Evidence of Jesus

[Hermes Trismegistus]

There is actually very powerful evidence that Jesus existed. Not counting spiritual proof available let us list the practical ones. 1. There are four different accounts seemingly written by four different individuals testifying to his existence, life and teachings. These of course are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Critics complain that we do not have an original manuscript that the earliest manuscript was created hundreds of years after Jesus lived. On the other hand, there are many ancient Greek authors for which we also do not have an original manuscript yet scholars have no problem accepting that they were real. For example, scholars believe that they have an accurate text of seven plays of Sophocles, yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1,400 years after his death! The earliest fragment of the Gospels is that of John and was found in Egypt and dated shortly after 100 AD. This was only a few years after it was written just before the turn of the century. Information on the manuscript can be found at: http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm Also found in Egypt were the Magdalen Fragments of the gospel of Matthew. Most scholars agree that they date back to the second century, but some argue that date clear back to 70 AD. More information can be found at: http://dejnarde.ms11.net//magda.htm In addition there exists a fragment of there Gospel of Peter (not in the Bible) that dates back to just after the first century. It is an interesting fact that there exists today approximately 5300 copies of ancient Greek manuscripts which are copies of the gospels. This number greatly exceeds the Greek copies testifying to any other man in history. 2. There are hundreds of apocryphal works of ancient date testifying to the life of Jesus. 3. It is a stretch of the imagination to believe that around 2 billion believers today follow an imaginary character. No other religion of any significance has the existence of its founder questioned. 4. Skeptics claim that around 300 AD a group of writers fabricated the gospels and somehow convinced the entire Roman Empire they were true. This would be comparable to Bush and his advisors convincing the country that some imaginary guy named Oliver Smith is the messiah and appeared in America around 1700 AD. It is just not believable. 5. The words of Jesus in the Gospels are the most powerful words ever written and are quoted and duplicated more than any other in history. This feat would be virtually impossible to achieve by fraudulent men. If there is an historical Jesus then is it logical to assume that what is written about him in the gospels is basically true. It is also logical to assume there are errors in what is written, but he had to have been quite a remarkable person to have had such an impact on the world.

[ravenqueen]

Humm...interesting way to join DV. Either way welcome to the DV!

[Neruo]

Yeah wtf are you doing here. And jesus is fake. And there is no use in making up philosofical texts, and even then, it doesn't mater if socrates did or did not write his own manuscrips, it's about the theories he had. In making up a story like the bible, there is use. It's just a really entertaining fictional story, and people can say: See I told you god was true, it's in this book. How convenient. Jesus = bastard :0

[AirRick101]

Can't outright say Jesus is fake nor real...at best, we don't really know, and it comes down to what you choose to believe. There is rarely logic in debates, almost always an underlying driving force of emotion, so I recommend someone say how they feel about something before arguing about it.

[bradybaker]

Welcome to the oven. Fact - the gospels were written (at the very earliest) 40 years after Jesus supposedly died and was resurrected. Fact - before these stories were written down, the only way they could be transferred is through oral tradition, obviously not a reliable method. Fact - after they were finally written down, they were copied by hand by scribes who added shit in wherever they felt was appropriate and changed things to fit their perspective. Fact - the only people who actually took these stories seriously in the beginning were the dirt poor, ignorant farmers who barely knew up from down and were more than willing to accept anything into their lives that gave them a bit of hope. Fact - there are no first hand accounts (ie. written during his supposed lifetime) of Jesus in existence, no record of him in the Roman Empire, no statues or coins from the time, nothing. Keep in mind that the people of the early centuries were completely uneducated and had little to no understanding of the natural world. I'll close with a question I've asked several times before, What's the difference between a religion and a cult?

[Neruo]

Originally posted by AirRick101 Can't outright say Jesus is fake nor real...at best, we don't really know, and it comes down to what you choose to believe. There is rarely logic in debates, almost always an underlying driving force of emotion, *so I recommend someone say how they feel about something before arguing about it. well maybe there indeed was some child rapist that fooled some people with the desease that makes your penis fall off. But the 'sun of god' part of the story is bullshit. What brady said: verry good points. People were uneducated shits, the fact that the story of jesus just got popular like 400 years later indicates that alot of changes have been made to the story. Christianity was a cult, constantine made it a religion. But that religion is based on crap. The crappy stories that were verbally passed on between farmers and people with the desease that makes your penis fall off.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Fact - the gospels were written (at the very earliest) 40 years after Jesus supposedly died and was resurrected. Hi Brady, may I ask how you arrived at this conclusion in particular? Welcome to the forum Trismegistus!

