People on this board know that I believe there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed (HETJE). I do not try to convince folks that Jesus didn't exist, simply try to get people to admit that there isn't any historical evidence that he did. This has been talked about on this board, it is quite amazing that all of the amazing claims of the Bible about Jesus, and noone documented these in a lasting way for appoximately 30 years after Jesus' death.

Contrast this to Jesus' contemportary, Caesar. We have many pieces of historical evidence: coins with his likeness, paintings showing aging over time, actual burial location, writing by him and the senate during his speeches etc. I am quite certain Caesar existed.

All I want folks to do when I bring up the HETJE argument is to take one of the three positions:

1) Admit there is no HETJE, but claim they still believe in Jesus due to faith (a position I respect)

2) Provide me with historical evidence that I don't know about. People usually look at me like I am crazy for even asking about HETJE. I tell them, if there is a mountain of evidence, please show it to me, perhaps I have missed some.

3) Admit there is no HETJE, and claim that they therefore do not believe Jesus existed (a position I respect).

For the record, I am between #1 and #3, but do not feel it is my place to talk people into any position. Just trying to be a check and balance on the truth.

In talking to my wife last night (yet another christian who thinks I am nuts for even mentioning HETJE). She read from her bible and it claims that the gospel of John was written by john the apostle, a first hand witness! I had always heard that it was not written by John the apostle. Below is a cut and past I did from wikipedia, and it definitely looks like it is debated who was the author.

What do you think, written by the apostle or not? Any comments on HETJE in general are welcome as well.


From wiki:

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity traditionally holding that the author was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Several other authors have historically been suggested, including Papias, John the Presbyter and Cerinthus, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Most modern experts conclude the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness.

Agupnorth,

Do you believe that there is any historical evidence that Muhammad existed? How about George Washington. Any historical evidence that he existed?

I am going to keep going....

Secular historian Will Durant: “The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul....No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion....in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ....no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel.” (Ceasar and Christ, volume 3 of Story of Civilization)

Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: “There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'.” ("Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus," also Wells The Jesus Myth [Open Court, 1999])

Graham Stanton of Cambridge: “Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.” (The Gospels and Jesus)

Thousands of historical figures have left no written records in their lifetimes, and are known only through accounts of their actions by eyewitnesses, handed down for generations, before the accounts were written down, by redacters who collected all the available testimony. The entire argument is based on the fallacious assumption that because a person does not write anything or have his actions documented in writing during his lifetime, he did not exist, and did not perform those actions.

Yet Jesus DID have his actions, many of them in fact, recorded by four eyewitnesses. More than that, people such as Paul in the same generation corroberated the story. Paul, undoubtedly, met with people who saw and touched Jesus such as Peter! Nobody denies that Paul existed!

Furthermore...your three scenarios are freaking retarded....

quote:

---

1) Admit there is no HETJE, but claim they still believe in Jesus due to faith (a position I respect)

---

You would respect that? That is completely and utterly asinine. If you had faith in somebody that you knew never existed you would be insane!

quote:

---

2) Provide me with historical evidence that I don't know about. People usually look at me like I am crazy for even asking about HETJE. I tell them, if there is a mountain of evidence, please show it to me, perhaps I have missed some.

---

Pull your head out of you arse for starters. Read any historical book written about the historical Jesus written before the 18th century. Read Church/Christian history from PRIMARY sources.

quote:

---

3) Admit there is no HETJE, and claim that they therefore do not believe Jesus existed (a position I respect).

---

Seamaster:

Very impressive response, I can tell you are well read and know much about this topic. A few comments:

Quote: "All of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses from internal evidence: the style of writing in the Gospels is simple and alive; the Gospels show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD 70; the Gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time."

My comment: The same could be said about 'The Iliad and the Odyssey', they contain real places, names, historical events etc.

Quote: "John the Apostle wrote both John's gospel AND the revelation. If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, xi, 9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the John's Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century"

My comment: It sound to me like you are convinced that the apostle John wrote the gospel and revelation. I can respect that position, but duly note that these positions are greatly debated. I can't prove you are wrong though.

