Interesting, but let's tell the whole story, shall we?

The name Jesus is referred to a number of times by Josephus - mainly because it was such a common name. For example, we have

• Jesus, son of Sapphias, the leader of a bunch of Pirates
• Jesus, the captain of a gang of robbers
• Jesus the lunatic, who spent seven years wandering around Jerusalem shouting "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!

etc, etc.

Do you guys actually think that disproves anything?

I'm curious to see if you actually take this seriously. Is this a solid refutation in your opinion? First of all, it comes from a place called "nobeliefs" - you don't think they might display a slight amount of bias do you?

Pliny the Younger got born? Got milk? Get grammar check.

If the logic in this refutation is sound, then there's no way that you or I can comment on the holocaust being an actual event is there? After all, we were born after the event. So, I guess our commentary would be meaningless. Nice try!

1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
(3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, (4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (8) Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

-this letter from Paul was written around AD 55 or 56, and he clearly states "most of whom are still alive", as if to say, if you don't believe me go and ask them. As someone noted earlier, you have to take into account all the early Christians that ended up being martyered, Peter and Paul included. I believe this is more than enough to say that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, to say nothing of all the other sources mentioned.

Instead of executing the Christians immediately at the usual place, Nero executed them publicly in his gardens nearby and in the circus. "Mockery of every sort accompanied their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Tacitus)

Most thought Nero went too far. "There arose in the people a sense of pity. For it was felt that they (the Christians) were being sacrificed for one man's brutality rather than to the public interest." (Tacitus)

These early Christians were subject to the most brutal forms of torture; yet they would not recant their beliefs of the risen Lord. Is that not proof enough? They had to have had some sort of proof, both of His historical existence, and also His divinity. Can you honestly say that all these people were martyered over a man that they didn't even know existed? The proof of His existence, and the proof of His divinity is in the blood of the martyrs. These people sang hymns while they were burning as human torches!! They had no fear of death whatsoever, they gladly laid down their lives! For what? Someone who never even existed? Someone they only heard stories about? No, they KNEW. These Christians; Paul, Peter, they absolutely believed in the divinity of Christ, they never would have died for what they knew to be a lie, and the Christian movement would have never survived. It would have faded like many of the cults of their day. Christianity survived because they absolutely believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and was the Son of God; they believed it so much they would die for it. That's evidence enough for me.

As someone who loves history no it does not mean much. History strives for accuracy and balanced views. That is just biased propaganda written in the persuasive art of propaganda. That is not accurate history. History tells a story it does not attempt to prove or disprove. Those who do not know much about the subject would not understand and those who do and use it this way are only doing a disservice.

Are you pulling my leg .or to paraphrase John Mc Enroe "you cannot be serious " The holocaust is documented on film ,in books ,in newspapers .there are even survivors still alive .to testify .

It doesn't matter whether Pliny "got born " or was born or born anyway you want ,he was born to late to be a reliable witness ,all his knowledge was anecdotal.

fullywired

Most of history is written by those who are not there to be eye witnesses but from other sources. Mainly from other people's accounts, from the written records, most again written from other people's accounts, and what is preserved. Anecdotal evidence does not diminish its authenticity.

Yes, if someone is putting out actual essays and literary works, it is best not to include grammatical errors.

Yes, it seems that the early Christians had far greater faith and conviction than many Christians have today. At the time of Nero, the believers should have been quite familiar with the teachings of Jesus. You could well be right in saying that that explains their zeal and dedication, while facing death by torture.

Thoughts worth pondering ...
Karlis

From Wikipedia's entry on the persecution of Early Christians:

Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death." A group of people presented themselves to the Roman governor of Asia, C. Arrius Antoninus, declared themselves to be Christians, and encouraged the governor to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, "You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by."

Try that in a court of law and see how far you get. Your both grasping at straws ,There is no historical evidence for Jesus


fullywired

Well -- (???) -- I wonder how much validity this quote has?

The footnote in that article says that it was:
Quoted in Bowersock, G. W. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 1. Bowersock cites Tertullian.

