the yo-yos expense?

[appleciders]

Originally posted by Seeker

There are obscure peasants from 16th century France whose lives are documented in far better detail, even just birth, profession, marriage, death.

To be fair, these peasants are only a quarter as far back in history as Christ.

Other than that, well spoken.