Quote: 'The Church that Jesus built grew and there is tons of evidence that people faced martyrdom due to their being Christians within the first generation after Jesus' death. Why would they have been Christians had Jesus never existed? Why did the diciples, who were once cowards, go to face certain death in preaching Jesus' message had Jesus never existed? It is an historical fact that most of Jesus disciples were killed for professing Jesus Christ. I can show you were their tombs are located on a map'

My comment: I don't deny that disciples died and that we can go to their tombs. However, just because many folks died for this cause, does not make it true. Two of the fastest growing faiths are islam and LDS, does this make them true? Many muslims die for their faith, does that make it true? I have two univeral rules on religion:

1) All religions look crazy from the outside in
2) It is amazing what people believe when taught to them young and supported by folks in their immediate sphere of influence.

Quote "Believing that Jesus never existed is rank heresy. One cannot be Christian and believe that Jesus never existed. I can say that with utter confidence. No historical Jesus = No death of Jesus = No resurrection of Jesus = No forgiveness of sin...."

My comment: I agree - that is why I am not a Christian. I respect those that are though.

Quote "One historian who we might expect to mention Jesus is Josephus, a Jew who wrote a history of his people up to 66AD, which is called 'Jewish Antiquities'. In fact, Josephus does mention Jesus twice and so Jesus Mythologists have to devote a lot of attention to attacking the relevant passages. Their job is made easier because Josephus, a Pharisee, probably felt nothing but contempt for Jesus which meant later Christians tried to 'correct' his negative wording"

My comment: I get this Josephus writing all the time. Was he a first hand witness? Dramatic claims require dramatic proof. I do find it interesting that of all the amazing claims the Bible makes regarding Jesus and the proof people give me is a little know author who I believe wasn't a first hand (I could be wrong) who wrote decades after the fact.

If the Bible's claims of Jesus were true, it would seem like there would be thousands (remember, people rose from the dead out of their graves in the gospels, huge claims) of first hand accounts. Instead, we have:

1) The book of John, which some say is a first hand account (seamaster included), though it is debated. It is agreed that much of Gospels do make valid historical context (names places etc). I concede that this might be a firsthand account if you will concede it is debatable.

2) Josephus: written decades after the fact by someone who it is debatable if he was a witness. It is also debated whether this Jesus blurb was added after the fact (many say this is the case).

The evidence seems weak to me. But I respect those who think this is enough base their entire faith.

I will read the books you mention (thanks for listing them) with an open mind. My guess is that they have no more proof of HETJE than I listed above, though I am open to being wrong.

Was there a Helen of Troy? Not any first hand eyewitness accounts yet people think she existed.

A while ago a poster (don't remember who it was now -- maybe the OP for all I know) was making similar claims, and I took the arguments and looked into them and gave my own perspective.

This is a little piece I never finished up completely, after I lost interest in taking the time to do so. I'll just post as is (and clean some of it up, including at the end where I left off). Anyhow, here is:

quote:

---

On Jesus-Myth Theories

This subject comes up from time to time. It is one of those subjects’s which is popular; however when looked at closely beyond the rhetoric and popularity, it’s a theory which is sitting on thin ice. I remember reading something a while ago, where a person asked about evidence for Jesus’ existence in history as an actual historical figure, and said person played the skeptic. I decided to take a step back and delve into the material a bit. This is mostly surface level glossings on the subject from me, and the issues themselves go much deeper than I will go here. In the interests of time, I’ll add in detail where I see fit, but feel free to add in some of your own if I don’t at other points. Anyhow, I think that’s enough ‘splainin’ about that.

One last thing before I begin. I am a neophyte who relies on the works of scholars who are much greater than I am, or could ever hope to be. If I can relay some idea which seems cogent and well explained, it is only because I am able to follow in greater footsteps before me that were well explained to me in their own works. Some of this comes from 2nd hand surveys on scholarship, and I do not pretend to have read every single piece of material out there on this subject. Even the best of scholars are hard pressed to make such a claim, let alone a lay person like me.

