I've gotten interested in my latest readings, in the question of whether jesus was a historical figure that actually existed (miracles and rising from the dead notwithstanding), or whether the christ was really a myth in the classical sense, or a composite of myths such as Dionysis.

I can find no historical evidence that suggest he actually existed, but there are some inconsistencies. For example:

The four gospels, Matt, Mark, Luke and John - the traditional authoritative accounts, are hearsay at best.

Mark had to have been written sometime after 70 CE. If you believe that the apostles actually wrote the gospels, then Mark, in an era where the normal human lifespan averaged thirty years, would have to have been over 70.

The synoptic gospels,(so called because Matt Mark and Luke share an unholy similarity) were all based on Mark as the common element. John was the last to appear, and oddly was written in greek well over a century after the supposed death of christ, and disagrees with many accounts from the synoptic gospels.

Thus, with the account of mark being unlikely, but not impossible, the others are discounted as second, third or fourth hand accounts, possibly of a myth or of Mark itself. But the text is enlightening:

None of the unknown authors in any of the gospels claim to have actually met jesus,and there are no direct accounts. The gospels are written from interpretations of copies of copies.

They are also written in the third person right from the earliest known sources.

Hardly good evidence.

The author of luke writes:

Luke 1
1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Just a reporter.


Anyone care to differ?

There is also no physical evidence that I am aware of, since the shroud of turin was exposed as a fake. What other evidence is on offer?

If you did your research, you would know the shroud was deemed inconclusive, since the sample taken was from a repair.


I do not know if its the true shroud or not, just pointing out that it was proved a fake, then deemed inconclusive. Sadly, the church will not allow testing on another part of the shroud which would solve the situation once and for all.

I propose we steal it and test it our selves by throwing it on a fire with a bunch of dan brown books.

Posted by jeepdave If you did your research, you would know the shroud was deemed inconclusive, since the sample taken was from a repair. I do not know if its the true shroud or not, just pointing out that it was proved a fake, then deemed inconclusive. Sadly, the church will not allow testing on another part of the shroud which would solve the situation once and for all.

The shroud originates with Geoffroi de Charny in 1356, and turns up in the Cathedral at Turin in the 16th century.

Joe Nickell - Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings, Prometheus Books, July 1998

Three independent laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and the University of Arizona tested from the shroud provided by the STURP and all resulted in Carbon dating of1260-1390 C.E.

The samples were taken as follows:

Samples were taken on April 21, 1988 in the Cathedral by Franco Testore, an expert on weaves and fabrics, and by Giovanni Riggi, a representative of the maker of bio-equipment "Numana". Testore performed the weighting operations, while Riggi made the actual cut.

Also present were cardinal Ballestrero, four priests, archdiocese spokesperson Luigi Gonella, photographers, a camera operator, Michael Tite and the labs' representatives (who, according the protocol, should in fact not have been present). As a precautionary measure, a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut; the unused half was preserved in a sealed container, in case of need.

From the cut segment, measuring 81 x 21 mm, a stripe showing coloured filaments of doubted origin had to be discarded[46]. The remaining sample, measuring 81 x 16 mm and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was cut in three. Also divided among the labs were three control samples (one more than those originally stated), that were:

a fragment of weave coming from an Egyptian burial, discovered in 1964 and already carbon-dated to 1100 A.D.;
a piece of mummy bandage carbon-dated to 200 A.D.;
a sample of the cloak having belonged to Louis IX of France and preserved in Saint Maximin, Var, France, which had a verifiable provenance and was woven between 1240 and 1270.
The original and control pieces ended being placed in twelve identical metal cylinders, which allowed to perform a blind test

the results published as follows:

The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:

Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
Zurich: 676 ± 24 years old
the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of AD 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and AD 1262-1384 with 95% confidence.
As reported in Nature, Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."


The doubt you refer to is a study by Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory. In an interview with Harry Gove, Gove acknowledges that bacterial contamination, which was unknown during the 1988 testing, would render the tests inaccurate, although he also acknowledged that the samples had been carefully cleaned with strong chemicals before testing.

However Rodgers results started "with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence" - Nickell 1998




Not only that, but the front of the man depicted is two inches taller than the back. The size of the hands and arms would be consistent with a bad case of gigantism.

According to Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery."


Walter C. McCrone, et al - Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,Prometheus Books, February 1999, discovered red ochre and vermillion paint (made of mercuric sulphide) on the shroud to represent blood.


In 1390 Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Pope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.


There are endless criticisms of the protocols or of carbon dating itself, but the preponderance of the evidence points to the shroud being a fake. A best it is an odd coincidence that it matches the gospel description exactly, and even if you believe the tests are inconclusive you must accept that there is no evidence that it is real and lots of other signs that it is fake.

Posted by tekriter Mark had to have been written sometime after 70 CE. If you believe that the apostles actually wrote the gospels, then Mark, in an era where the normal human lifespan averaged thirty years, would have to have been over 70.

A life expectancy of 30 does not mean that people frequently dropped dead at 30, it means that many people died while still children which lowered the average.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from
Thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

Some references other then the four Gospels.

Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

http://www.gotques...d-Jesus-exist.html

Epic fail. You have presented NO evidence whatsoever. See below:


Tacistus was born on 56 CE. The alleged jesus only lived to be 30. Anything he reports is second hand. Fail.

Suetonius was born in 69 CE. The alleged jesus only lived to be 30. Anything he reports is second hand. More fail.

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 CE. Many historians disagree on the quality of his work. And the alleged jesus was dead 7 years when he arrived. Hearsay Fail.

Julius Africanus lived at the end of the second century CE, therefore could have no personal knowledge at allof the alleged christ. He also calculated the period between Creation and Jesus as 5500 years - an assertion that we know to be patently false. Super fail, with bad science on top.

