Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God.

We also know from Paul that he had met Jesus' brothers (and that he was not on the best of terms with them).

No, historians use Paul as evidence for the existence of Jesus. If you want to dispute them, you'll have to engage their arguments, which your comments here do not begin to do. There is much debate among poorly informed people on the Internet, and in the not insignificant crackpot community. There's virtually no debate among scholars, whatever their religious persuasion.

Years ago in college I had one drunken night after finals when I fully grokked the wonderous sacrifice yeasts makes for us! Not only beer, wine, but bread also!lfen

quote:

---

Thats like saying all Spanish people are the same.

---

How is that the same? Spanish and Hispanic people are born Hispanic. But isn't Christianity a lifestyle choice?

I find the mythicist argument to be the most convincing. Doherty's Jesus Puzzle website provides a well documented case for there being no historical Jesus.Paul's Christ was a spiritual intermediary that was known in the spirit. Mark wrote his gospel as a midrash to explain this deity. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity as the official religion the church used it's new acquired power to enforce the beliefs that had been created during the intervening centuries. Christianity is a religion created by early Christians from Jewish, Greek, and pagan thought. The Roman church held power in Europe for a very long time and through force and indoctrination established a strong cultural pyschology. The religion certainly has appeal, but like almost all religions it is based on myths that are expression of deep human pyschological needs.Those needs are so strong that even in the case of people who are well educated, such as C. S. Lewis, the desire to believe the story that is unsupported in fact outweighs their rational knowledge. From my reading here I don't see that fundamentalist understand science, logic, history, linguistics etc enough to be susceptible to rational persuassion.Religion uses emotional rhetoric for it's appeal, and as we see in our advertising to this day, emotional rhetorical arguments are more powerful in impacting behaviour than fact based logic. Look how long it took to get people to change their minds about tabacco. And still people smoke! How much harder it will be to educate the believer about something as long standing as religion.lfen

I guess you didn't read my reply to your message.The tests are over. They concluded that the inscription was a fake.

Doherty is part of the crackpot community I mentioned. If you want to understand evolution, don't read creationist web sites. If you want to understand New Testament/early church scholarship, don't read Doherty.Paul quite clearly believed that Jesus had a physical, human existence -- in particular, that he was descended from David. Or take the brothers of Jesus. Paul refers to them several times, and talks about having met them. They were clearly important figures in the early church, and figures that Paul didn't get along with too well. He talks about them as Jesus' brothers, Mark talks about them as Jesus' (physical) brothers, and Josephus does the same. The obvious conclusion is that they were the brothers of Jesus. It's going to take an awfully long time if the one doing the educating knows less about the facts than the believer.

sfs,Do you accept all the Pauline Epistles and the Acts as the writings of one man, Paul?Are you also saying that anyone who takes the position that the paucity and the debated genuineness of the few references to Jesus supports the idea that Jesus like many religious figures, Moses, Mithras, Osiris, etc. is a myth is a crackpot?Doherty, offers well supported if controversials arguments. I follow the discussion in the JesusMysteries group on Yahoo and the state of the record of early Christianity is so incomplete that many theories are generated to explain it. The early church offered the official version and by long authority that prevails but it doesn't seem based on logical or historical argument to me. Thomas Paine was one of the early critics to point out that Mark and those that drew on him had failed at proving their claim that Jesus was fulfillment of prophecy.The mythicist postition seems to be more recent than the historical Jesus theories, and I think there is a good chance that it will gain ground as more records come to light.lfen

quote:

---

Poppycock!
No such edict ever existed

---

Actually, you would be wrong. In A.D 303, Diocletian issued an edict to stop christians from worshipping and to destroy their scriptures "...an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and destruction by fire of the scriptures and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of christianity, would be deprived of their liberty"

quote:

---

Nonsense - where do you GET this stuff?

---

A great fire ravaged Rome in 64 C.E., destroying about a fourth of the city. The rumor circulated that Nero was responsible and, according to Roman historian Tacitus, Nero tried to protect himself by placing the blame on the Christians. (The Annals, XV, XLIV) Mass arrests followed, and Christians as well as those suspected of being Christians were tortured, put to death in large numbers, some even being burned alive in public. This appears to have marked the start of a great wave of persecution, not from religious opposers, but from political sources bent on exterminating the Christian congregation. The historian Tacitus writes of Neros persecution of Christians in the first century "An immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing [Rome], but of hatred against mankind."It was by means of endurance that the early Christians conquered persecution during a period of about 280 years when the Roman Empire persecuted them off and on. A.D. 235 the sixth oppression fell upon the Christians during the reign of Emperor Maximinus. This time numberless Christian victims were slain without any trial whatsoever and their bodies were often piled in heaps without so much as a decent burial. It is said that this persecution stemmed from Maximinus great hatred for his predecessor, Alexander, who had sheltered the Christians. Under Decius A.D. 249, the seventh persecution was inaugurated. This assault spread throughout the empire, spared neither age nor sex, and contrived to introduce torture unique to all that had gone before it...Thus began an era of ten major persecutions against Christians by various emperors of Rome over a period of nearly three hundred years.

quote:

---

Would you say, then, that there was actually an alien space ship hidden behind Hale-bopp comet and that it was going to take the members of the heaven's gate cult to their paradise planet?

​

Would you say, then, that Jim Jones was actually the messiah and he had healing powers?

​

Please answer the questions directly. Consider me as a 13 yr old who cannot decipher poetic ramblings very well.

---

Lam im not sure what your trying to ask me here. Please explain it to me a bit more.

I wrote this in post 60, yet only received 1 reply, i would appreciate more.

quote:

---

Many of the eye-witnesses were still alive when the manuscripts containining such claims were circulating. If those letters and manuscripts had been false, the eye-witnesses would have denounced them as frauds. But the scriptures were widely accepted as historical and fact. There still exists more than 24,000 of these ancient manuscript copies, in spite of centuries of efforts to eradicate the christian scriptures. Compare this to the number of surviving manuscripts of some of the great works of secular history, such as The Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar. Only 10 copies remain of his work, yet its historicity is never questioned. Or Plato, yet the New Testament has thousands of manuscript copies yet there seems to be a problem there. The historical accounts in the post above me provide sufficient evidence even with ignoring the New Testament. People though dont want Jesus to exist, just like they dont want the Bible to be the word of God. False prophets, messiahs were always killed, or called frauds. The ressurection itself would have been debunked in ancient times if there was a reference to Christs body being found rotten in a tomb. All the other founders of religions have had there bodies in tombs. Jesus was accepted as the messiah for the things he did. Some people try to base the fraud on the eye-witnesses not being trustworthy. If people want to question that we can see the standard legal witness test used throughout law courts in the world. These men hated lying, they lived by the idea that Jesus was the way and the truth.
The Encyclopedia Britanica (15 edition,1974), concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, records:

​

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries"

​

To deny the historicity of Christ is to deny the existence of Aristole, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad or Napoleon Bonaparte because they are all are part of history. Yet Jesus has made the biggest impact on our world then all of these.

---

Greetings Almeyda,First you claimed this -
"Then we have the edict were anyone found with a Bible was killed. "Now,
we all know there were persecutions - yes.But there was NEVER an edict to KILL those FOUND with a BIBLE.You insist
"Actually, you would be wrong."and claim THIS is proof -
"...an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and destruction by fire of the scriptures and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of christianity, would be deprived of their liberty"Well,
this talks about "destruction of scriptures",
it mentions those in high position "losing civil right",
it says believers who persist be "deprived of liberty".But
it says NOTHING about KILLING anyone.Please point out where YOU think this passage says anything about killing anyone found with a bible.Then you claimed -
"Underneath Rome lie some 900miles of caves where over 7 million christians, executed for there[sic] beliefs were buried."This is nonsense, and I said so.You then mentioned the fire in Rome and made some general comments as if that proved your wild claim - but never even MENTIONED the "900miles of caves" or the "over 7 million christians, executed for there[sic] beliefs."Do you have any EVIDENCE for that claim?
Or did you just MAKE UP those figures, Almeyda?Iasion

I revisited Doherty's site. And a brief review confirms to me that though his position is controversial he is not a crackpot. I quote him:"Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidencea cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and onshould lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability. (Let’s call it an informed and specifically directed agnosticism.) I acknowledge that we are getting onto ground that is partly subjective here. But history, to a great degree, is a subjective discipline. We adopt the best-deduced views and interpretations we can about the past and apply them in hopefully useful ways in the present. I would settle for persuading a large number of people as to the likelihood that Christianity began without an historical Jesus. But I would strongly invite them to make that commitment."He is far more careful in his statements than many of the apologist who post on these lists. I find his web site important as it first showed me the alternative to the historical Jesus who was then turned into a legend by the accretion of wonder stories perhaps along the line of the developement of miracles about the Buddha. Whether the Buddha was a myth or not the original teachings were not miraculous or supernatural, yet later all kinds of miraculous happens were told about him. That was in keeping with the form of expression and belief in those times.And millions of people still find that mythic miraculous story telling compelling to this day, and I'm referring to fundamentalists of all the major religion as well as followers of smaller sects.Doherty did not originate the mythic argument but his careful scholarly popularizing of the positiion helps balance the approaches to early Christian literature. The believers take them literally, the historists look for a teacher whose teachings were elaborated into the doctrines of the church, the mythist point out that no actual person is neccessary as a founder.Mark can be read as a midrash on Paul's spiritual Christ. The silence of the early church on a founder figure is puzzling at least. The notion that Paul's silence is because he didn't know of a historical person but rather was writing of a spiritual person is not an unreasonable explanation and Doherty does not support it in a crackpot manner at all.Only if one takes the postition that anyone who disagrees with the church is a crackpot can Earl Doherty be so catagorized.lfen

quote:

---

1- Flavius Josephus (died 97AD) who wrote
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

​

2- Tacitus (115AD)

​

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...

​

3- Tetullian (200 AD)

​

Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

​

4- Talmud-Sanhedrin43

​

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

---

Great post. This alone provides sufficient evidence for his existence. Let alone all the other evidence there is. It really is a bias against Jesus to deny his existence. The skeptics do not want to believe no matter what the evidence is. "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries"

Greetings all,"This alone provides sufficient evidence for his existence. "Nonsense.
Not one of the examples stand up to scrutiny -The Josephus passage has been tampered with by later Christans, it can hardly be considered good evidence. Josephus may not have originally said anything about Jesus at all.The Tacitus reference is from about 80 years later, not contemporary, and has several problems -
* Tacitus does NOT give a source - he seems to be merely repeating Christian beliefs of his day.
* Tacitus does NOT give a name in Roman manner (Roman records could not have used the name "Christ")
* Tacitus get Pilate's title wrong - using the term from Tacitus' day, not Pilate's.So,
the Tacitus reference is not evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for later Christian belief in Christ.Tertullian was a Christian father from well over a CENTURY later - far too late, and biased, to be evidence for Jesus at all.The Talmud stories about Jesus are from centuries after the alleged events, and tell very different versions of the story. Not evidence at all."Let alone all the other evidence there is. It really is a bias against Jesus to deny his existence."What other evidence?
Thallus? A Fraud.
Suetonius? Not even about Jesus.
Pliny? A vague 2nd century mention of Christ.
The others are no better.None of the so-called "evidence" for Jesus' existance stands up to scrutiny at all.Iasion