Did Jesus Exist?

Last chance, or I'll suspend your privileges in this forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm genuinely confused... are you saying that the billion or so Hindus are all worshipping Gods that are actually demons? Or am I completely misreading your comments? Faith, you completely ignored the entire point of my post - I'll requote the final line of my post: Any thoughts? Perhaps comment on how we weigh numbers of followers and time followed in using followers as evidence.Thanks.

Evidence of what? You seem to keep changing the focus. The existence of millions of believers ought to testify to the actual existence of Jesus Christ. None of the other Messiah claimants acquired such a following. I don't know of one instance of people following someone who didn't exist, do you? If you are talking about believing in God, or believing that a snail is God, that is another subject.

How do the writings of, say, St. Augustine (or pick your author) comprise evidence for the existence of Jesus?--Percy

See Message 48

An intelligent man writing about another man he takes as having existed is evidence.

I have vague recollections of trying to track down a quote about Jesus or Christians by an early writer and not being able to find it. I finally concluded it didn't really exist, since such a fabulous passage, if it existed, should be easy to find. I wonder if maybe it was Suetonius and that you're referring to the same passage. Can you find it anywhere?--Percy

There seems to be several messages, depending on who was doing the writing of the Gospel.The major one I see is 'Love they neighbor as you would love thyself', and Love God.If you look at the people that were banned from the Temple, and then compare them with the people that Jesus was reaching out to, you will see the people who were 'unclean' to enter the temple were the blind, the lame, and the diseased. Those people that Jesus reached out to where that very same population, with such words as 'The kingdom of God is within you' (or at least attributed to Jesus).It pushed compassion for the less fortunate, the need to be humble to god, and not feel the need to show to everyone how devoted to god, but
to know what your devotion is yourself. (Pray in the closet, rather than make a big show out of it).THe message that everyone has value, that you don't need a big heirachy to be in contact with god (i.e. the kingdom of god is within you), and compassion to the poor and needy is a good message to teach.My attitude it also would be the message that counts. Of course, my religious heritiage is a works based religion, rather than a faith based religion.

There is a serious flaw in your logic, unless you can further explain your thinking to me.You are arguing that the millions of believers now only believe because Jesus physically existed, even though not a single one ever met Him (in a non-supernatural sense)? What evidence is being used by these millions to assure them that He physically existed?And yes, there are plenty of people who follow/believe someone/something that didn't exist. One that comes to mind is the followers of Matigari, who was a wholly fictional political revolutionary created by the author Ngugi - Matigari's followers became active enough that the fictional book was banned by some governments to suppress rebellion. His followers believed that Matigari was real. They were desperate and needed a hero. A messiah.Perhaps instances such as these is why we shouldn't use followers as evidence for the person/thing they are following.

It is only evidence that that intelligent man believed another man existed. Where is the evidence that he was correct in that belief?For historical evidence that Jesus was a real person you have to go back to original sources of the 1st century AD and perhaps a short while after. Archeological evidence is also relevant.--Percy

The Suetonius reference IIRC was from his Life of Nero, and it is certainly vauge and could be misconstrued. In it it mentions that the Jews were costantly causing problems at the urging and instigation of Chrestus.Logically, that shows us a couple things.First, the people involved were considered Jews. That's not unreasonable as it's very likley that at that time, any followers of Christ would still be considered, and consider themselves, as Jews, not a separate religion.But the rest of the quotation seems to imply a particular individual as opposed to a sect. It seems to say that there was some living individual who was the leader or instigator of the Jewish disturbances, and not some separate Jewish sect.Granted, it could have any number of interpretations. It could be a misspelling. It could refer to a specific individual. It might refer to a subset of the Jews in the area. But at best it is inconclusive evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I first referenced the ORIGINAL believers. We now believe because those before us believed. You could say the same about any belief in any historical figure now dead. What's the evidence that any such ever lived PS? The hundreds of thousands who believed in the first centuries, evidenced by the network of bishops and other church leaders to organize them if nothing else, and also the writings of the early church fathers. This is all evidence. All believed in the real Jesus Christ. The early church was also persecuted for that belief, dying for it by the thousands. The New Testament itself is evidence for heaven's sake.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-05-2006 02:10 PM

Historical evidence IS the many believers throughout (early) history especially. You can't expect THAT many people to change based on a mere marketing ploy. Many thousands supposedly saw Him after He rose again...which although unproven does make sense that word of mouth would have perpetuated the legend.
1) Some say the legend was a myth.
2) Some are adamant of the story as retold.
3) Some believe just because they "feel" it.
4) Others, such as Mini-D and the rest of you, are merely suspending any conclusion until proven by the scientific method. It won't happen that way! You are awaiting evidence before you will believe. In that case, you NEVER will believe!This message has been edited by Phat, 01-05-2006 12:17 PM

There were thousands upon thousands along with Augustine with the same belief. There were MANY Church Fathers who believed the same, going back to the first century. The belief of hundreds of thousands truly ought to be enough. The New Testament testimonies themselves ought to be enough. The building up of a historical record from the earliest times ought to be enough. The fact that early Christians were martyred for their belief ought to be evidence. The fact that the more they died the more the religion grew ought to be evidence. We have no original sources, but we have plenty of copies of original sources. Archaeology is not needed.

NORAD is the wing of the defense department responsible for monitoring North America for incoming enemy missles and bombers and such.Presumably the people running NORAD would be considered "intelligent." Yippee!!! "Intelligent men" have written about the existence of Santa Claus!!!All those kids in fourth grade lied!!!