When going about investigations into matters like Jesus’ historical authenticity, there are more books out there than any of us could read in our lifespan. So, there must be some way of sorting through and trying to stick the better works from each tradition. Peer reviewed articles and books from notable scholars that are either published by top notch institutions, or such works that make reference to books/articles as standards in the field of inquiry helps to “thin the heard.” Find the best of the best, and see what they have to say, and examine their claims. You’ll start to notice patterns between various arguments and schools of thought, and you can then examine them all from the inside-out and make a decision as to what is authentically historical and what is not.

On that note then, the Jesus-Myth theories are lacking on this mark from the offset, and therefore it is a bit hard to take them very seriously. On the general state of scholarship and scholars who give a Jesus-Myth thesis. Bauer in the 19 century first made claims of a Jesus-myth, and following in Baur’s footsteps in offering a type of Jesus-Myth theory has also been Arthur Drews, GA Wells, Earl Doherty, and Acharya S. There are others, but those are the popular bunch.

Baur’s was certainly a scholar of his own time with advances new innovative theories, but over time these have been to be clearly false over the past centruy. Baur had his own full nest that is full of problems in reading Hengel’s philosophy into his historical arguments. Drews is a professor of mathematics, not history. Wells is a professor of German, not history. Acharya just has an undergraduate degree in classics. Doherty is the closest we get, but he lacks the competence to be a serious scholar. If you wish to bring up a specific point of interest from them, or other popularizes of these arguments, then feel free to do so. Needless to say, they are not experts in these fields, and the scope of this written piece does not include every single minute detail.

I think there is plenty of evidence out there for a case to be made for a historical Jesus, but you have to establish the criteria first in sorting through the factual historical data. Our historical epistemological approaches are much different between the two of us, and if we are using a different epistemological approach then we will never agree on any of the finer details. So it only makes sense to deal with the epistemological approach first.

First, there are some comparative claims to other evidence. Take for instance the idea that we don’t have evidence for Jesus as far as what he looks like compared to a Roman Emperor who had a coin made with his image on them. If Jesus was a Roman Emperor and we didn't have coins of Jesus, like what there is of other Emperors then the comparison holds up. The truth of the matter is that Jesus was not an Emperor, so it isn't too big of a surprise there weren't any Jesus coins, or Jesus statues, or anything quite like that. If there were, that would be a weird thing if you consider the historical context. Simply and bluntly put, Jesus was a marginal figure from this time period, so it is no surprise that we have the amount and degree of evidence that we do. The amount of evidence that we do have fits exactly for the type of person Jesus was in the historical context. This type of dubious reasoning is why I called these arguments to be sensational tripe, which sells good to the popular masses, but it doesn't stand up when analyzed in comparison to each other. In short: classic apples or oranges (false comparison).

At any rate, the historiography employed by historians involved in analyzing these issues has three basic categories as passing for a genuine historical document from which we can have knowledge of. First, there is the bibliographical test -- that seeks out how many manuscripts or copies we have of the document, and how far away they are from the original documents. Then there is the internal test -- what does the document itself claim. Lastly there is the external test -- what external pieces of evidence are there (archaeological, other writings from this same time period) that helps or hurts. If a historical document fulfills these 3 marks, then it could be said that I have obtained a highly likely chance that the events described within are historically accurate.