Tertullian, (c. 160 – c. 225)
Nero ruled from 54 to 68

Seeing that Tertullian lived some hundred and fifty years after the reign of Nero he had no "direct" knowledge as to how Christians behaved, or were treated under Nero, agreed? Also, in his later life Tertullian became quite anti-Christian in his attitudes.; thus a possible personal bias???

Apart from that -- is the info in this "snippet" in wicki supported by other texts, as far as you can find out, Tiggs?

Just seems a bit "out on a limb" claim in wicki ... but I'm only blindly guessing here.
Karlis

You mean that things written generations after the date they transpired have no validity, even by a Christian Historian?

Hmmm. I'll have to think on that for a while.

How do you know? We may still be holding onto some, that is the point of questioning. How do we know, what we are mistaken on - prior to finding out we are mistaken

And since we don't have a compendium of beliefs and their length of time believed since humanities conception I think you are on shaky ground on that angle as well.


No I think you have missed the point of my original post. Firstly I didn't claim that Theism was a completely baseless assumption, I was talking in generalities about beliefs. But if I claim that Theism could be a baseless assumption how does that follow that everything that is younger than theism is a baseless assumption as well? I was saying that length of time something is believed does not automatically confer absolute truth.

Part of living is reformulating new ideas in response to new information, we may gain new information via technological advancements about 'age old concepts'.



I would say that whether God exists is a highly relevant question.........


Anyways you could say I disagree with you that questioning theism is a foolish thing

I always thought, that proof, would be something that can be viewed as evident by all. Even if all haven't been able to see it, it's still there for them to see it. So, in my observation in my lifetime, I have yet to see proof. Granted, growing up secular, no church going or bible owning and reading, so maybe that would help in my point of view to noticed objectively, I have never seen proof, that could be there for all to see.

by Kaizen:

Well, prostitution has been around a long long time, must be the right thing then.
Ohhh, I beg to differ. It limits them on when and who to marry. It limits them on what to learn, who to associate with and how to conduct themselves.
It's good you pointed that out, but your last sentence seems to me to be different from the rest of your post. theism as a belief in something, well your belief, some who hold beliefs, will act on it. Not all, but some, so in a sense, I disagree with this.

by Ghost Ship:
Actually, wouldn't it be law?

by Omnaka:
That could end up being circumstancial. That is no way to be assured that it is definate proof. There is also a chance, to each individual being that their proof may differ to someone else's.
Plus, when saying there is proof, one should be able to be the one providing the proof, not asking others to find if themselves.

by Paranoid Android:
I personally find this would be the closest answer to this thread. If not, a very logical and thought provoking mindset. A good point, for we are trying to find proof on a non-physical entity.

by fullywired:

Most may have been born after the event, but I sure remember the movies of the victims. As well as that might not make a surefire provable way of showing the holacaust occured, but one logic thought, doesn't not cancel out another or more other evidents. This is to say, I agree with fullywired.

Arrius Antoninus was governor of Asia from 135 to 136AD, eventually becoming Emperor of Rome and died in 161AD. As he was the Emperor at the time of Tertullian's birth, it's not quite 150 years, is it?

Point taken!!!
Karlis

Jesus the brother of James, as stated by Josephus. Yes, James was also a common name, but to have it referred to this one........

My sentiments exactly *we seem to be agreeing an unusual amount of times recently, norwood

I think the better question is whether Jesus' life on Earth would have been worthy of mention by historians. As hard as it may be to take into consideration, Jesus' existence would have gone virtually unnoticed by most during his lifetime. At best, he would have been considered a minor rebel involved in disturbing the peace in some Jewish circles. Only the event of the "triumphal entry" could even have been considered to be noteworthy. A minor rebel, who taught some strange stuff about the Jewish God, then was unceremoniously executed - not much reading there for historians of the day. And unless the miracles were witnessed by the historians, then it would have just elevated the event to "a minor rebel who was crucified and was claimed to do miracles but could not save himself from the cross" - hardly noteworthy stuff.

