What is the historical evidence for Jesus?

Castiel said:
Jedi is not a registered religion.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1589133.stm

maybe so, but it does now have its own official code entry, so in 2000 years time when historians look back and the records are lacking in real data how easy would it be for someone to interpret this as 'Jedi is a religion' .Their teachings are contained in the gospels according to George Lucas, there is the old testament (Ep I-III) and the new testament (EPIV-VI) which talks about the return of messiah after the dark times when they were persecuted for their religion by the evil one...................
 
wildman said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1589133.stm

maybe so, but it does now have its own official code entry, so in 2000 years time when historians look back and the records are lacking in real data how easy would it be for someone to interpret this as 'Jedi is a religion' .Their teachings are contained in the gospels according to George Lucas, there is the old testament (Ep I-III) and the new testament (EPIV-VI) which talks about the return of messiah after the dark times when they were persecuted for their religion by the evil one...................
Click to expand...

Very difficult, because the entire body of work doesn't claim to authenticity and neither is it attributed to anything other than fiction...

These kind of comparisons only illustrate that the person making them doesn't have enough knowledge of the subject to form a coherent argument, nothing more.
 
Castiel said:
Very difficult, because the entire body of work doesn't claim to authenticity and neither is it attributed to anything other than fiction...

These kind of comparisons only illustrate that the person making them doesn't have enough knowledge of the subject to form a coherent argument, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I am not professing to have any kind of knowledge on the subject so thats that point out of the way.
Second point .... you say "because the entire body of work doesn't claim to authenticity and neither is it attributed to anything other than fiction..." and just because the bible claims to be authentic proves it so ..... Again prvide real empirical evidence that shows it is authentic. The usual response here is that it is nigh on impossible because over 2000 years passed, there is no real data etc etc. So if thats the case please tell me again why the same can't hold true of the star wars theory ? Again in 2000 years that would be just as impossible to prove otherwise, in exactly the same way as the bible.

note I am applying exactly the same logic that is being argued all over this post to the star wars theory but it gets dimissed as rubbish, yet when I ask exactly the same questions regarding the bible everyone just takes it as fact without providing a shred of evidence above the fairy tale evidence I can simply knock out about how star wars could be seen as a religion in 2000 years time.

Its not often this can be said, but your counter posts on this are weak castiel (say that back in a vader like voice to add to the authenticity :) )
 
wildman said:
I am not professing to have any kind of knowledge on the subject so thats that point out of the way.
Second point .... you say "because the entire body of work doesn't claim to authenticity and neither is it attributed to anything other than fiction..." and just because the bible claims to be authentic proves it so ..... Again prvide real empirical evidence that shows it is authentic. The usual response here is that it is nigh on impossible because over 2000 years passed, there is no real data etc etc. So if thats the case please tell me again why the same can't hold true of the star wars theory ? Again in 2000 years that would be just as impossible to prove otherwise, in exactly the same way as the bible.

note I am applying exactly the same logic that is being argued all over this post to the star wars theory but it gets dismissed as rubbish, yet when I ask exactly the same questions regarding the bible everyone just takes it as fact without providing a shred of evidence above the fairy tale evidence I can simply knock out about how star wars could be seen as a religion in 2000 years time.

Its not often this can be said, but your counter posts on this are weak castiel (say that back in a vader like voice to add to the authenticity :) )
Click to expand...



I suggest you read what I have written on how these things get established and how they are authenticated.....if you applied the same criterion and methodology to Star Wars, even under your supposition, the result would still be the Star Wars was fiction. The very nature of the source material would make it very clear under any kind of analysis that it was fictional entertainment, including the context and intent of the work......and remember The Bible is not in itself accepted as factual.....it is a collection of books, manuscripts and letters that encompass a whole range of contextual criteria, be they factual and fictional, it is a mixture of Historical, Allegorical, Fictional and Theological, some of it refers to history, other parts are literature, poetry and prophecy...and these are also analysed no only by themselves or in isolation, but by multiple attributions from other sources, analysis of the events portrayed, the context of the subject being discussed, an analysis of the languages and speech used as well as comparing the texts and their contents to other sources, this critical analysis has been in progress since the 4th Century, it is why we can point to various scriptures and individually assess their contextual and historical validity, also the Bible is not something that was written 2000 years ago then lost and rediscovered, the context under which the Bible was assembled has always been known.......Star Wars, or any single piece of intentional fiction simply would not stand up to that level of analysis, not least of all because the author did not suppose any level of historical or contemporaneous authenticity to them and neither does the body of external sources that discuss Star Wars or other commonly used examples such as Harry Potter. You are simply biased against the source material and as such seek to dismiss or devalue it in any way that you can, even by using spurious examples such as you have. That is not a logical or objective position to take.

Whether you, as an individual believe the message being portrayed within the Bible or not is immaterial to whether they are of historical and cultural value or not.

It is not that my argument is weak, only that your understanding is.
 
Last edited:
Well the difference with the works of plato and the bible is that it is not an account of events that apparently occurred in the then recent past. It is a philosophy about certain subjects. Although you might argue that there is some philosophy in the bible. Most of the bible is detailing events that occurred and detailing what other people said and did. This is completely different to the works of plato. Of course when the events are completely unbelievable and are often copies of myths that we have other "evidence" for being already wrote down in other forms, then it brings in to question the validity of the entire collection of books.

edit: don't you sleep? :P castiel is a bot...
 