First, on the bibliographical test, where we can look at the date of the original writing, the gap between that original writing and the oldest copy that we have today, and the number of copies that we have. On Plato’s Tetralogies (Dialogues) the earliest copy we have is from 900 AD, and he wrote the works between 427 to 347 BC, and there are 7 total old copies. There is a time span here of 1200 years. On Tacitus’s Annals, the earliest copy we have it from 1100 AD, and he wrote the work around 100 AD, and there are 20 total old copies. That’s a time span of 1000 years. On Puny the Younger’s History, the earliest copy we have it from 850 AD, and he wrote the work around 61-113 AD, and there are 7 total old copies. That’s a time span of 750 years. On Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the earliest copy we have it from 900 AD, and he wrote the work around 460-400 B.C., and there are 8 total old copies. That’s a time span of 1300 years. On Aristotle’s works, he wrote between 384 to 322 BC, the earliest we have is from 1100 AD there are a total of 5 copies. That is a time span of 1400 years. So, I should hope you are roughly seeing the picture which is painted here. By far on the whole, scholars generally agree that such works on the bibliographical test are sufficient for gaining historical knowledge, but of course there is more to it with the internal and external test. Before that you also have to look at the Biblical data which we have to work with and apply a bibliographical test towards it.

Now compare this with Biblical literature. JP Moreland’s summation here from his Scaling the Secular City is good:

quote:

---

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. [6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).
The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).
Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.

---

So, it is data like this is why scholars like John A.T. Robinson wrote in his Can We Trust the New Testament that, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world." Robinson is also famous for his work on dating the NT works. He set out to prove a later date, but became surprised when the established later theories of his time where ridden with unproven assumptions and not facts. A big piece of evidence that lead him to conclude and early composition was the lack of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the NT, so it probably was written before. On the small timeframe between writing the NT from when the actual events happen, consider also that early Christianity was at first a modified form of Judaism, and all the original followers were devout Jews. Jesus was a Rabbi and is called as much in the NT several times. The disciples were his pupils that he trained, and we can only assume from what is known historically that he adopted 2nd temple Judaic practices. Within this historical rabbinical context of these times, the memorization of huge amounts of oral traditions is common. We also know the after Jesus the process of selecting leaders in the episkopos in the early Church that this process continued. See for example the NT on tradition (1 Cor. 15:3-8; Gal. 2:1-10; Col. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:13; Phil 4:9), and also the Ante-Nicene Fathers who immediate proceeded and where chosen by the original apostles, as this functioning body of people continued on in history (eg, Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 3:4:1, Against the Heresies 3:1-3, Against the Heresies 3:2:2; Tertullian Purity 9:1, On Prescription Against the Heretics 36, etc). Furthermore, the events of the NT writings are epistemologically significant incredible if true. They include things like: miracles and signs, a man raised from the dead, etc. If you witness something events like this, it is not something you forget about, but rather it sticks in your mind with great precision.

So, then not only is the time period incredibly shore, the process of huge memorization and the method of communicating it down until the NT was composed, makes the NT a reliable ancient writing as far as time span goes.

On the internal test, we look at what the document itself claims. Eye-witnesses serve as a sufficient way to obtain knowledge from historical writings. On eye-witnesses, in Luke 1:1-4, Luke brings up his source material for his Gospel, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Paul in Gal. 1 affirms his basis also on eye-witness accounts from Peter. This was probably also his source material for his famous reference to 1 Cor 15, which is likely an early creed which probably predates Paul’s writings. Also in 2 Peter 1:16, we learn that Peter claims “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Next, I’ll put forth some arguments that address skeptical responses. First, there is no good reason to think that they would make up a story like this. The Second Temple Judaic expectation of a Messiah from this time period was not a crucified Lord. Jews were repressed by the Romans, and were looking for an earthly King to bring them out of their cultural state during this time. The apostles themselves lived lives full of hardships, stress, constant movement and energy, and finally they died for their beliefs at the hands of their persecutors. The Apostles certainly didn’t see it coming either from what evidence we have to go on. Moreover, the very early apostolic-era Christianity was confined at first to a very specific location. If there was eye-witness evidence to the contrary, you’d figure they go somewhere else before spreading their beliefs. Rather, they had success and made reference to witnesses (1 Cor 15) when speaking of the resurrection. If appealing to those witnesses was bad, it doesn’t make much sense out of why they would be appealing to them. You have all of this going on, but why didn’t anyone say, “what Christ are you speaking of, he isn’t even a real person!” You find nothing like that from anti-Christian Roman historians to anti-Christian Jewish writings, because his existence wasn’t questionable. Even the empty tomb of Jesus is a historical fact, as nobody disagree that it was empty, but rather different views on why it was empty. All of this presupposes Jesus’s actual existence.

