What is the historical evidence for Jesus?

[The Halk]

You could say the same for any social construct, including Civilisation itself.

I think people cannot seem to separate Religion from Religious Institutions and they are not the same thing, one is about shared faith and beliefs systems, the other is about Traditions, Behaviours, Collective Ceremony and adherence to certain criteria.

Religious Institutions are a system of control, just like a Govt, Council, Monarchy, or any social hierarchy. Religion, as in the shared beliefs and culture is not necessarily a system of control, although it is understandable that people cannot separate the two.

That's a pretty important point. I've seen it made in debates between theists and atheists.

Religion is people making up stuff without scientific method to explain what we don't understand. Edit : Or having the wisdom "imparted by a being beyond our understanding".
Organised religion is (ab)using that for power. Organised religion is where the evil lurks.

 

[Neutralmilk]

There is a Dr Jesus Rodeo that teaches at a Glasgow uni, is that enough proof?

 

[Somnambulist]

I sometimes wonder if the Mormon guy or L. Ron Hubbard will be viewed in the same way in 2000 years... probably not thanks to the age of the interwebz.

 

[anything I don't mind]

You could say the same for any social construct, including Civilisation itself.

I think people cannot seem to separate Religion from Religious Institutions and they are not the same thing, one is about shared faith and beliefs systems, the other is about Traditions, Behaviours, Collective Ceremony and adherence to certain criteria.

Religious Institutions are a system of control, just like a Govt, Council, Monarchy, or any social hierarchy. Religion, as in the shared beliefs and culture is not necessarily a system of control, although it is understandable that people cannot separate the two.

I have disagree with you on this point.

Religion and religious institutions are one in the same. If you had made the distinction between spirituality and religion then I could have agreed with you.

It is the belief systems themselves that are the mechanisms of control. A religious institution without the belief system is not a religious institution it is just a building occupied by strangely dressed people. Just the same a religious belief system without the institution is nothing more than a story book or a mythical tale.

 

[e36Adz]

Off the top of my head, I don't recall the Christian bible containing a clear statement attributed to Jesus directly referring to himself as the son of god.

There is no unequivocal statement in the Bible where Jesus pbuh claims to be God. There are places where he is referred to as the son, but then there are also others referred to as 'sons' of God in the Bible. John 3:16 which says God gave his only begotten son, was regarded as a fabrication or grave defect by many Christian scholars who were backed by I think 50 different denominations, hence why the word 'begotten' was thrown out of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

The Lords prayer starts with 'OUR' father, not your father or my father, which should tell us that we are not talking about our literal father, nor should Jesus PBUH as the son be taken literally. There is more evidence from what I have read in the Bible to suggest that Jesus PBUH was infact not God, nor any part of God, but that is not what modern day Christianity is teaching its followers.

 

[wildman]

Simply, the New Testament, which, as far as records go has not really changed in 2000 years, talks about a man named Jesus.

I don't think for many the fact a man named Jesus existed is questionable, but whether or not he was the son of God. Without the resurrection, and evidence to support, Christianity can hold little or no water

For all weknow the New Testament could have simply been the equivalent of Harry Potter back in the roman times ? and jesus was just the main character of some ones very active imagination ?

FOr all we know in 2000 years time the Harry Potter stories could be quoted as the bible and there will be a religion based on it whose leader was a boy called Harry? The new testament is jsut another book that no one really knows who wrote it or with what purpose in mind.

 

[e36Adz]

For all weknow the New Testament could have simply been the equivalent of Harry Potter back in the roman times ? and jesus was just the main character of some ones very active imagination ?

FOr all we know in 2000 years time the Harry Potter stories could be quoted as the bible and there will be a religion based on it whose leader was a boy called Harry? The new testament is jsut another book that no one really knows who wrote it or with what purpose in mind.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for you to make that sort of statement, you must have studied the New Testament in great detail, right?

 

[wildman]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for you to make that sort of statement, you must have studied the New Testament in great detail, right?

Its just a book, and yes I had to study parts of it ad nauseum as I went to a catholic school.

The content is nothing a group of people could not have knocked up with a lively imagination. There is nothing in the bible that acts as solid evidence for any existence of god that couldn't have simply been made up by a group of 'religious' leaders who wanted greater control over the population at large.

 

[DampCat]

The fact that Jesus spans the three Abrahamic religions gives weight to at least the idea that some fella named/described as Jesus existed. Also to Muhummad, Noah, Isaac, Ishmael, Abraham and Shem, at least. I'm sure there's more but my knowledge is limited.