Pliny the Younger was born in 61 CE. Also no personal knowledge of the alleged christ. Fail the younger.

The Talmud Bavli (Babylonian) was transmitted orally for centuries prior to its compilation by Jewish scholars in Babylon about the 5th century CE, and was edited and changed until around 700 CE. Not reliable evidence of anything other than jewish tribes had story time. This "confirms" nothing, but your choice of diction confirms your credulity. Oral Fail.

Lucian of Samosata, born in 125 CE, also had no first hand knowledge of the alleged christ, by a factor of about three generations. Fail of Samosata.

Mara Bar-Serapion wrote this (that you suggest confirms anything about the alleged christ):

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given..."

Fail for ambiguity. Oh, and the other crap he suggests is not supported on any other documentation of the period. Fiction , not evidence.


The Gnostic Gospels are gnostic collections of writings about the teachings of Jesus, written from the 2nd - 4th century CE. Evidence of nothing! Gnostic Fail.



By your logic, we can all go out for lunch with Frodo. In fact I can confirm his existence from cartoons and not just the holy texts of The Trilogy.

Fail for having a low standard of evidence.

The early writings of sgbofav confirm he will believe anything he wants to and accept any manufactured claim or repeated story as evidence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

the actually Jesus did exist they have written documents of him saying he did miracles. but wether he did or not is up to u.

the shroud was deemed fake until they realised they took the sample from the repair the nuns did.

they dont want them to take another sample becuase its "so fragile" but if its the shroud it shud technically and theoretically take a 50cal or a acid bath and be fine.

dont recommend doing that..

but dont let me catholicness seem bias.

just giving my opinion. or fact...im tired..

I have written documents that say he didn't exist.

I watched a video earlier today of a talk given by Joe Nickell, a writer and former detective, who investigated the shroud, among other things, and explains some of the methods he used to determine it was a fake:

the actually Jesus did exist they have written documents of him saying he did miracles. but wether he did or not is up to u.

Who are "they?" Whether or not Jesus existed as an historical figure is, at best, a subject open to enormous debate, and unproven. But it is impossible to prove he didn't exist.

You know those documents I have that say he didn't exist?

Well I have other documents which say that the first batch of documents prove that he didn't.





By the way, if you don't accept my documents as fact, you are going to die alone. FACT!

That's not a fact, it's only a theory.

Like gravity and the earth orbiting the sun.

Well, its obvious that the Earth couldn't have just started orbiting the sun... and the fact that the tilt is exactly the right amount so that we have the seasons as they are... how could that have been an accident?

I guess my documents are wrong. Jesus tied a string to the sun and spun the Earth around it. FACT!

Posted by MutantMandias Well, its obvious that the Earth couldn't have just started orbiting the sun... and the fact that the tilt is exactly the right amount so that we have the seasons as they are... how could that have been an accident? I guess my documents are wrong. Jesus tied a string to the sun and spun the Earth around it. FACT!

Even though you're joking, that's actually a common misconception about how life started on the earth. Not only creationists, but lots of others cite how improbable it is that life sprang up on earth, given the precise balance of conditions that are needed for life as we know it. The reality is, though, that life came about here because it could. Were conditions different, life would have evolved differently.

Well, there was a wee bit of intelligent design built into my comment.

Posted by tekriter Epic fail. You have presented NO evidence whatsoever.

click to view

Indeed. None whatsoever. And I didn't count his link as part of the text. Although, your link DID have the word 'evidence' in it.

Compare/contrast the birth of Moses with the birth of Jesus, as they are revealed in the OT and the NT. That narrative model goes across many religious traditions throughout time. Or Vishnu. Or that Greek guy.

Its easier to pick apart individual deities than the total concepts behind them. That was my point in the other "god existence" thread, and I suppose its well taken.

So, yeah, how about Wotan? Any one want to prove or disprove Wotan?

Posted by KublaKhan click to view Indeed. None whatsoever. And I didn't count his link as part of the text. Although, your link DID have the word 'evidence' in it. Compare/contrast the birth of Moses with the birth of Jesus, as they are revealed in the OT and the NT. That narrative model goes across many religious traditions throughout time. Or Vishnu. Or that Greek guy.

The interesting part about that is the catholic church's official response: Satan knew that christ was coming and therefore counterfeited him in advance to temp people from the true path.

Demonic imititation. Totally plausible.

Posted by earthworm Its easier to pick apart individual deities than the total concepts behind them. That was my point in the other "god existence" thread, and I suppose its well taken. So, yeah, how about Wotan? Any one want to prove or disprove Wotan?

You seem to be suggesting that since different cultures all have some concept of god that this alone proves the existence of god.

This seems, at first, to be an ad populum argument. Just because a lot of people believe it does not mean it is true. Nearly 20% of americans believe Obama is a muslim. That's not even 20% true.

Your assertion that god exists across cultures is also false.

Early pre hindu peoples on the indian sub-continents during the mid second to mid first millennium BCE rejected the concept of god.

The key element of buddhism is the rejection of the notion of a god or a prime mover since around the 4th century BCE.

Many african tribes worship animals, as do the Shinto of Japan who are highly animist.

How about paganism?




There are many rational explanations for "religion" existing in many cultures. Consider that all of our brains are exactly the same in anatomy. The same organs, processes and characteristics exist across cultures.

The concept of fear and the willingness to believe would also exist across cultures.

It is not too far of a stretch to imagine early people, not understanding the dangerous world around them, would create superstitious beliefs to placidate themselves.



On top of that, no good evidence exists that there is a god of any type.


If I have misinterpreted your argument -from this and that other thread - my apologies - please clarify what you mean.