The last bit of criteria for the historiography of Jesus existing or not, and the affirmation of the NT writings is the external test. This is the one where we look to external evidence which confirms or disconfirms the historicity of the NT claims, including whether or not Jesus existed. First, there is the historical record of writings external to the NT that make reference to Jesus. From this we have, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , Lucian of Samosata, Thallus (by the way of Julius Africanus), Suetonius, Mara Bar-Sepaion and various rabbinical writings in the Talmud. We can get into the details of each if you wish, but none-the-less, there you have evidence. Note again that none of them get into a mythical Jesus who never actually existed, and were for the most part very hostile to Christianity. Pliny the Younger in particular was the Governor of Bithynia, who was killing so many men, women, boys and girls that we have in the historical record that we wondered if he should limit the persecution to only certain ones. What a better way for a biased writer with anti-Christian tendencies to dismiss the Christian movement and deny that the leader ever existed? Again, such claims are not made. Second, there is the archeological evidence. Luke 2:1-3 has been verified that there was a governor Quirinius of Syria at the time mentioned, has been verified.

In conclusion then, yes, there is some evidence from which to make informed decisions on, and from which to gain historical knowledge of that Jesus actually existed.

---

quote:

---

My comment: The same could be said about 'The Iliad and the Odyssey', they contain real places, names, historical events etc.

---

Interesting you should mention "The Iliad." Do you not realize that the oldest copy of The Iliad in existance is the "The Venetus A" which is a 10th century manuscript...The Iliad was supposed to have been written 800 years before Christ! On that data, I therefore pose that Homar never actually existed and that The Iliad was actually written by a dude in the 10th Century. I am going to publish my findings and even sell movies about "The Homar Myth."

quote:

---

It sound to me like you are convinced that the apostle John wrote the gospel and revelation. I can respect that position, but duly note that these positions are greatly debated. I can't prove you are wrong though.

---

My positions are only NOW greatly debated. It was not greatly debated until about the era of that this photograph represents...



Am I going to accept the testimony of people from the 1st generations next to Jesus and with Jesus or dudes wearing wigs and makeup 1800 years later????

quote:

---

I don't deny that disciples died and that we can go to their tombs. However, just because many folks died for this cause, does not make it true. Two of the fastest growing faiths are islam and LDS, does this make them true? Many muslims die for their faith, does that make it true? I have two univeral rules on religion:

1) All religions look crazy from the outside in
2) It is amazing what people believe when taught to them young and supported by folks in their immediate sphere of influence.

---

Ummm...Islam and LDS. Both have founders that nobody denies exsted! That is a different story. You are saying that people who lived contempory with the "mythical" Jesus risked their lives to spread his message.

quote:

---

I agree - that is why I am not a Christian. I respect those that are though.

---

Fair enough...but of all the reason to reject Christ why pick the most silly one?

quote:

---

I get this Josephus writing all the time. Was he a first hand witness?

---

No, but Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were! (Ah, but you reject their having written the gospels due to some 19th century spoof texting of historcal records...)

quote:

---

Dramatic claims require dramatic proof.

---

The only dramatic claim here is that one that you are making; that Jesus never existed. I want some proof for that!

quote:

---

I do find it interesting that of all the amazing claims the Bible makes regarding Jesus and the proof people give me is a little know author who I believe wasn't a first hand (I could be wrong) who wrote decades after the fact.

---

"I could be wrong" - You are wrong. I find it interesting that of all the amazing claims made by the "Jesus Didn't Exist" crowd the only proof people offer are accounts written 1800 years after the life of Jesus Christ!

Cy and Seamaster can provide the more detailed accounts and responses.

In short, you are complaining about the existence of a person because no contemporary accounts attest to him. The Pauline letters and synoptic Gospels, while not contemporaneous in their composition, contain sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a historical Jesus.

To compare the evidence of a ruling authority over that of a renegade Jewish preacher is unwarranted.

You can debate whether he performed miracles or rose from the dead, but to doubt his historicity seems unfounded.

The Josephus entry in Antiquities has been proven to be a Church forgery. The only two other writings outside of of the Bible do not mention Jesus at all, but simply refer to a figure called "Christus."

That said, I do believe Jesus existed, but I also believe he is a legendary figure, which is to say that you can see the legend grow the further you get removed from the actual events.

Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John

Let's not forget that Paul is much more responsible for what Christians believe today than Jesus himself ever was. And Paul never met the guy!

I'm reading a book now that pretty good - From Jesus to Christianity - I'll let you know how it turns out

[This message has been edited by Furious (edited 3/10/2008 11:16a).]

I believe that Jesus the historical person existed. Saying otherwise is just attempting to be contrarian in my view. There is infinitely more known and recorded about him than any other common man from that period. There are no coins with his face on them because he wasn't emperor.

The question of who wrote the gosples is more interesting. If I remember correctly, scholars believe that Mark was the first one written and that it wasn't written until at least 60 A.D.. Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark, and John came even later. If this is true it is unlikely that they were written by any first hand witnesses. (this is what I remember from my new testament class many moons ago)

I know the Catholics on here would disagree, but I don't think that is a big problem for Christianity. Oral history was much more common than written history in the ancient world, so it's not surprising that nobody wrote the stories down for a while. If the books are divinely inspired, does it matter who wrote then and when?

"There are no coins with his face on them because he wasn't emperor"

True, but emperors didn't raise the dead, cure blindness, walk on water, miraculously generate food for thousands, come back from death etc. I am not asking for a coin or a painting or a movie, just any single person documenting 'wow, I just saw this Jesus fellow do some amazing stuff, I am going to write it down within the next few decades'. I haven't seen anyone claim that such evidence exists. As I mentioned, this doesn't rule out a historical Jesus (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). All the gosepls and other writing were long after the fact. As some have pointed out, this doesn't make them without merit when compared to other historical documents. However, the Jesus claims are unmatched in history.

Also, to say that folks have questioned the authors of the gospels only recently, this is like saying folks only started questioning alchemy recently. Usually, in the arena of ideas, time reveals truths, not the other way around.

I am beginning to think I shouldn't have even listed this topic. People feel strongly one way or another. Of all the amazing claims of the Bible, and the weak evidence it which exists (in my opinion), it is mind boggling that I am the one accused of making outrageous claims by suggesting these might be true.

quote:

---

it is mind boggling that I am the one accused of making outrageous claims by suggesting these might be true.

---

That's an easily boggled mind.

me1og

I can take the personal attacks. I don't intend to offect or to try and take down others belief systems. If people want to believe everything in the Bible, and think that reasoned debate about the according evidence is silly, then so be it. People are very passionate about things they were taught when young. Try telling a LDS that you think there is a chance that some of the BOM is not true. You will be in for a fight with tempers flaring (try it some time). I just got in the car of an indian colleague and he had a statue on his dashboard of a man's body with an elephant head. He said it was 'gnush', the Hindi god of something or another. He was taught this from an early age and finds it truthful. I wasn't and don't believe in Ganush, but respect his beliefs. If I tried to tell him there is some chance Ganush doesn't exist, he would go crazy on me 'OF COURSE GANUSH EXISTS!!'. This isn't a logical matter, he is brilliant and has a PhD in engineering (as do I). It is a matter of faith. Faith more often than not comes from what your peers believe and what you were taught as a lad. I can respect that, but think everything is open to debate, logic and reason. Moreover, I am open to admitting I am wrong (I frequently am). I am not close to being convinced that I am regarding HPTJE (I have heard nothing here which makes me even open to changing my position). I haven't convinced others to consider changing there position either so no harm done.

agupnorth,

Take your approach to Jesus and tell me how you can trust ANY history ever recorded before the advent of the video camera.

"Take your approach to Jesus and tell me how you can trust ANY history ever recorded before the advent of the video camera.'

I already said that I don't need a movie, a coin, a painting etc. All I want is a firsthand witness who mentioned the most miraculous events in the history of mankind, written within a few decades of when they supposedly happened. This is the definition of historical proof. If you can't provide me this, I will continue to claim there is no HPTJE, while being open to the fact that that these claims might be true. Many people/events are actually true but have no historical evidence. Historians are open to debating whether such people/events are true and invite all sources of proof for both sides of the argument, such as I am doing here.

Seamaster: I believe you are saying that the four gospels were written by firsthand witnesses (albet much after the dealth of JC). Any debates over these facts came only recently. This is proof enough for you I believe. I can respect that position. I don't share your beliefs, can you respect that?

quote:

---

I want is a firsthand witness who mentioned the most miraculous events in the history of mankind, written within a few decades of when they supposedly happened.

---

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I can respect that you don't believe that they are first hand accounts...but you haven't given me any reason to take that claim seriously.

Why don't you trust that the gospels were written by first hand accounts?

agupnorth,

You are asking a self-defeating question. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, but historians discount all or nearly all of it. This includes the Gospels and Josephus. Take the Gospels in particular. Mark was easily written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, but they both add new material. IIRC, this new material is almost completely consistent with the other Gospels and even lost materials such as Thomas. John was written later, but John lived to very old age. There is no real reason to dispute his authorship.

The basic issue is this. For obvious reasons, all the best evidence and documentation have been incorporated into Christianity. Historians come all many centuries later. These historians are "objective" and therefore minimize or outright reject the contribution of "religious texts."

So you basically want a first-hand eyewitness account that was either ignored by Christianity or lost to antiquity. Please excuse all of us Christians for not having that kind of "proof" for you.

"There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, but historians discount all or nearly all of it"

I couldn't have said it any better, there is no historical proof that Jesus existed. Thanks for supporting me. Just because someone/something doesn't pass the the test of a historian, doesn't imply that it is untrue. Both Jesus and Hercules have been written about with appropriate names of places, cities etc. Noone believes Hercules really existed, while millions believe Jesus did (and all the related miraculous events) and base a beautiful religion on this. However, both have the exact same amount of historical proof. Faith definitely comes into play.

None of them were.

However there were gospels at the time of the Holy Roman Church forming in circulation that were purported to be written by the actual apostle himself. The Gospel of Thomas for instance.

These were deemed heretical at the time and were destroyed en masse, and anyone possessing one would be punished by torture and death.

The gospel of Thomas is an interesting tome. It is very old, and if you believe it is fake it was faked very soon after the death of Christ. As the pages are extremely old.

It is nonetheless interesting reading, many of the passages seem closer to the spiritual reasoning of Tibetan Buddhism than what we know as Christianity today.

I recommend the Patterson, Robinson translation of it. It can be read online here:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm



[This message has been edited by BaronVonAggie (edited 3/10/2008 1:03p).]

agupnorth,

I'll still await the proof that you are going to offer that the gospels weren't written by eye witnesses.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can not be viewed unequivically as "first-hand" accounts.

Frankly, there is significant doubt that the books were even written by the person in which they are named.

While I agree with those of faith that Jesus did exists, I think using the Gospels as "first-hand" experience is not very convincing.

[This message has been edited by Macarthur (edited 3/10/2008 1:11p).]

quote:

---

Frankly, there is significant doubt that the books were even written by the person in which they are named.

---

Since when? Why do you trust the theories of people 1800 years removed from the fact?

Seamaster,

People have only recently started publicly challenging the historical validity of the Bible. You as why? Ask Copernicus.

[This message has been edited by 3xranger (edited 3/10/2008 4:39p).]

agupnorth,

if you think what I said supports your idea, then good for you. I do have something to say about this:

quote:

---

Just because someone/something doesn't pass the the test of a historian, doesn't imply that it is untrue.