We lose entire languages over 2,000 years but keep hold of these guys, spanning continents and religions.

I don't believe in God, or the supernatural, but I'm fairly convinced that there's some solid background there.

 

[realBabelfish]

Neither can the Jewish Religion because the Torah said so
Neither can the Islamic Religion because the Koran said so

I am starting to think religion is a man made concept used to control those of weak mental agility........................ all religions can't be right at the same time surely ????

close. some are about mental well being and inner strength but most are a control mechanism for the weak minded.

 

[realBabelfish]

lol. i like that

 

[Uriel]

Off the top of my head, I don't recall the Christian bible containing a clear statement attributed to Jesus directly referring to himself as the son of god.

I can recall a fair few in which he's alleged to have referred to his god as "father", but that's not the same thing at all. It's normal in Christianity - pater noster.

In short, I think the same as you do.

I've nicked this after a bit of google searching (rather than bother to find the reference myself) but here you go:

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"

John 10:34-36

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[Messiah] the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Mark 14:60-62

He accepted this address by Thomas:

"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

John 20:26-29

The trouble is, most of the written evidence that was accepted as most reliable at the time ended up in the New Testament. What other kind of evidence is expected? Lots of people have a problem with that because the available evidence indicates at face value that:

- Jesus performed miracles including multiplication of matter, controlling physics and weather, healing and raising dead people.
- Jesus died, was put in a tomb and started making appearences to people 3 days later in ways that can be described as 'trippy' (randomly disappearing and reappearing, passing through solid objects and so forth).

As most people find the above totally outside their experience (and lets face it, it is a bit more than unusual) they dismiss the evidence available.

The evidence is divisive. I believe it but I absolutely understand why people dismiss it when it is totally outside the realm of their experience . If true it is paradigm shattering. If false, well a lot of people including me are wasting their time and deluded.

For a more in-depth historical treatment going into various methods of assessment I recommend: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621. If you insist on only paying attention to 'secular' (i.e. non-Christian) scholarship I suggest you take a look at publications by this fella: http://www.shef.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/people/crossley (e.g. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel.html?id=dghH_pm_yzQC&redir_esc=y)

 

[batsy]

It's all totally legit.


Attis was the "cycle" before Jesus.


There is similar stuff around about how early christianity hijacked other existing festivals to build up the followers.

I'm anti religion guff, we had it forced down our throats without explanation at primary school, preached too constantly at secondary school (the rev. who taught the RE lessons topped himself when he was outed as a kiddy fiddler), it's always been inflicted on me, never been given the chance to build my own views.

The guy who christened my youngest two a few months ago was awesome, if i'd had somebody with his sort of belief and enthusiasm, maybe i'd have different view.

I was also taught RE by a teacher who was later jailed for abusing boys at our school! He was also in charge of Sex Ed and was the most openly perverted person I've ever met lol. His classes were hilarious (we were around age 15) - I remember him asking my friend how often he masterbated and at orgasm if 'it' ever hit his face

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/885985.stm

Regarding Jesus, as others have said there's a good chance there was a preacher of that name but I draw the line at the supernatural claims. Not likely imo.

 

[grimm]

He was probably just some really charismatic and influencial guy who had skills like Derren Brown and conned a load of people.

 

[gary996]

I think its a fairy tale. The bible should have started with the line 'Once upon a time'

 

[EdwardTeach]

.Jesus and his followers almost certainly spoke Aramaic for example, yet the lingua franca was Koine Greek due to the Roman Occupation .[/SIZE]

Minor detail, but this is not true. The lingua franca of the near east was koine greek, because the region had been in the main, ruled by greek rulers since Alexander the great's conquest of the Persian empire.

This is why the eastern empire spoke greek, whilst the west spoke latin.

 

[Castiel]

Minor detail, but this is not true. The lingua franca of the near east was koine greek, because the region had been in the main, ruled by greek rulers since Alexander the great's conquest of the Persian empire.

This is why the eastern empire spoke greek, whilst the west spoke latin.

:
On a phone so forgive the brief answer.

The Semitic peoples of Palestine spoke several languages.....The region in which Jesus lived they spoke mainly Aramaic. As I said the Roman Occupation meant that the lingua franca was Koine Greek, not that the local people spoke it as a matter of course.

Basically you have just repeated what I originally said and then stated I was wrong....I can assure you that I am not. If you read what I wrote within the context it was written you will see that I am not mistaken.