Why would the historians of the day consider him important? They did not know what kind of impact this minor rebel would have had on history

Tyrphy is not doubting the existence of Jesus, but the existence of the Christ as the Christians believed. Throughout the rest of the debate of the Dialogue of Tyrphop, Tyrpho takes the existence of Jesus as a man as accepted fact - see HERE for full context of quote - scroll down to chapter 8.

Info sourced from this page..... Tyrpho accepts Jesus, but questions with "Christ" existed.

Just a thought......

It leaves open the big possibility that Jesus may not have literally existed.

A man raises the dead ,cures lepers ,turns water into wine ,heals the lame .gives sight to the blind ,feeds five thousand with five loaves and five fish .,rises from the dead


what the hell did you have to do to get noticed in those days!!!!!!!!


fullywired

The ancient world was not as small as our world today is. If something happens today in one country, email and the media ensure that it is heard 2 hours later all over the modern world. The ancient world was nothing like. We may today think that these miracles would be widespread, but back then, most of his miracles were done in isolated situations. Some, such as the loaves and fishes, were on a larger scale. But that is still only a small section of the ancient world, and certainly in the context of Jesus' life not enough for historians. At best, a rumour reaches an historian that a man did miracles. So what? As you skeptics have tried so hard to show, there were many "miracle workers" back then. What makes Jesus stand out from them? His earthly legacy was not worth mentioning. It was not until his resurrection that the meaning of his existence came to being.

Stop thinking of this in terms of email speed, or even the old snail-mail speed. Any event that occurred would have to be relayed through couriers or rumour, none of which would impact historians. Unless they actually physically witnesesd Jesus, he remained, during his life, a minor rebel with perhaps some rumour of miracles.

Regardless, the miracle-working Jesus portrayed in the Bible is in historical doubt. I have not disputed this, and have indeed pointed this out. Who Jesus was and what he did on Earth is in dispute. His existence though..... I think the historical accounts show that he did exist. Like Tyrphy, whom Tiggs quoted, they questioned the "Christ" (Messiah), but not Jesus himself.

Just a thought,

As Trypho's probably a figment of Justin's imagination, it's not the best example, I guess. Just the first of many that sprang to mind.

If your position is that there was no opposition as to Christ's existence, perhaps you can explain the need for Early Christian Writers to create widescale Forgery via the Sibylline Oracles with which to counter Pagan objections.

Or maybe I can answer that for you. As Father Lacatanius said:
"perhaps the sacred writings [in the Old Testament] speak falsely when they teach [such and so about Jesus); ... the Sibyls before taught the same things in their verses.”

If there we're solid evidence religion wouldnt be about faith, which it is. And we wouldnt be having this conversation right now!

Rule over a large group of people or represent that rule in a power position.

Possibly a figmitof Justin Martyr's imagination. The research I did seems to see that as at least possible. As for the Sibylline Oracles, I cannot say I have really heard much about the term and at least at this timeof night can't say much about them. My position is simply based on the (what I have studied) facts that show no one disputed the existence of Jesus (though the miracles and such may have been). I'll try looking it up a little when I have time. All the best,

You missed the point entirely. Do you or I have the right to comment on the holocaust?

History is not a court of law. History is not all based on first hand accounts but accuracy is striven for by accessing the primary source which is considered a source during the epoch and also one closest to the actual events. Sure someone on hand is better than someone who was not but just because someone was not on the scene does not dismiss it from the historical record. Historiography strives for accuracy but it is a soft science and not a hard science.



This is a very valid point and why there are not more sources about Jesus. At least this is what has always been given as a reason for a lack of evidence.



History that is biased is never a good source. If it was about a modern topic it would be considered nothing but propaganda and as as Hitler said in Mein Kampf, to paraphrase, propaganda is not a dissertation for scholars, but a pamphlet for the masses which are ignorant, it is not literature that stimulate the intellect, but only poster to stimulate emotions. In historical terms it is revisionism at its worse. It does not disprove Jesus but is a weak attempt for anyone who keeps an eye out for bias. Some can agree with it but it is from their emotions and not from a real pursuit in history.