[Neruo]

Originally posted by Genjyo Hi Brady, may I ask how you arrived at this conclusion in particular? Welcome to the forum Trismegistus! well that is just a fact, those 4 dudes wrtote their stories a bit late. I allso heard there were about 100 gospels, but a Few got removed to make it a fitting story.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Genjyo)</div> Hi Brady, may I ask how you arrived at this conclusion in particular?[/b] It's nothing controversial, we actually went over it briefly in my Religious Studies course two nights ago. <!--QuoteBegin-My RS Prof 50-55 CE: 1, 2 Thessalonians; 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians(?), Romans 60-65 CE: Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians(?) 65-70 CE: Mark (Matthew and Luke?) 70-90 CE: Hebrews(?), Luke/Acts?, Matthew?, James, Revelation 90-105 CE: John, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, 1,2,3 John Jude?, Peter Now, Jesus supposedly died on the in the 30s correct? So there's at least a 30 year difference there. 30 years is a long time for stories to be passed around orally.

[AHiddenSaint]

Originally posted by AirRick101 Can't outright say Jesus is fake nor real...at best, we don't really know, and it comes down to what you choose to believe. There is rarely logic in debates, almost always an underlying driving force of emotion, *so I recommend someone say how they feel about something before arguing about it. My theory is that the myth is mightier then the man. I believe there was a Jesus, but if he was the son of God or not there is no evidence. He might have become enlighten and tried to bring a message of peace, but the people long afterwards turned that message into a legend and that legend into a myth beyond the man. This can happen very easy espically with those trying to create a religion around the man. It also doesn't mean the actual person that was Jesus is a bad person. Just a note the only reason why I believe in God and Jesus is because of my own personal experiences. My parents never forced me to church and I never had anyone force me to read the bible. I think that is also why I'm more open to belief rather then religion itself. My own belief. I've also enjoyed some of buddhism which I find the culture very interesting and the ideas interesting. No religion is right or wrong in the sense of it's truth. What is wrong is people forcing others to decide. We as humans were given the ability to learn and if whatever God is out there thought that learning was a bad thing why would he give it to us in the first place? If I could actually use my own life to save this world then personally that would be the message I would want to leave behind that we as humans should learn and respect each other. We shouldn't place ourselves above another because each person has equal value. We should try to understand others because isn't that what we are asking others to do about ourselves? If we respect each persons culture and history just the same as ours then we would gain more respect from the other person. It's the heart and not the religion that matters. If you find the heart to be a good person then you can live a life of great understanding, knowledge, and wisedom.

[exploreyourmind]

Originally posted by bradybaker Fact - after they were finally written down, they were copied by hand by scribes who added shit in wherever they felt was appropriate and changed things to fit their perspective. is that really a fact?

[Hermes Trismegistus]

Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ Originally posted by Genjyo Welcome to the forum Trismegistus! Thank you Genjyo

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by exploreyourmind is that really a fact? Yes.

[AirRick101]

Is it really a big deal? No. If humans aren't smart enough to live a reasonable life without having religious texts that surely will destroy us, we don't really deserve to exist after all.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Yes. I second that.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Jesus supposedly died on the in the 30s correct? So there's at least a 30 year difference there. 30 years is a long time for stories to be passed around orally. From what I have researched Matthew dates the earliest, around 45 AD. There is no mention of the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) recorded in Matt 5 and 24. Mark, prior to 65 AD. Paul called for him during his second years of arrest in Rome. 2 Tim 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. Luke, who was not an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ, makes it clear that he thoroughly researched the facts. Luke 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke later wrote the Book of Acts. Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach. Luke recorded the beginnings of the Church and the mounting persecution. Peter, Paul, and James, all leaders, are prominently written about, however, their deaths as martyrs are not. In the year 62 AD, the High Priest Ananus had James convicted by the Sanhedrin and stoned to death. from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20:9:1 so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest. In 64 AD the Emperor Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was executed by 65 AD in Rome. All this plus his missionary work with Paul makes Luke having written the Book of Acts around 62 AD and his Gospel around 58 AD.