Regarding Hellenistic Greek being spread by Alexander the Great, this is unlikely as the Macedonians spoke Doric Greek rather than the later Koine Greek. Also the Semitic languages of the middle east were the predominant spoken languages, Aramaic being one of them.

Hellenistic Greek was spread throughout the Eastern part of their empire by the Romans, becoming the common language, but not the one that the various non roman people would speak commonly amongst themselves and would be their native tongue. Most would know only the minimum necessary of Greek to get by.

Remember also that the spoken language and written language, even of the Romans was very different, especially with regard to Latin.

 

[boxman2000]

Off the top of my head, I don't recall the Christian bible containing a clear statement attributed to Jesus directly referring to himself as the son of god.

Read John 14, although Jesus doesn't say the words 'I am the Son of God' you would have to be pretty blind not to understand that from what He said. Also John 10, Luke 22, Matthew 16).

I can recall a fair few in which he's alleged to have referred to his god as "father", but that's not the same thing at all. It's normal in Christianity - pater noster.

Actually, the point of the 'Lords Prayer' being addressed to the Father is that just as Jesus is the Son of God (i.e. Jesus called God, Father) so all those that place their trust and belief in Jesus are adopted into the family of God, so in that instance can call God our Father as Jesus did - the Lords Prayer began with the disciples (only) asking Jesus to teach them how to pray, so this prayer isn't for everyone, but those who are the children of God, i.e. saved through Jesus and not the religious.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Minor detail, but this is not true. The lingua franca of the near east was koine greek, because the region had been in the main, ruled by greek rulers since Alexander the great's conquest of the Persian empire.

This is why the eastern empire spoke greek, whilst the west spoke latin.

:
On a phone so forgive the brief answer.

The Semitic peoples of Palestine spoke several languages.....The region in which Jesus lived they spoke mainly Aramaic. As I said the Roman Occupation meant that the lingua franca was Koine Greek, not that the local people spoke it as a matter of course.

Basically you have just repeated what I originally said and then stated I was wrong....I can assure you that I am not. If you read what I wrote within the context it was written you will see that I am not mistaken.

Regarding Hellenistic Greek being spread by Alexander the Great, this is unlikely as the Macedonians spoke Doric Greek rather than the later Koine Greek. Also the Semitic languages of the middle east were the predominant spoken languages, Aramaic being one of them.

Hellenistic Greek was spread throughout the Eastern part of their empire by the Romans, becoming the common language, but not the one that the various non roman people would speak commonly amongst themselves and would be their native tongue. Most would know only the minimum necessary of Greek to get by.

Remember also that the spoken language and written language, even of the Romans was very different, especially with regard to Latin.

I didn't mean that you were wrong that the local people would have spoken Aramaic. I meant that you were wrong to attribute the fact that koine Greek was the lingua franca, to the Romans. When the Romans too control of the near east e.g Asia minor, Syria, Egypt, koine Greek was already the lingua franca due to several hundred years of Greek rule following Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire. The Romans merely continued an existing tradition of Greek being used as the language of administration in the region.

 

[boxman2000]

didnt adam and eve have two sons ???? caine and abel. so where did everyone else come from ? makes you think what eve was up to

They had more children and stemmed from there.... so you can get you mind out of the gutter

Actually it's quite normal in Jewish history not to name the daughters that were born or even refer to women much. Quite common thing in a lot of regions history.

Also, that picture always creeps me out

The content is nothing a group of people could not have knocked up with a lively imagination. There is nothing in the bible that acts as solid evidence for any existence of god that couldn't have simply been made up by a group of 'religious' leaders who wanted greater control over the population at large.

It's statements like that which show you haven't taken the time to know what you're saying, with all due respect. Simply from a historical point of view the accuracy is undeniable and the fact the canon of scripture (66 books) and penned by over 40 authors would surely have huge inaccuracies considering the majority had:

1) never met each other
2) never read each others writings
3) give account of the same events from different perspectives with the same key happenings.

You say nothing in the bible acts as solid evidence of God but what else would you like God to do?

- Flood the world (archeological evidence for this)
- Part a big ocean so people could walk through whilst perusing enemy is destroyed by waters closing on top of them (archeological evidence of this event)
- Prophets warning of events beyond their lifetime to enable people to get themselves right before God (read Daniel, Jeremiah etc)

Hmm, maybe He could send His Son as His representative to warn people away from living a life displeasing to Him and giving mankind a way of escape through sacrificing His own Son.

Hang on, He's done that already! What else would you like?