Lactantius was born a pagan and while being a Christian apologetic his prime motive was writing to pagan audiences to convince them of Christianity. He was also born circa 240 CE. Also in your view what does the Old Testament speak falsely about when they teach such and such about Jesus? The Old Testament? Do you have an opinion on this or is your view in this one mater based on cutting and pasting snippets from anti-religious sites?

The Sibyls were many and most went into trances and channeled spirits or claimed to while making utterances that were said to be prophetic. Some of these were thought to prophecy the coming of Christ just as The Eclogues by Virgil were said to have done. Some works though were done by Jews or even later Christians imitated their style and disseminated these verses to others to get their messages across. Consider it a popular medium like comics might be and then spreading the message through them.

They are highly unreliable even if some early Christian apologist (those under the Roman system or Catholics) believed them. In my view the true church only needed the Bible and no outside sources to make the case for them.

The quote from Lactantius was taken from my copy of Joseph Wheless's book "Forgery in Christianity - a documented record" written in 1930, one of the few books I have with me whilst I'm on vacation in America. You can find the rather fuller version here.

The point is that, as you so innocently put it, "Some works though were done by Jews or even later Christians imitated their style and disseminated these verses to others to get their messages across". That's not the entire truth, is it? It was done as a blatant attempt to claim that there were Sybillic prophecies pertaining to Christ and thus sway the pagan's towards Christianity.

Sorry for assuming wrongly of you.

Do you know which 'Christians' did this deception? The names of the few apologetics I saw were tied into the Roman system which eventually became the Vatican. As some know they are not the church that solely basis their beliefs on the Bible. They have many pagan elements within their system. They were responsible for the Crusades and the Inquisition which anyone reading the Bible would have seen there was no Christian basis for their case to do either in however many successions they occurred in.

I still do not see how someone claiming the Old Testament is inaccurate as well as the Sibyls prophecies who came before Jesus have anything to do with validating or invaliding the historical personage of Jesus. But it is an interesting topic nonetheless. Just the whole of a few from a pagan based system calling itself Christianity saying look what was written before Jesus was born about Jesus seems an unlikely case to disprove Jesus. It does prove some knew the pagan mind and were attempting to convert other pagans into their system.

It is deception and highly not biblical and I cannot see those remaining pure to the Word as doing such. All those who did remain pure to the Word were not part of the Roman church system.

Justin Martyr, Eusebius and St Augustine are the first three I can find (other than Lactantius) who quoted the Sibyl as an authority prophesying Christ.

You're correct, however - I've veered slightly off-topic - I'll see if I can put together a more definitive case that early Pagans doubted Jesus' historical existence.

[Slightly off-topic again - but I've just discovered wikisource, and it appears to have the motherlode of Early Christian Writing - very handy for references ]


Edit:
For some reason, the Justin Martyr link isn't working - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_.../Chapter_***VII. I expect it has a lot to do with the fullstop at the end of the web address, not to mention the three X's that the profanity filter has converted to *'s for me. Okay - maybe Wikisource may not be that handy for referencing then. Grrrrrr.

Here is some more information I found regarding the Cumaean Sibyl and the Sibylline Books that were introduced into Rome according to legend during the earliest days of Rome. Not sure if these are the ones referred to by Lactantius but these are not the ones considered wholesale forgeries in regards to the first ones I mentioned. Some Pagans said their destruction was the reason Rome fell and it was also the same thing they said when the Vestal Virgin flame was put out.





http://www.answers.com/topic/cumaean-sibyl

Here is information about the forgeries as well as the older Sibyls.







Arians were considered heretics by the Roman system for not adhering to the Nicene creed but considering Jesus as less than God and then considered the Spirit as less than Jesus.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sibylline-books

I would like to know which ones Lactantius was referencing or if both?