[Tsen]

But the book's validity can be called into question--After all, they were hand-copied for more than a thousand years before being copied by machine, and arguments exist that significant changes were made for hundreds of years after that, as well! A note to Trismegistus: You're right about this bit: It is an interesting fact that there exists today approximately 5300 copies of ancient Greek manuscripts which are copies of the gospels. This number greatly exceeds the Greek copies testifying to any other man in history.[/b] But you're dead wrong if you think those are the same gospels you read today. Translations of them have shown that the Bible is terribly incorrect, and some stories seem to have been inserted in where they didn't exist in the first place. Makes it a tad bit less reliable than you'd like to think.

[Ynot]

[quote]The bible was written by men, over a very long period of time it has been changed and edited so many times, is unbelievable (pun intended) when the roman empire was in full swing, they edited the bible to suit their agenda entire books were re-written or mis-translated to serve the good of Rome the book of St. Thomas was completely ommitted (this still remains the case today) you cannot logically say that the bible is the word of God it's the word of man it has been so corrupted, so bastadised, that I doubt if anything has been left with it's original meaning intact belief is very powerful those wanting power (or wanting to remain in power) knew this editing the book to fit your goal was a simple, sure-fire way to keep the loyalty of the common people "you burnt our village, raped our women and forced us into slavery !!!" "yes, because the bible told us to - you beleive in God, don't you?" "Yes, I do" "Ever read the bible?" "No, only noble-men are allowed to read and write, and you killed them all" "Well, let me tell you what the bible says......" "Gad zooks, we were heathen devil worshipers, and it took a big one-sided massacre for us to realise this" "That's my boy, now go plow your field"

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Hermes Trismegistus There is actually very powerful evidence that Jesus existed. Not counting spiritual proof available let us list the practical ones..... Well, that was a splendid little essay... and I mostly agree. However, you can't seriously look at the Letters of John and the book of Revelation and then suppose that the Gospel of John was written by the same man. All internal evidence would indicate that the Gospel of John was written by a Greek -- a Neo-Platonist Greek... and a Neo-Platonist Greek who did not seem to know much about Hebrew Culture. The Gospel of John appears to be a 2nd Century Document which attempts to superimpose Paulist Doctrine back onto the Ministry and Life of Christ. I see it as 2nd Century, because it is not entirely Paulist but shows what must have been some political dealings between the paulist congregations and what was left of some of the Messianic Congregations. Of course, you did not fail to notice that the Gospel of John has a completely different time line than the other gospels. It is also remarkable that if it were not for the Gospel of John, there would be no Gospel Support for any Paulist Doctrine, but since the Gospel of John is a 2nd Century Document, and most obviously contrived and artifactual, well, it simply should be tossed out. As lovely as the writing is, pure aesthetics should not overrule the Truth.

[exploreyourmind]

Originally posted by bradybaker Yes. cool.

[Tom_Peace]

Does it really matter if Jesus existed or not? You exist. You matter.

[Tsen]

It matters because zealots, supposedly acting in his name, are spreading ignorance throughout the world right now.

[Umbrella]

That's strange, why do so many people seem to believe Jesus is a made up character? This might be just me, but as far as I've always been taught, Jesus is a historical figure. Sure, nothing's certain, ever, but saying Jesus never existed is like saying Caesar never existed. I'm sure none of us know either of them personally, but for as far as possible, their existence has been proven. Now let me add to that that I'm an atheist, and I don't believe Jesus was the son of god or even that he had any special powers. I take those tales about as seriously as I do any self-proclaimed psychic alive today. I wouldn't, however, doubt the existence of Jesus as a person. After all, Christianity (as a cult) started during the days of Jesus. In other words, there were Christians at the time he was alive. If he didn't exist, then it wouldn't make much sense for these people to follow him as a prophet. If you ask me, the question shouldn't be whether or not Jesus existed. It should be whether he was indeed (the son of) god. Then again, that shouldn't be a question either, since the answer is so blatantly obvious.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Umbrella saying Jesus never existed is like saying Caesar never existed. Um, not quite.

[Umbrella]

Originally posted by bradybaker Um, not quite. Oh, my bad then >.>