---

You are assuming that there is some objective "test" that historians have that can determine truth. I suggest you spend some time around professional historians. The honest ones will admit that they are little more than storytellers that use the most comprehensive available information and fill in the rest with "less solid facts" such as hearsay or outright fiction.

There is no historical "test" that the Gospels fail. They are assumed from the outset to be unreliable for the same reasons as your stories of Hercules. The historians either don't believe them or are ridiculed if they do. Its a clear case of negation by supposition, which is as much as matter faith as anything else.

To put the shoe on the other foot; given the evidence for the existence of Jesus (however you view it), what evidence is there that Jesus did not exist? Even if you don't have my faith in the existing evidence, it easily overwhelms the evidence that He did not exist, because there isn't any.

That's just not really true though.

The only historical evidence outside of the Bible that mentions the name Jesus has been proven to be a forgery.

If you take all the works that mention Jesus by name, they are all mired with the same conflict of interest. There are no "neutral" sources that mention anything other that a couple lines and the word "Christus."

Furthermore, every attribute given to Jesus is a retread of many other Gods, saviors, and folk heroes. There's really nothing wholly unique about him. The person who wrote the most about him never met him. The books that claim to quote him were written generations after his "death."

Look, I believe he existed, but to say you can't make the contrary argument is just plain false.

Furious, not trying to be confrontational but just look at your post.

quote:

---

The only historical evidence outside of the Bible that mentions the name Jesus has been proven to be a forgery.

If you take all the works that mention Jesus by name, they are all mired with the same conflict of interest. There are no "neutral" sources that mention anything other that a couple lines and the word "Christus."

---

If someone chooses to reject the best evidence existent and requires no evidence whatsoever for support of the contrary assertion, then there is really no point in discussion.

"given the evidence for the existence of Jesus (however you view it), what evidence is there that Jesus did not exist?"

Wow, you guys claim that a man was born to a virgin birth, walked on water, raised the dead, cast out demons, cured blindnes and leprosy, conversed with dead folks (moses et al), came back from the dead at which time dead folks came out of their graves and the sun stood still for hours, angels hung out at the tomb, and ascended up into the clouds and the only proof you have are a couple of writings which happened decades after the fact by folks who likely weren't first hand witnesses, and I have to provide evidence for my point of view? My second universal truths about religion holds steadfast here (people will believe whatever they are taught when young and that those in their sphere of influence believe). I give up, I am going to go try and influence my other friends that there is no historical proof that:

* Ganush existed or (Indian)
* Muhammad flew a riding camel called a buraq to the heavens (Muslim) or
* Joseph Smith didn't translate the golden tablets using urim and thuman (LDS)

I am sure I will run into the exact same resistance though...

I thought Mark was written about 70 AD, working from memory.

I thought 1 Thess was the earliest document written written in the fifties. But I'm working from memory.

quote:

---

I thought Mark was written about 70 AD, working from memory.

---

Catholics and other christian scholars date it to the 60's either immediately before or after the death of Peter, Mark's teacher.

"objective" historians date it to 70 or later, because they don't believe in prophecy. They see the predictions for destruction of the Second Temple as evidence that the document was written after that actually happened.

ramblin - you must be able to see the conflict of interest inherent in the Bible as proof, right?

It's at least possible that Jesus was a folklore hero and the Bible is a collection of his legend.

The only evidence I point to the contrary is simply that there isn't any. My point is simply that ALL the evidence in existence could be simply a close knit group of guys with an agenda and a wild imagination.

I also stated I believe Jesus really existed. I can just see both sides of this with equal clarity.

But if you're tied to a high post and covered with pitch, to be lit up and used as a lamp-stand for a garden party, wouldn't you think someone would say, "Cut me loose and I'll tell you the whole story?"
This was at the beginning of Christianity in Rome. Not that many adherents yet, I would think. I don't even know that Paul and Peter had been executed, yet. Nero was the first emperor to persecute Christians.

What I'm saying is that , if it were a hoax,would it have been so deep and so wide that early, that noone in the crowds of martyrs would have known?