Isn't the information that anyone uses here is pointed at getting thier point across & baised? Everything is so subjective. You get an entirely different take on what happens depending on who you ask, and since you weren't actually THERE, how can you ever be sure what the truth really was? Even letters, books, and personal accounts can be so skewed and taken out of context that you would have to spend a million years rifling through all of it yourself and reading dozens of books to ever make heads or tails of it.............Okay maybe I'm exaggerating, a little even scholars sometimes can't agree on history. It's impossible to piece together a 100% picture of any event in the past...you'll always be missing pieces so you have to interpret what you are seeing. And just because something was written at about the same time that it happened doesn't mean its accurate. Look at all the different news stories that we have in the world today. How many of them are 100% accurate? If they were, why do we have conflicting stories?

Again these are my thougths alone.


And with this I am off to bed......

I agree with you and anyone especially posters on a forum can just select parts and ignore others wholesale. Myself though I strive for accuracy and unbiased views when it comes to history. If something disproves my favored position I will post it regardless as well as information that might support it. I will not ignore something when it comes to history just to make a case. Biased information when it comes to that subject, and revisionism of the kind that grossly neglects facts to suit a specific view, I can only highly frown upon. Misleading people in that manner is an affront to history.

The records themselves might be biased as you point out but they are all we have to work with. That is why in many cases the Pagan view or even the biblical purist view is neglected. History is written by the winners and in many cases in Europe during the rise of Catholicism they were the winners. We still have sources outside of their realm especially during the Dark Ages when Islam was at its height. There is the Asian historians as well but they mainly deal with Asia. Then there is the breakdown of written records not being available and all we have to go by is the interpretation of archaeologist and anthropologist.

In any case while presenting a view, in a forum, outside of one, while writing a book, history should be treated with care and not just trampled on. For those who do not care about the craft maybe they do not take these considerations in mind.

I always wonder at what is suppressed though? Not just then but as of now. What if someone found Noah's Ark but was partial towards Christianity and Judaism? Would they hide it? What if scientist found the fingerprints of God in the Universe? Would they deny it because their belief would not allow them to see it for what it was? Gloss over it on accident? Ignore it intentionally? Maybe it would be the goddess instead they found information about? We trust alot and have no choice unless we want to go around believing all was a lie.

Hate to go off on a tangent but what if aliens or demons are here and we just cannot see them because their wave lengths are at another level? We cannot even see anything with our naked eyes outside of the color spectrum. We have Ultraviolet, X-rays, and Gamma rays on one side and Infrared, Microwaves, and Radio waves on the other end. I am not a physicist but maybe this would be a good topic for another thread. What if someone did discover them and just kept it secret? National disclosure anyone?

I saw a thread that said the Dark Ages was a myth and perhaps never happened. I know American history is so full of holes and misconceptions from the shady beliefs of the forefathers, the pagan symbols, from the conquering of the Indians and the Mexicans, all the way to the current War on Terrorism. So much is lies we are told as truth. What if every country did this throughout history? Sure things are more of a global nature now than before but not sure how that changes things. Napoleon said 'history is a set of lies agreed upon'. There is no need to perpetuate that myth though and make it about lies based upon lies.

One of the worse lies I have seen are the parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus. It has been perpetuated around the web and many forums for a while now. People see that and take it at face value and it mostly lies. Does anyone care about the truth? There are cases to make against Christ but sadly that is a very, very poor one. religioustolerance.org has the master copy that all others seem to copy from but I wonder who really authored it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Let's stick to "Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?" and not start bringing in other far fetched stories .I would like to see some historical evidence but none has been produced as of yet


fullywired

^ I brought plenty of evidence up, fullywired. And yes, you could argue that it's hearsay, but to contrast that hearsay, what is there??? Not a single report of anyone denying it. Not even the earliest opponents said "Hang on, Jesus never existed". The early opponents DID From the very get-go, the existence of Jesus was accepted as FACT. Now, whether Jesus did what was claimed of him in the gospels, I agree there is no evidence for that. nor is there evidence of God.