Last edited:
groen said:
Well the difference with the works of plato and the bible is that it is not an account of events that apparently occurred in the then recent past. It is a philosophy about certain subjects. Although you might argue that there is some philosophy in the bible. Most of the bible is detailing events that occurred and detailing what other people said and did. This is completely different to the works of plato. Of course when the events are completely unbelievable and are often copies of myths that we have other "evidence" for being already wrote down in other forms, then it brings in to question the validity of the entire collection of books.

edit: don't you sleep? :P castiel is a bot...
Click to expand...

I'm still interested in what credible explanation you have for Christianity.
 
I personally think lots of stuff written in the bible probably has a tiny bit of truth behind it, and was simply changed and massively exagerated over time. For example i think that a good person named Jesus who liked to help others probably existed, no super healing powers or 'son of god' though and also noahs ark was probably true, but it was probably one man, and a few animals from his farm that escaped a local flood etc etc
 
XeNoN89 said:
I personally think lots of stuff written in the bible probably has a tiny bit of truth behind it, and was simply changed and massively exagerated over time. For example i think that a good person named Jesus who liked to help others probably existed, no super healing powers or 'son of god' though and also noahs ark was probably true, but it was probably one man, and a few animals from his farm that escaped a local flood etc etc
Click to expand...

I agree that it is likely that certain individuals and events that are mentioned in the bible occurred or existed. However there is no evidence that I am aware of that proves that to be the case. I agree with what you say about exaggeration and also there was a lot of symbolism and personally I do think some outright lies as well.
 
Pudney said:
So what caused Christianity?
Click to expand...

1. Jesus is not a deity. He may or may not have been a real person.

2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity. This goes beyond Judaism. The bulk can be directly traced to Egyptian religion and worship of the sun god, Horus, who happens to share many important features with Jesus. These features are so identical, the issue cannot be due to coincidence. This is not to say that Horus is the only Pagan god with similar features, but he is one of the most identical to Jesus. Others might be Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or Zoroaster.

3. All of the story of Jesus is astrology. He dies on a cross. The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux. Then it is “born” after 3 days of seemingly hanging in the same spot and starts to set in a different place going further North each night. People were so fearful in the winter that the sun would not came back that they celebrated its return, and the end of the continual shortening of days. When it is born, the North star lines up with Orion’s belt, composed of three stars known as the “three kings”. In sum, this is all that the resurrection is. Nothing more. There was no real cross and no real dying savior. All of that mumbo jumbo was a template for other theological ideas, such as sin and salvation, to take root.
Click to expand...


Nice book for example that talks about the links between Christianity and the worship of the sun

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Sun-David-Fideler/dp/0835606961


Inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the “Holy Ghost,” impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts.
Click to expand...

http://memphitepentecostalism.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/origin-of-the-nativity-scene/

I think based of the above, i would say there is definitely something there worth exploring more, but this was the extent of 20mins of looking and i really don't care enough about the topic to delve deeper. But regardless is interesting to a certain degree.
 
mrbell1984 said:
There's no evidence, it's just something for people to beleive to get to the end. There's no evidence in any religion for that matter.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you've come in, read and understood the OP, then read and understood some of the very detailed posts and have been able to come up with this intelligent conclusion.
 
I do find it odd that people can be so sure that their chosen religion is right when your religion depends more on happenstance than pretty much anything else.
 
mrbell1984 said:
Whats your point? I posted an opinion. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

My point being, there is evidence, it's been detailed to some posters' obvious effort and you've made no attempt to look at it.

It's an ironic highlighting how some people can doggedly have an opinion and not bother thinking about it. I actually have no issue with you having said opinion though.
 
Pudney said:
My point being, there is evidence, it's been detailed to some posters' obvious effort and you've made no attempt to look at it.
Click to expand...

Though to be fair the evidence is fairly scant, it is just evidence from that period about anyone is fairly scant. We effectively have one historian writing about events in a different country 50 years after they happened. Not only that but we have only much later copies of his works which are generally considered to have at least some doctoring.
 
RDM said:
Though to be fair the evidence is fairly scant, it is just evidence from that period about anyone is fairly scant. We effectively have one historian writing about events in a different country 50 years after they happened. Not only that but we have only much later copies of his works which are generally considered to have at least some doctoring.
Click to expand...

Which is all fine, shows you've thought about it at least.

My issue is that as soon as the topic gets near religion people get all emotive and don't actually think. This topic has nothing to do with religion, it's about whether a person named Jesus existed in a historical context. The whole religion debate is completely off topic.

Unfortunately both pro-religion and anti-religion supporters seem so focused on religion itself to actually step back and think that this thread isn't actually about that.
 
Pudney said:
Which is all fine, shows you've thought about it at least.

My issue is that as soon as the topic gets near religion people get all emotive and don't actually think. This topic has nothing to do with religion, it's about whether a person named Jesus existed in a historical context. The whole religion debate is completely off topic.

Unfortunately both pro-religion and anti-religion supporters seem so focused on religion itself to actually step back and think that this thread isn't actually about that.
Click to expand...

However if you just restrict it to that one point you end up with effectively two posts in a thread because that is all there is. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom