Did Jesus Exist?

There is no secular evidence from before the Jewish Revolt in 70 C.E. that shows there was a Jesus. The vast majority of scriptures that were written about Jesus came after 70 C.E. also. The letters of Paul were anywhere from 20 to 40 years after the alleged event. That shows there were communities that Paul was preaching too at that time, but Paul's letters were basically giving advice to a specific community about a specific topic, and never really mentioned Jesus except in vague terms.Paul never met Jesus in life, but rather insisted he had a vision when traveling.There might have been a Jesus who was preaching that things were based on, but how close do the stories about Jesus have to match?? I suspect that if a Jesus actually existed, the message given by the gospels were just taken from the religious movements of the time, and probably not original or even promoted by the 'proto-jesus'.The problem is we really don't have any records. For example, when it comes to the letters of paul to the various communities, do we really have a record about what those indiviudal communities believed? As far as I can see, we do not. The stories in the Gospels developed after the Jewish revolt, when there was a big emotional and spiritual upset because of the destruction of the temple. There also was a influx of gentiles into the Christian community. Those two events was bound to make a big impact on the mind set of the believers.The one set of documents that were from a messanic communinity (The dead sea scrolls), are no help to us here, because they were paranoid, and wrote in code, never writing a persons name down. There really is no way of knowing who the 'Great Teacher' was, or 'The Great Liar', or any of the other references to people they knew, but didn't want to put the name on paper for political reasons.At the current time, I can not subscribe to the hypotheses that there was a historical Jesus. The concept the stories are a combination of various preachers to be more convincing.If we come across something like a GENUNIE ossurary of James, or something similar rather than a forgery, then I will reevaluate my position.

Actaully, that source is the Talmud. There were at least 20 different Jesus's in the talmud. I believe that the details of Pantera do not match the other stories about him.The Talmud was written down between mid second century and 4th century C.E. That makes details like that rather suspect to begin with.

I am sure you 'Felt' something. And I am sure you are attributing it to be 'the holy spirit'. That acceptance of your feeligns that are internal to yourself can not be counted as evidence FOR Jesus. After all, those same symptoms you described are experianced by people of other religions, and even atheists. They can be artifically induced in people via drugs, and stimulation of parts of the brain.What you had what is known as 'subjective' evidence. You can use those feelings to convince yourself. However, other people can not examine your feelings to make a judgement on it.

Well, yes, in the eyes of many christians that is true.That is because Christianity is baseing itself on being exclusive and historical. Islam has the same weakness.That might be why so many christains seem to be willing to lie, and also lie to themselves about the historical evidence. That is probably the motivation for trying to find ways to mesh togather stories that contradict each other.

Celsus and the Talmud are from about the same time period I think. It was written in 178 C.E... around the time the Talmud was being compiled.It is hard to say which came first.. both were probalby from oral tradition. Considering the friction between the early christians and the Jews of that time period, I would be hard pressed to give that story any historical veracity. I am not certain that Pandera is refering to the proper time frame in any case.It is, however, an interesting example how counter stories will spring up. I think assocating pandara with the Jesus of Nazareth is just one of those counter stories, a myth that grew up to discredit the other side. There is no way to prove/disprove it, only that the story existed in the later half of the second century.

Well, Antiquites 18 is a forgery that was added in the early 4th century , probably by Bishop Euribus.Tactilus was writing about CHristians in about 110 C.E. There is no indication of what his source was. He mentioned Christians, and what the beliefs were. That is evidence of the existance of CHristians, not the validity of their beliefs.As for Suetonius, he wrote in the life of Claudius:

quote:

---

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

---

The appologist is assuming that Suetonius was talking about CHrist, and misspelt it. However, Chrestus is a common Greek name. Now, elsewhere, Suetonus talks about CHristians, without refereing to Jews, as a seperate entity. This makes the 'mispelling' of Christ to be a strained appoligistic. It is a straw that those looking to find secular evidence for Jesus to grasp, but it isn't really more than a straw.Even the earliest of writings (Josephus) was in 93 C.E, well after the first Jewish revolt.

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.

Suetonius mentioned CHristians as a seperate entity in 'The LIfe of Nero '

quote:

---

In his reign many abuses were severely punished and repressed, and as many new laws were instituted; a limit was set upon spending; public banquets were reduced; the sale of cooked food in taverns was forbidden, except for vegetables and greens, while formerly every kind of food was available; punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men adhering to a novel and mischievous superstition; he put a stop to the wild activities of the charioteers, who for a long time had assumed the right of ranging at large and cheating and robbing for amusement; the actors and their companies were banished.

---

Suetonius write 'The Tweleve Ceasars' in about 121 C.E. Earlier on,
he was Pilny the Younger's staff between 110 and 112 C.E. This dates to the point in time that Pilny wrote to Rome asking advice about the Christians, and mentioned some of their beliefs that he got from them under torture.With the veracity of Jospehus in doubt, Pliny the younger, his staff member Suetonius, and his friend/corropsondant Tactictus are as good as it gets.Isn't it odd that both Tacitus and Suetonius both knew Pliny, who got his information for torturing slaves?On Edit: If it was a 'fantasitic Passage', you might be thinking of the forgery in Antiquities 18 in Jospehus. The strong appoliststs say that it was modified. Others say it was a total insertion.
Here a translation of Antinquites 18 that is in doubt. (my view point that since it was at least modified, the appolgist should provide evidence it existed before Euribus's use of it in the early 4th century)

quote:

---

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

---

This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-05-2006 02:20 PM

There was a survey that showed that a certain percentage of americans beleived that after listening to George Bushes speechs about the subject.You know, the polls that question xxxx numbers of people, and then give a margin of error, and predict what the entire population would think?

The problem is that the various 'details' don't match, and are often contradictory.

Really?Do you mean the message, or the historical accuracy?An example of a historical contradiction that those who believe in the enrrancy of the bible to explain away (unsuccessfully) is the date of Jesus's birth in Luke vs Matthew. Then there is the matter of the geneologies, the birth stories themselves, and the fact that the 'trial of Jesus' procedurally is against both Jewish and Roman law. The way the
trial violate the religious law is rather drastic as a matter of fact.I am sorry, but those details at least make those stories about the 'historical' jesus to be fairly unbelievable. A historical Jesus might have existed, but certainly not as described by those writings.

Why, yes, there are.However, there is no physcial evidence of a town that was called nazareth until the 3rd century. It could be that it was a mistranslation of someone who was Jesus the Nazarene, and was misunderstood.We have 6 books of a place called hogwarts, but that does not mean that hogwarts exists as a real place.Nazareth was supposed to be large enough to have it's own synagogue. That would mean it SHOULD have been big enough to map, and leave traces.There is no evidence that the place currently called nazareth was called by that name before the 3rd century.All is subject to new evidence.. but that is the current state of todays evidence.

Actually, Constine was from 3 century later. It appears his primary motivation was unifying the religious elements of the Roman Empire to better facilitate control.He would be evidence about the existance of multiple sects of Christianity.. not of Jesus himself.

That is very incorrect in my opinion. After all, when the mormons were founded, the founder did not set himself up as moroni, .. he just laid claim to the authority of someone else.

You are mistaken.The problem with that one is that it appears to be a total insertion into antiquieties. It is out of context from the rest of antiquties 18 (it is antiquites 18, not 20).. and it appear "just to be good to be true". It was first quoted by Bishop Euribus in the 4th century. There are no known references to it earlier. Some appolgists say that it was modified to be as Christian as it is. HOwever, since even the most conservative appologist will admit it is at least modified, I think it is up to them to show evidence it was there previosu to the 4th century.One point against it being genuine is the fact that Christian historian Orgien quoted from antiquies 18 rather heavily when discussing John the Baptist and his importance to Christainity. He did not mention the passage about Jesus at all.