What hasn't been discussed in a great deal of detail though is the role of Peter in the early church. Peter claimed to be one of Jesus' apostles, claimed to , talked with him, to be taught by him. And when Jesus died, Peter preached him constantly, despite the threats of violence and actual acts of violence. All this culminating in the martyrdom of Peter. That martyrdom is NOT conjecture, but historical fact:

Saint Peter -
Activity and death in Rome; burial place

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.....

More reading and full sources of information for this fact can be found HERE

Peter obviously believed Jesus existed. A conman only goes so far for his schemes. If Peter was a conman, why would he make of himself a martyr when denying Jesus would have saved him from his fate?

I think there is ample evidence to conclude that Jesus did exist, and Peter's ultimate martyrdom is proof that at the very least he believed it to be true. Whether you believe the claims of the Bible about his divinity or miracles or death/resurrection, or see them as elaborate fairy tales spun around the life of a teacher named Jesus, then taht is a matter for your own heart to decide. But it is undeniable historical fact (as far as I can see) that he existed. To claim otherwise is to distort history, in my humble and most biased opinion.

That many . . .if not the majority . . .of historians consider to be a forgery.

No one is trying to disprove . . .only stating the lack of proof.

I can't believe your linking me to catholic site but then "Necessity makes strange bedfellows" you keep telling me there is ample evidence but you don't provide it.instead you start to prove Peter


fullywired

And what does the nature of the site have to do with what I posted? What does it matter if it's a catholic site? It sounds like you're just trying to to avoid the information on that page (you should read my "The Source Conundrum thread sometime - unless you actually respond to this article, it sounds very much like you're trying to brush away the specifics of the article on the basis of the source it came from).

I have provided the evidence for Jesus, read my posts in this thread (the first one in particular) - though your response was a link simply stating that they all existed after the fact (a point that is not in dispute - it's the conclusions drawn from that comment that are in dispute). The quotes from the earliest critics of Christianity, for example - as I said, perhaps it is hearsay, but hearsay works both ways, too - if it is so, there was not a single person who went against the grain and said "Jesus did not exist" (which would also be a matter of hearsay). From the very beginning, Jesus has been an accepted historical fact. However, his miracles attributed to him by the Bible are not necessarily accepted as fact, and I agree with that sentiment. Why did no one ever say "Jesus did not exist"?

Historically speaking, Jesus as a person exists. Show me a single person in ancient times who denies it (and not Tyrpho, whom Tiggs already linked but was refuted). Remember, don't confuse those who criticise the actions of Christ with the existence of Jesus. Good luck - I have a feeling you're going to need it.

That's actually a really good point. Lets say for a second Jesus never really did exist. Christianity was founded purely on a mythological character; when you take into account the persecution of the early Christians, both by Orthodox Jews and the Romans, don't you think the historians of the time would have been all over this? I should think they would have all written about the sheer madness of the faith; believing unto death in a man that never lived. I mean, I could do that. I'll create a fictional messiah, I'll name him Karl, and I will go around spreading the gospel of Karl. Now when I start being ridiculed for my fictional Messiah, and lets just say persecuted for it, don't you think people in society might do some digging and realize....hey a wait a minute, this Messiah Karl never existed, he made him up?

You call the writings of Josephus and Tacitus into question; but don't you think, had they known, especially Josephus being a Jew, that he wouldn't write about the fact that Jesus never existed? I would want to help stomp out what would be viewed as an insane heresy. They would all be lunatics. It would certainly make for some interesting writing. I agree with you, if you're going to question anything about Jesus, it shouldn't be about His existence, but His miracles, which admittedly there aren't unbiased accounts.

[quote name='Paranoid Android' date='May 15 2008, 03:49 PM' post='2300412']
? It sounds like you're just trying to to avoid the information on that page (you should read my "The Source Conundrum thread sometime - unless you actually respond to this article, it sounds very much like you're trying to brush away the specifics of the article on the basis of the source it came from).





