Historical records of Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

Well, the lack of primary evidence certainly supports the belief that he may not have existed. Furthermore, the Nicaean Council certainly had a say in what was "real" and what wasn't when it sorted through biblical books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew was an eyewitness
They are not exactly sure who mark or John were
Luke was a Doctor/scientist who double and triple checked the details.

The gospels were stories told orally from one generation to the next. They were not written down for another 200 years after the death of Jesus. Do you think the accounts were still completely accurate by then?

Not sure the basic story is probably accurate . Whether it was embellished or watered down is possible . Scientifically , the shroud of Turin has a huge effect on me. The shroud is the most confounding and inexplicable artifact in the world and it just so happens to have the image of a man with crucifiction / scourging wounds and crown of thorns head damage.

have scientists formed any opinions about the shroud - does it date to the correct time period, etc.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Wikipedia states "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of AD 1260–1390, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus Christ.[1]"

But so what if the shroud dated back to the first century? It still would not prove that it came from Jesus' tomb or that Jesus was the son of god. And why would god only send us this one dubious shroud to prove the existence of his son? Nope - sounds much more like a trick of an shyster than an act of god.

I told you, PP. Out comes the "groundhog!" lol

There are many GROUNDHOGS on this forum - many!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Really Good Christians don't care about facts or lies. Their faith is beyond things like "primary documents" and they shouldn't be bothered by people who rely so much evidence. It's certainly not Christ-like to argue about facts. Jesus never did. Why should his followers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Really Good Christians don't care about facts or lies. Their faith is beyond things like "primary documents" and they shouldn't be bothered by people who rely so much evidence. It's certainly not Christ-like to argue about facts. Jesus never did. Why should his followers?

How do mythical figures argue about facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

Really Good Christians don't care about facts or lies. Their faith is beyond things like "primary documents" and they shouldn't be bothered by people who rely so much evidence. It's certainly not Christ-like to argue about facts. Jesus never did. Why should his followers?

Your faith comes from other brainwashed folks who were told about these stories. And THEIR faith comes from other brainwashed folks who were told about these stories. and so on and so on . . .

If you were born into a Jewish family, you wouldn't praise Jesus. If you were born into a Buddhist family, you'd believe in reincarnation.

Get it? Geography and luck and chance and what not determine what your beliefs are. And if you don't like researching facts and understanding the basics of how cultures develop, you'll believe Jesus turned water into wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

Well, the lack of primary evidence certainly supports the belief that he may not have existed. Furthermore, the Nicaean Council certainly had a say in what was "real" and what wasn't when it sorted through biblical books.

No. The lack of contemporary evidence means that he was unremarkable like 99.9% of people who existed back then ( including many Jews who also called themselves messiah and had followers and that were also executed, many of them cruficied) -- and that his original followers, like Jesus himself and like pesanants and fishermen of their time, were illiterate and relied on oral tradition, not written one. Of course, Greek-speaking educated early followers, like Paul, wrote many letters a decade or two after his death.

But here we are talking about non-Christian writers. As I said earlier, Josephus and Titus wrote about him around 70 CE. Josephus mentioned about James, brother of Jesus; Titus about the followers of "Chrestos".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

Really? I would think that the biggest question would be "Did he rise from the dead?"

No, a non religious person would not ask that question.

I would think that if someone was already convinced that there was no God would be asking "Did Jesus believe what he reported (i.e. was he mentally ill) or was he conning people". If you don't believe in God, then neither rising from the dead nor true visions are possible, so you wouldn't ask the question that the top PP asked either.

If you're questioning whether he actually was the son of God, then the question about rising the dead is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....

[Anonymous]

Btw, the lost Q source (inspiration for Matthew and Luke), was likely written about 50 CE, Mark was written about 70, Mathews amd Luke about 90 CE (simultaneously and independently), and John about 100-120 CE.

[Anonymous]

What other ancient god w as also crucified?

[Anonymous]

Are there contemporary records of any founder of any ancient religion written by people outside such religion? Did a non- zoroastrian write about Zoroaster while he was alive? Did a non-Mesopotamian write about Abraham while he was alive? Did a non-Buddhist historian write about Gautama while he was alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

Well, the lack of primary evidence certainly supports the belief that he may not have existed. Furthermore, the Nicaean Council certainly had a say in what was "real" and what wasn't when it sorted through biblical books.

No. The lack of contemporary evidence means that he was unremarkable like 99.9% of people who existed back then ( including many Jews who also called themselves messiah and had followers and that were also executed, many of them cruficied) -- and that his original followers, like Jesus himself and like pesanants and fishermen of their time, were illiterate and relied on oral tradition, not written one. Of course, Greek-speaking educated early followers, like Paul, wrote many letters a decade or two after his death.

But here we are talking about non-Christian writers. As I said earlier, Josephus and Titus wrote about him around 70 CE. Josephus mentioned about James, brother of Jesus; Titus about the followers of "Chrestos".

Yes, we all know about Josephus and Titus. again - not enough evidence to support that Jesus was the Messiah - a few little lines written years after his death . . .

And I love the oral tradition discussion. The Odyssey - oral tradition, yes? like the biblical stories? all shared orally b/c illiteracy was more the norm than not

So I guess you believe the cyclops was real and that the Sirens lure men to their deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.

So . . . you're saying to one of the many groundhogs that you DON'T belief in scientific fact? that stone carvings mean nothing to you? (primary artifacts) that cultural crossover never existed? that more powerful groups did NOT steal from weaker groups?

I'm glad you think homeschooling worked for you, PP. must be a nice little fantasy world you live in

Sorry, Groundhog, my comment did not go to the part of your remark on carvings.

Yes ancient inscriptions are very informative when they exist. But many did not survive over time or have not been uncovered. And given Jesus's background and that of his followers the inscriptions likely would have been more in the form of graffiti, a type of carving that is perhaps least likely to survive. You cannot conclude with certainty that something did not happen simply because there are no inscriptions.

But I knew you were Groundhog because of this part of your response: "they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection." You didn't specifically mention Horus or Mithras because we have outed you so many times on those, but we knew what you were thinking....

I'm not THAT groundhog, although I'd be proud to be the owner of his/her post. Apparently, you must believe that God has given you great powers to see beyond the screen.

Believe your stories and be happy that you'll enter heaven. But please leave the research to the groundhogs.

[Anonymous]

^^ Do you realize that Jesus was not deemed an historically important figure by historians during his lifetime, which explains why no non-follower care to write about him?

And who is talking about proving that he was the Messiah? We are talking about whether he existed.

And your comparison between oral tradition among insignificant Jewish peasants about another insignificant Jewish peasant vis-a-visit the Iliad is truly idiotic.