Now who is using an Ad hominem argument , If I had used a link to a sceptic site ,you would have soon told me it was biased .just as your link is biased.

I am answering the OP ,who asked ,"is there any solid evidence " to which my answer is still ,No there isn't,and you will need more luck than I to prove otherwise


fullywired

Of course we'll need good luck.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” - George Orwell

In 391 AD, the Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples. It's difficult to find historical evidence when the other side burns all the evidence.

Historically speaking, no evidence exists to prove that Jesus as a person existed. There's not even evidence that his supposed birth town of Nazareth existed.

How many other people that were historical figures, some minor some major figures, that we do not know exactly the date or location of their birth? Obscure origins is not a case for dismissing someone. The fact is the consensus among historians is that Jesus did in fact exist. This has nothing to do with the religious nature of things. It has just to do with the fact he did exist. Sure some scholars since the 1700s have questioned that and more so within the last few decades. Their views though are still not the consensus views. Some historians offered biased accounts or some pseudo-historians write books with biased narratives. Some might just be attempting to revise history but others are just doing so out of a religious bias and lack a respect for history. We have to be careful when we read the works of others and compare them to what the actual consensus is.



That is not really true though some pagan temples were destroyed because of what he actually did do in 391. In the end most were destroyed if not all. It is a long and complicated process and it is easy to make generalizations but he did not 'order the destruction of all pagan temples' in 391'. Not sure though how the historical evidence for the Jesus would have been burnt when Pagan records were unless you mean the evidence to disprove Jesus. Not many people make records though to say someone who lived a hundred years ago did not exist since most records are written about what did exist.



^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I}

There is no evidence that God exist.
That's why it's called faith.

The difference here, Clovis - is that his origins are documented within the Gospels. I'd imagine that it's slightly inconvenient for most Christians that no place called Nazareth existed during the time that Jesus was purported to be alive.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)


It's not the only time that Christianity ordered the burning of books, is it?

He who wins writes history. You know that, right?

Is it the conspiracy theory argument you are offering, Tiggs? The argument goes something like - "there must have been texts that said he didn't exist but we don't have them today because they were all burned". Every copy of every dissenting author ever, with the exception fo those that disputed Christ (of course they only burned the ones taht denied Jesus totally - if they denied Christ it was still ok), had every copy of their text destroyed.

Wouldn't more plausible suggestions be that there simply wasn't any such controvery?

I'm not using an ad hominem argument. I'm simply stating that you have not addressed the material - something you ahve still not done. The thread asked for proof of Jesus and God. I have acknowledged that proof for God cannot be found, nor can proof of the miracle-worker Jesus. But I do dispute the historicity of Jesus as being under question. As one part of proof, I discussed the apostle Peter, who is known to have been martyred (though the exact nature of his martyrdom is in question.... tradition of course has him being nailed upside down on a crucifix). In response to this, you say "Look, it's a Catholic website" - without even the smallest shred of reference to the content of said article.

However this doesnt prove that Jesus actually did exist either. If there is no actual hard evidence from Historians during the life of Christ himself then the possibility is both ways. He may have existed but he also may have not. A weak eye for the bias can also be stating that Jesus did exist in the face of evidence that there was no contemporary record of him.

The point is and this is in no way an offence to anyones faith but there is a good possibility based on the evidence so far shown on this thread that an actual Jesus may not have existed.

In my view this does not invalidate Christ's core universal teachings.

I agree with your last statement. Do not consider me a Vatican supporter though.

As far as Nazareth there is no proof that it did not exist during that time. It could have been an insignifcant settlement at the time in the eyes of the power structure and historians so ignored mostly. But just because something was not mentioned does not instantly prove it to not have existed and that is something we all can agree on. Nazareth might not have been insignifcant though in a sense. The view that it was inhabited in antiquity but abandoned and only resettled in the 2nd century of the common era might have to be looked at again.



http://www.uoregon.edu/~mharrsch/2003_10_0...ch_archive.html



http://www.hartford.edu/newsevents/release...ails.asp?id=598